This week, the SBC Executive Committee is in focus as they hold their annual spring trustee meeting. In September, they declined motions dealing with the Business and Financial Plan of the SBC, stating that "steps to modify the plan were already underway." And though it hasn’t been announced officially, many are expecting the EC to propose a revised BFP this week. With a number of proposed changes in recent years, this begs the question: what is a business and financial plan, and do we need a new one?
The Business and Financial Plan is a legal document that functions much like the Convention's Constitution and Bylaws. All financial matters related to the Convention and its entities are regulated and directed by the BFP, including but not limited to the addition of agencies or Convention projects. According to a historical note in the Historical Library and Archives, the Business and Financial Plan “is the Convention's ‘law’ regarding all business procedures.”
The BFP was first introduced in 1937, when the EC was instructed “to formulate plans and policies looking toward the prevention in the future of the incurring of debts either by this Convention or its agencies.” The implementation of the Cooperative Program in 1925 meant a plan was needed both to properly spend funds and avoid debt in the future. Much of the original BFP focused on making sure the entities did not fall into debt again, as they had during the Great Depression, and the leadership of the Convention saw the need to have an ordered and structured way to guide all financial and business matters. In 1939, the BFP appeared for the first time in the Annual of the Convention following the approval by messengers the year before.
Over the years it was revised as needed, but much of it remains the same. It covers items like budgets of the entities, limitations of the authority of entities to borrow money, distribution of CP receipts, limits and approval processes for fundraising campaigns, rules for audits, regulations concerning reserve funds, and more. The reports that entities are required to give to the EC are now known as Ministry Reports, and guide the EC as they make budget recommendations.
During the rapid growth following the war, Cooperative Program giving rose greatly. Revisions were made to expand the reporting requirements of entities and improve the oversight of allocations. In 1979, adjustments were made to “tighten internal financial control of SBC Agencies.” Additional changes were made in 1997 during the massive restructuring of the Covenant for a New Century.
In recent years, SBC leadership has suggested more noticeable changes to the BFP. During the 2021 SBC annual meeting in Nashville, then-EC President Ronnie Floyd proposed changes that sought to streamline SBC operations, including potential changes to the Cooperative Program allocations and the role of the EC. Part of these proposed changes to the BFP involved allowing the EC to escrow funds to entities if they were found to be in non-compliance, added rules about trustee selection, and centralized power in the EC.
For instance, where the current BFP states that “Members of cooperating Southern Baptist churches shall have access to information from the records of Southern Baptist Convention entities regarding income, expenditures, debts, reserves, operating balances, and salary structures,” the proposed change stated “Cooperating Southern Baptist churches have access through the Convention Annual to information from Convention entities regarding income, expenditures, debts, reserves, and operating balances. Additional inquiries may be made by official action of a cooperating Southern Baptist church. Such inquiries, including requests for salary structure information, may be submitted to the entity board and will be handled based on the entity board’s approved guidelines.”
There was skepticism from both state executive directors and entity heads about the wisdom of shifting of financial resources and centralizing decision-making with the Executive Committee. These changes to the BFP were ultimately rejected after several people spoke against the recommendation, notably SEBTS president Danny Akin.
Since that time there has only been increased calls for transparency across the Southern Baptist Convention. In addition, the EC has been strained financially from responses to abuse lawsuits. Claims made in the recent Johnny Hunt lawsuit have only amplified calls for salary disclosure and the call to open the books of all the entities. It’s worth noting that this is not new: in 1977, a motion to disclose the salary and fringe benefits of executive directors of the entities was approved by a majority of the messengers but failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed to amend the BFP by a mere 225 votes.
At the 2023 annual meeting in New Orleans, South Carolina pastor Rhett Burns and Texas pastor David Norman proposed separate motions to amend the BFP and require SBC entities to provide some form of 990-level financial disclosure. After a time for study, the EC brought neither of those motions forward, instead bringing this recommendation in 2024:
“The SBC Executive Committee requests the trustees and staff of all Southern Baptist entities, institutions, and commissions to maintain accountability and transparency, as directed by the Business and Financial Plan, in their reports to the Convention, and that the SBC Executive Committee, in cooperation and collaboration with SBC entities, institutions, and commissions, commits to reviewing the Business and Financial Plan, to determine ways to enhance transparency and clarity of reporting to the Convention, and will report its findings and recommendations to the messengers at the 2025 SBC Annual Meeting in Dallas, Texas.”
What will these methods of increased transparency be? I hope we will see some focused changes to the BFP in the areas of transparency and disclosure. Given the apparent pushback from many entities against 990-level reporting, it's unlikely that any changes will satisfy everyone.
Whatever changes are proposed, every Southern Baptist should study them closely before giving their approval. In the past, messengers have shown a willingness to discard changes that sought to centralize authority in the EC and take decision-making power away from the messengers. Should anything like that return, it should be rejected again as well.
If these proposed changes do not reflect increased transparency, it will only increase the level of discussion around the topic as we head into Dallas in June. While we can and should “trust the trustees” as elected stewards by the convention, it is the duty of messengers to exercise due diligence by examining these proposed changes closely. In the past, the convention has voted down measures that appeared to diminish the authority of the messenger body. Southern Baptists deserve accountability, and we deserve the right to specify how much accountability we desire.
Editor's Note: As a part of its commitment to fostering conversation within the Southern Baptist Convention, the Baptist Review may publish editorials that espouse viewpoints that are not necessarily shared by the TBR team or other contributors. We welcome submissions for responses and rebuttals to any editorials as we seek to host meaningful conversations about the present and future of our convention.
Luke Holmes
Luke Holmes (@lukeholmes) is husband to Sara, father to three young girls, and pastor at Immanuel Baptist Church in Duncan, Oklahoma. He has a Masters from MBTS and D.Ed Min from SWBTS and can be found online at LukeAHolmes.com.