I don’t recall a more widely discussed departure from the SBC than that of Cornerstone Church in Atlanta. In my memory only a few high profile, moderate churches leaving the denomination generated as much publicity.
Christianity Today has the most comprehensive story about this: Atlanta Church Splits With SBC for Downplaying Racial Issues
[Pastor John] Onwuchekwa, who grew up in Houston, the son of Nigerian immigrants, said the SBC tried to make him feel welcome. But from the beginning, he had concerns.
“We got on the bus with skepticism, nine years ago,” he said.
In 2015, with help from several other churches, including an SBC congregation, and $18,000 of his own money, Onwuchekwa founded Cornerstone Church, a church plant in a predominantly African American community on the west end of Atlanta. The church is in a part of Atlanta that has made national news recently involving the police shooting death of Rayshard Brooks.
And
When Cornerstone needed a building, the SBC helped the church get a loan. Last year, when the church wanted to renovate the building, it got a $175,000 grant from NAMB to assist with that. The grant was distributed through Blueprint Church, another local congregation that partnered with Cornerstone as a “sending church.” Blueprint’s pastor, Dhati Lewis, serves as one of the vice presidents at NAMB.
And
The pastor said he was also taken aback when [NAMB president Kevin] Ezell suggested that he had a moral obligation to repay the grant. Onwuchekwa said the denomination itself, which was founded by slaveholders, has obligations of its own, especially when it comes to race. He pointed to a recent report from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary that detailed the school’s founders’ ties to slavery and white supremacy and said the denomination has not done enough to reckon with the long-term consequences of that history.
“I think there’s a different conversation surrounding moral obligations that needs to be had by the SBC,” Onwuchekwa said.
There are written agreements for NAMB church plants. Evidently, no written agreement for the $175k renovation grant.
Onwuchekwa, son of Nigerian immigrants desires another conversation about repayment, more to be done to “reckon” with the pre-Civil War founding and founders of the SBC. Those in his congregation would certainly include many descendants of slaves. I’m OK with having that conversation too.
But if a church takes the SBC’s grant, and we’re not talking about a grant made decades ago (it was “last year”), let’s have that conversation before the check is deposited, or pay it back. There’s always a reason for leaving the SBC.
NAMB requires its plants to give above the national average percentage to the Cooperative Program, partly to assure the Southern Baptists that pay the bills that we’re starting cooperative, Southern Baptist churches. I don’t know what measures could be put in place to assure the Southern Baptists who give the money to plant churches that they can be assured that their funds will be used in Southern Baptist church plants…at least for a prescribed period. While this particular situation, Cornerstone Church, has some unique aspects, the general issue of funding churches that “stay” Southern Baptist is a perpetual problem.
Perhaps Cornerstone Church and NAMB can reach some mutually agreeable solution.
Regardless, any church that preaches the Gospel should be our friend, SBC or not.
_________
Pastor Onwuchekwa was interviewed for an article here in 2017. I didn’t listen to the interview, so I don’t know what the pastor said about the SBC three years ago.
Important post raising a lot of issues relevant to SBC culture, polity, and the ongoing need for fulfillment of the Great Commission and treatment of brothers and sisters in Christ in accordance with the Scriptures.
The responsible thing to do, and I do not begrudge the pastor for his choice to lead his congregation that direction, is to repay the money so that it can be used to multiply the kingdom.
I hate to see them leave. I do not like to see any church leave the convention. Our convention has come a long, long way (sure with further still to go) and is no longer a convention or, I contend, very many individual churches (as a whole) who believe/affirm/practice racism. In fact, I do not think we have a single leader on the national or state level who is not vocally speaking out and acting in favor of doing better as it relates to racial issues – Do we? Surely there may be differences in process – but in principle,… Read more »
NAMB should put in place better processes for the future. Not sure if they should be in the business of handing out $175k grants in the first place. I know too many SBC church plants that would love to have just a portion of that kind of cash.
With that being said, NAMB trustees should vote to release Cornerstone of any repayment obligation. The church is a faithful gospel preaching church in Atlanta. They haven’t deserted the faith. The church is still there. Kingdom work will continue. It stings, but it’s water under the bridge at this point.
Yeah, apparently better policies are needed. I too know of several SBC revitalization efforts and plants that would have also loved a chunk of that money. Though, I’m not necessarily opposed to grants for renovations to SBC churches. I agree they have not deserted the faith – and they are a gospel preaching church – but CP monies should only be used to further SBC work. Clearly, Not that thier church is deemed anathematized – but SBC churches give to NAMB so we can further SBC works and plant SBC churches. It seems clear from statements made that consideration of… Read more »
The Blueprint Church was the church that likely requested and distributed the funds on Cornerstone’s behalf. Their pastor is a vp at NAMB. In some ways that escalates the situation into a scandal and that is why there is a moral obligation for Cornerstone to return the funds.
I think, emphasize I think, you may be conflating two different issues.
Yes the vice president at NAMB is the pastor of the sponsor church.
North American mission board helped john O’s church twice:
1) helped them get a loan I presume from a bank (cosign?)… that is not an issue and will not be perhaps unless they default.
2) What is at issue *now* is the 175k grant that was given last year specifically to the church that has left the convention.
It certainly gives the appearance that large sunlamps of money are available to those in the right circles. Any executive of NAMB should not be releasing NAMB funds via the church they serve. I know of multiple committed NAMB plants who have never and will never see a $175K grant from NAMB but they could certainly put it to use with no chance of them ending cooperation.
sums not sunlamps, I don’t think the NAMB is doling out sunlamps
Lol. Who knows??
I need a sunlamp here in Iowa. Winter can be depressing. I need to call Kevin.
They do dole out a bunch of swag so perhaps some branded sunlamps could be on the way.
Historically speaking, back in the 1960s and 1970s, there were a number of Southern Baptist churches that voted to leave the convention and become independent Baptist. (Remember these were the days before the conservative resurgence when our seminaries were notoriously liberal.) Most churches left with no problems. However there are dozens of examples where, because congregations had received money from the SBC, (usually through the old Home Missions Board), they were forced to give up their church building. I know of cases where the congregation voted 90%+ to leave the SBC and the courts ruled that the 10% got the… Read more »
That probably was because of a rescission clause in the deed. It used to be common to put awful clauses in deeds that demanded churches ir church property remain SBC.
I am not sure that is an awful clause. It helps provide property for replants today with NAMB.
I know the first church I pastored in Ohio had a clause in the Constitution and By-Laws that if they voted to no longer be SBC, the property would revert to the SBC. The church was constituted in the 50’s, so I don’t know how common that sort of thing would be today.
What about reverter clause?
Or wolves, pretending to be SBC, stealing our churches?
Who is the “our”?
I don’t see that the SBC has any legitimate interest in owning an autonomous church’s property. They could have a security interest that arises out of a grant but not some foggy notion of “our” church.
The financial side of this story is a classic example of the way Christian institutions often handle financial matters. No paperwork. Great expectations. Spiritual platitudes. Eschewing financial clarity and regularity. I would advocate that if NAMB is going to be giving “grants” to churches that it expects to be repaid that it say so in a writing signed by both parties. The fact that nothing was in writing regarding the transfer of $175,000 is not just a shame, it’s an indictment. The people who oversaw this were not acting as good stewards. My only qualification to using paperwork to memorialize… Read more »
Definitions matter (as was discussed yesterday). I work in the non-profit world so I keep reading the word “grant” and think of a grant as an amount of money awarded to a recipient with no requirement or expectation of repayment. Certainly grants often come with directives/conditions on what they are to be used for but in the non-profit world the word “grant” is VASTLY different from the word” loan”. The article in CT indicates that the grant was for a renovation of facilities (a specific purpose). If all of that is accurate (pending review of any written agreements, grant applications… Read more »
Is should be noted that it was suggested that he had a “moral” responsibility not a legal one. I suspect that if/when the other side of the story comes out we may find out that there may have been verbal assurances that have not been honored. If nothing else, he has left a church and an agency hung out to dry by taking the money knowing that he was “uncomfortable” with the SBC. (Where are the guys who always call for transparency and accountability calling for a reconing from NAMB?) As it turns out he likes our money but not… Read more »
Absolutely definitions matter – and Morality and integrity matter too (more?).
In my view it is immoral and lacking in integrity to seek and accept a very large grant from an entity who only offers (I hope) grants to further SBC cooperative works – knowing you are considering and likely to end cooperation work with the SBC. (If, as it seems, they were considering that “pre-grant”)
William,
I cannot help but to think of all our senior saints on social security who tithe, of all the ways that our small churches raise money for the SBC. This is outrageous. This is ecclesiastical financial malfeasance on a grand scale. From an ethical perspective this money needs to be paid back.
Blessings in Christ
Woody
Biggest question seems to concern the fund amount. How and why? We support several SBC plants directly, and have worked with them from the start, and none of them have gotten anything close to that, and we are in one of the major cities formerly termed “Send.”
If you all think $175K is a lot you should see the other things NAMB spends on with no oversight. Also, remember they have upwards of 200 million in reserve so this is peanuts. As far as Cornerstone needing to pay anything back I call baloney. They aren’t a heretical church and they presumably spent the money for it’s intended purpose. If the SBC’s feelings are hurt over a grant to a Gospel preaching church they are focusing on the wrong thing here. Instead, focus on why Cornerstone left in the first place and deal with the real issues in… Read more »
Anyone else find it curious that some people are requesting the return of a $175,00 grant (which by definition isn’t repayable unless it was not used for the purpose it was granted for) and many of these same people saw no issues with Jack Graham holding $1M hostage because he was unhappy with the ERLC?
Which is worse, denying money to missionaries over secular politics or a church receiving a sum of money for a specific task, using that money, and then later deciding to leave the SBC?
Do not know about others – but as for me – I was very vocal and much more harsh on Grahams ridiculous power play and using methods similar to that of extortion.
Good. Then chalk that up to another time we agree. And know I wasn’t speaking of you in my post.
I disagree with the premise that Prestonwood Baptist Church (where Jack Graham is pastor) has a moral obligation to give $1 million to the SBC. Particularly in light of the fact that at the time that David Platt was nominated to be President of the IMB, his church (The Church at Brook Hills) was supporting several missionaries who were with non SBC agencies (not the IMB). Why should the small SBC church of 100 members give to the IMB when the leadership is not all in on giving to the SBC’s mission agency? Also, David Platt had issues with the… Read more »
The objection was not their autonomous withholding – or redirection away from ERLC – you are right they had not moral obligation to give it to the Cooperative Program – so long as their membership agreed not to – since they had previously set up the budget to do so.
The objection was the whole:
What is your citation for this direct quote?
Wasn’t meant as *direct* quote.
I am Sorry for the confusion. i was playing with the new “highlight features” and chose one that indicates a direct quote.
The “quote” seems accurate as relating to the implication that was put out there though.
Water under dam now though…..new issues at hand.
No money was denied to missionaries. The action you reference was limited to the ERLC, and its president’s stance against godly SBC voters. Better to focus on the issues at your own church than to lie about actions at PBC, which the congregation supported.
I’ll say it. If you acquire funds through false pretenses or by withholding information (and it is almost certain they did not reveal plans to leave the SBC), that is theft. It may not be against man’s law, but it is absolutely against God’s law. It would offend me less if he broke into my home and stole my possessions. I work myself to death preaching four times every Sunday in two languages. My church has more members than 50 years ago, yet less than half the number of pastors on staff. Why? So we can give generously to be… Read more »
Very well said. You are not alone.
This, in my opinion, is a very, very unfortunate event. Not pointing blame anywhere, but after so much work has been done. Again, unfortunate.
As to the 175,000, that may be peanuts in some contexts or aspects, but in my world of church planting, that is a whole lot of money. In the future, let’s be crystal clear… if it’s called it a grant, it’s a gift. If the intention is that it’s a loan, call it a loan.
I think we are clear about loan vs. grant. I don’t know the timeline here, but this is a young church which received a very large sum of money from NAMB then “suddenly” decided to leave the SBC. No report is posted for this church on the Annual Church Profile database. The suspicion is that he knew the slavery history of the convention before depositing that check. Yes, this was a grant. But the ethical response from that pastor is to return the money.
I think the consensus will be that the church should work towards reimbursement…or not.
My bigger issue is with the manner that the funds were dolled out. What will accountability look like going forward for those in leadership at NAMB?
The churches of the SBC deserve an explanation and assurances going forward.
I’ve benefited from John O’s ministry through 9 Marks and sitting under him in a breakout at the G-3 conference in Atlanta a couple of years ago. In fact, I just was listening to a Pastors Talk podcast with him on prayer. A brother in Christ has to follow his conscience as a pastor and is well within his rights to choose to no longer cooperate and affiliate with the SBC. However, his pivot in the remarks about the grant to bring up the SBC being founded by slaveholders is ridiculous and a complete deflection. It’s irrelevant to the conversation… Read more »
Textbook example why SBC plan defining people into groups does not work..some are willing to leave when their demands are not met….all sides