An Open Response to Jeff Iorg from an Immanuel Network Pastor

An Open Response to Jeff Iorg from an Immanuel Network Pastor

By Jay Haynes

Pastor, Kahului Baptist Church

‍

Introduction:

On September 22, Dr. Jeff Iorg, President of the SBC Executive Committee, delivered a speech to the Executive Committee. I wasn't there, nor do I know what the overall goal of the meeting was. I didn't even know it had happened. I'm the sole staff pastor of a small church in Maui, so my involvement in SBC affairs has been limited by my higher priorities here locally. I have been involved, though. I've attended the annual meeting for the past few years, serving on the Committee on Committees last year, and our church is actively involved in our local convention and association. We (currently) give to the CP. I'm involved enough to be familiar with Dr. Iorg, his recent actions leading up to and during the last few annual meetings, and his current work at the EC.

So, my involvement level is such that I wouldn't have known of Dr. Iorg's speech had I not received a clarification email from the SBC Executive Committee. In this email, Dr. Iorg addressed his failure to communicate clearly, along with a warning that an edited clip had been circulated on the internet, accompanied by false claims about his presentation. Fortunately, I haven't been on social media much, so I hadn't been exposed to those claims. I clicked the link provided in the email and watched Dr. Iorg's entire address, using YouTube's playback speed adjustment tool to listen at 1.5 times the normal speed. Then I listened to it again at regular speed. Then I listened to it again. It's not that I had a hard time understanding what Dr. Iorg was saying, but rather, I was having a hard time believing that he had said it.

I had expected Dr. Iorg to address the trend of churches giving more selectively. I had expected him to cheer the efficiency and cooperative goodness of the CP. I even expected a few jabs at divisive personalities on Twitter/X. What I didn't expect was the hijacking and totally misleading use of a philosophical movement to vilify people who aren't giving directly to the CP. I'm sure a lot of the usual fireballs took Dr. Iorg's words about transgenderism and ran with them, and that they probably did so in unhelpful ways. But that wasn't my greatest concern, as it was actually very consistent with his overall argument. It's the overall argument that knocked me off my feet.

He addresses his concerns as follows: While there are programmatic and political reasons for these current changes (giving through alternative configurations instead of through the CP), a more important factor is the philosophical commitment underlining these developments. Changes in the Cooperative Program are rooted in a worldview shift that has marked Western culture and, unfortunately, bled into SBC life. The problem is the fracturing influence of expressive individualism – the dominant worldview of our time.  Expressive individualism is the root of cultural developments ranging from obsessive sharing on social media to convincing children they can choose their gender. It is the worldview which demands mass customization and, at the same time, fuels aggressive tribalism. Southern Baptists live in this cultural milieu and are being influenced by it. This is troubling because expressive individualism is antithetical to cooperation – the theological and philosophical foundation of our combined efforts.

If you're familiar with Dr. Iorg's standard talking points, then his frustration with the changes in CP giving isn't new to you. I expected it. And we all know who he's talking about. It's the "conservative" side of the SBC. It's those who voted for the Law Amendment; those who have requested more transparency from our institutions; Those who desire more confessionalism. It's those who express concerns about some trends and practices, and who desire to stick more closely with what they see as scriptural approaches and practices which are outlined in The BF&M. These are the people who Dr. Iorg has insisted that he aligns with doctrinally, but who he believes undervalue Gospel cooperation — who are instead demanding that everyone submit to their own personal convictions.

Now, I'll grant to Dr. Iorg the fact that there are many who hold to their convictions poorly. There really are people who are hyper-tribalistic, angry, and uncooperative. These folks do tend to end up in the social media feeds to berate and unfairly malign fellow Christians. But I've also seen Dr. Iorg regularly collapse the space between these bad actors and others who are genuinely and lovingly seeking to be faithful, which may include adjustments in how they give to SBC initiatives. And so, with Dr. Iorg's speech, many patient, kind, generous, Gospel-loving, missional men and women are thrown into the same category as the angry Twitter/X activists. Then we're all thrown into the same category with advocates of transgenderism. The accusation is that our fundamental philosophical worldview is expressive individualism.

‍

What is Expressive Individualism?

Dr. Iorg is correct about the profound influence of expressive individualism on our society. Carl Truman helpfully traces the origin and history of expressive individualism in his book, The Rise and Triumph of The Modern Self. In the early modern period, great thinkers began to redefine self and identity apart from transcendent reference points such as God's nature, His Word, and the created order. Instead, reason — or one's own ability to think, doubt, and judge— became central to their understanding of self and identity. This is often summarized in René Descartes' famous line, "I think, therefore I am." Noticeably lacking from this equation is what God has to say about who you are.  

This new understanding was given a moral weight throughout The Enlightenment, with figures such as Rousseau, arguing that the inner self is fundamentally pure, and that therefore true virtue lies in being authentic to one's own inner voice rather than conforming to external standards. It gained steam in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries through the literature of The Romantics, who elevated emotion and imagination as the highest forms of truth. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the focus on inward authenticity took on a distinctly sexual character through the influence of Freud and others, who redefined human identity around erotic desire. Later, figures such as Marx, Reich, and Marcuse transformed these psychological ideas into political programs, portraying liberation from traditional morality as essential to human freedom.

So, even though the phrase "expressive individualism" wasn't coined until Charles Taylor outlined it in the 20th Century, the concept itself is easily traceable through the thinkers and movements that have long been recognized as hostile to the authority of Scripture or any claim of transcendental truth grounded in the Gospel. It is a movement that fundamentally rejects any authority outside of one's own reason, emotion, desire, or inner feelings. Essentially, without God and His Word to guide us, we construct our own identity and reality, including our sexual orientation, gender, etc. For truth, we turn not to God, but instead, we turn inward. And when someone turns inward and finds their own truth, no one can tell them they're wrong.

Dr. Iorg is correct that this movement has led us all the way to the place where children are told that they can choose their gender. Expressive individualism is the air we breathe. It has impacted every aspect of society, even the church. Far too often, Christians operate based on their feelings, emotions, and desires, rather than by understanding what God's Word actually commands or by receiving counsel from a faithful Church context. Expressive individualism has reshaped the way many approach the church itself. Instead of submitting to Scripture's commands about worship, fellowship, and discipleship, believers often search for a congregation that feels like the 'right fit' — one that aligns with their preferences and affirms their personal sense of calling. This consumer mindset treats the church less as a body to which we belong, and more as a service provider that must meet our felt needs. In such a climate, biblical obedience can seem unreasonable or even unspiritual. Churches, in turn, adopt unbiblical practices to appeal to these desires, measuring faithfulness by emotional response or personal fulfillment rather than conformity to God's Word. Emotional, man-centered readings of Scripture follow naturally. This has become the prevailing ethos of much of American evangelicalism — and, as Dr. Iorg rightly observes, it has indeed "bled into SBC life."

‍

Where's the Misfire?

            So, if this is a legitimate problem impacting our churches, why was I so shocked by Dr. Iorg's identification of the problem? I have a few reasons. First, it's neither fair nor accurate to take a well-defined philosophical movement, such as expressive individualism, and apply it as a label to churches that are simply allocating their giving differently than one would like them to. It's not even appropriate to trace the everyday phenomenon of tribalism back to Enlightenment philosophy; the two are not inherently connected. And then, to suggest that an intentional redirection of funds is philosophically equivalent to a parent affirming gender confusion is, to dramatically understate the issue, a major category mistake. One stems from confessional conviction; the other from rejection of all transcendent authority.

It would be misleading if I were to accuse Dr. Iorg's commitment to centralized giving of being "socialist." It's a big, scary word, but it would be dishonest to use it merely to discredit him. Yet this was the very kind of comparison he had presented before the Executive Committee—a room of denominational leaders. If I were unfamiliar with the history of Enlightenment thought, I would have been greatly alarmed by Dr. Iorg's warning. I would be tempted to consider any convictional dissent an evidence of expressive individualism. It would make it very easy to be dismissive of those who disagree with me.

To be fair, I suspect there have been more than a few instances where Dr. Iorg's actions and words have been wrongly associated with movements like Critical Race Theory or feminism. I can understand how discouraging it must be to act out of sincere conviction only to have those actions grouped with ideologies you reject. Terms like these carry significant meaning, and because they're well-defined, they should be used carefully. We do our cooperation no favors when we weaponize philosophical language as shorthand in our discourse.

Secondly, I found it surprising that Dr. Iorg would invoke expressive individualism — a worldview rooted in the rejection of transcendent authority — when his own approach to cooperation seems to reflect that very impulse. The SBC's ongoing struggle to unite around a clear statement of faith is itself evidence of this very tension. Take, for example, his criticism of the Law Amendment, which sought to clarify our confession regarding the office of pastor. Although Dr. Iorg affirms complementarianism personally, he argued that Southern Baptists should set aside such "secondary squabbles" for the sake of unity, missions, and the Gospel. In practice, this suggests that theological conviction should yield to pragmatic cooperation. But if unity demands that we fund and affirm practices or beliefs we do not share — even those that diverge from our confession — then unity has become untethered from truth. That reasoning, ironically, mirrors expressive individualism: privileging personal preference over submission to a fixed authority.

To summarize fairly, Dr. Iorg's position appears to allow for each church to hold its own convictions, shaped by its unique interpretation or tradition, even if those differ from the shared doctrinal statement of the SBC. Yet all are expected to participate in and financially support collective efforts that reflect diverse — and at times contradictory — theological commitments. Those who cannot do so in good conscience are then portrayed as divisive or uncooperative. In this framework, conscience and conviction must bend to the demands of collective harmony — an arrangement far closer to expressive individualism than is strategic, alternative giving models.

What's the Solution?

            I admit, I don't know how to receive Dr. Iorg's presentation. It's hard for me to understand how a former seminary president and current EC president could be unaware of such a serious and dangerous misuse of terms and phrases. Yet I also hesitate to accuse him of intentional dishonesty. And so, I don't know what to do. I imagine Dr. Iorg and I are in fairly similar positions. We both love this massive and messy, diverse family of churches. And like Dr. Iorg, I've been wounded by these very churches a few times, though, I'm sure Dr. Iorg's experiences far surpass my own. I'm younger and have never carried the burdens of denominational leadership. Still, I can sympathize with his weariness. We both long to see our convention healthy and unified. The question is: how?

I don't know what Dr. Iorg should do next, but I do know that his recent tone— critical, sarcastic, and sweeping— is not a force for the unity he says he wants. Dr. Iorg, whether you intended it or not, you have said untrue things about me, and about many men and women I love dearly, saints who have years of faithful local church and SBC ministry under their belts. I have fought hard against bitterness. I genuinely desire unity. You haven't helped me in that at all. Might I suggest you offer more than a simple apology for a lack of clarity? Might I suggest that you repent for the potentially devastating and divisive statements in your presentation, and reassess your approach, or at least your rhetoric?

In your clarification email, you state, 'As president of the SBC Executive Committee, it is my privilege and responsibility to promote the Cooperative Program.' I do this gratefully as a product of this amazing giving strategy. I received a CP-funded education; planted a CP-funded church in Oregon; served a CP-funded state convention; and led a CP-supported seminary. Being a champion for the Cooperative Program is a delight, not just a part of my job.

On this, I can genuinely relate. I, too, am a product of the SBC, and I, too, have benefited from CP giving as a student, a missionary, a church planter, and a pastor. I've experienced great things and I've experienced terrible things. Both the good and the bad are funded by the CP. I see what it could be, and I, too, want to be a champion for the Cooperative Program. But I have deep concerns; concerns that I don't believe to be unfounded. I long to see The CP reflect not merely generosity, but integrity. I would love to see Southern Baptists given the freedom to address concerns — not out of a narrow, individualistic insistence on preferred doctrine and polity, but because we have deep roots of faithfulness to truth, to something greater than ourselves, to The Word of God.

I believe an insistence on doing away with expressive individualism demands greater convictional clarity, not less. True cooperation in Baptist life must be convictional, not expressive, and it arises not from suppressing conscience but from aligning under a shared confession. Without such unity in truth, there can be no genuine unity in mission. And I genuinely believe that if, as a convention, we were willing to bear the near-term costs of the convictions outlined in our statement of faith, we would see the long-term fruit of healthier churches and a more faithful advance of the Gospel, such as would surpass anything we're currently experiencing.

‍

May The Lord Bless The SBC, its churches, and its leaders.

‍