The SBC: Racist Origins, Exploited Black Labor and Political Power

The Southern Baptist Convention cannot honestly claim moral authority without confronting the racial exploitation that helped create, finance and preserve its institutions.

The SBC was organized in 1845 following a denominational conflict over whether slaveholders could serve as missionaries. Its formation was inseparable from the defense of slavery—the ownership, exploitation and dehumanization of Black people.

That history did not end when slavery was abolished.

After emancipation, Black Codes, discriminatory policing, convict leasing and Jim Crow segregation created new ways to control Black life and exploit Black labor. White Southern businesses, politicians and institutions accumulated wealth under these systems.

Southern Baptist institutions were not isolated from that economy. In 1880, former Georgia governor and U.S. senator Joseph E. Brown donated $50,000 to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Brown had accumulated part of his fortune through businesses that exploited leased prisoners, who were disproportionately Black. His donation helped save the seminary from financial collapse.

The financial connection is direct: discriminatory laws supplied Black prisoners, Brown’s businesses extracted wealth from their forced labor, and money from that fortune helped preserve an institution established to train Southern Baptist ministers.

The SBC’s 1995 apology came 150 years after its founding. It acknowledged racism in words but offered no restitution proportionate to the wealth, power and institutional stability accumulated through slavery, convict leasing and Jim Crow.

An Institution Founded to Defend Slaveholding

The Southern Baptist Convention was not merely a religious organization that happened to exist in a racist society. It emerged from a denominational division directly connected to slaveholding.

Before the Civil War, white Southern ministers used biblical language to defend slavery. Their theology assured slaveholders that owning human beings was compatible with Christianity.

Slavery was not an abstract doctrinal disagreement. It meant stolen labor, physical violence, sexual exploitation, family separation and the legal reduction of Black men, women and children to property.

Religious defenses of slavery placed a claim of divine approval over a system built upon Black suffering.

The SBC eventually admitted these facts in its 1995 Resolution on Racial Reconciliation. The resolution acknowledged that Southern Baptists defended slavery and later opposed legitimate efforts to secure civil rights for African Americans.

The Convention admitted historical guilt. What it did not provide was repair proportionate to the damage.

SBC Leaders Benefited From Slavery

It would be inaccurate to claim that every Southern Baptist personally owned enslaved people or profited equally from racial oppression. The documented history supports a more precise conclusion.

Influential Southern Baptist founders, ministers, donors and institutional leaders participated in and benefited from an economy sustained by enslaved Black labor.

A 2018 historical report commissioned by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary documented that all four of its principal founders enslaved people. Together, they held more than 50 human beings in slavery.

James Petigru Boyce, the seminary’s first president, enslaved 23 people. Seminary founders and faculty members defended slavery, supported the Confederacy and helped preserve the racial hierarchy from which they benefited.

The men who shaped the seminary’s theology were therefore not disinterested observers. They were participants in the system they defended.

Black Codes Replaced One Form of Control With Another

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in 1865, except as punishment for a crime.

Southern governments exploited that exception.

Black Codes and later Jim Crow laws restricted the freedom, movement and employment of newly emancipated Black Americans. Vagrancy laws allowed authorities to arrest people for unemployment, changing jobs or failing to meet labor conditions imposed by white officials.

Those unable to pay fines and court costs could be imprisoned and leased to private businesses.

The system transformed criminal courts into suppliers of forced labor:

Stage	Result
Black Codes and discriminatory policing	Increased arrests of Black citizens
Fines and court costs	Imprisonment of people unable to pay
State convict-leasing contracts	Prisoners transferred to private employers
Forced mining, farming and railroad labor	Profits for businesses and revenue for governments
Donations from wealthy beneficiaries	Financial support for white institutions

Black people were declared free while laws and courts created new means of controlling their bodies and labor.

Joseph E. Brown’s Convict-Leasing Fortune

Joseph Emerson Brown served as Georgia’s Civil War governor and later as a United States senator. He also became a wealthy businessman with interests in coal mining, iron production and railroads.

Brown’s Dade Coal Company used leased prisoners in its mining operations.

Those prisoners could not resign, negotiate wages or refuse dangerous assignments. The government enforced the labor arrangement through incarceration and physical coercion.

Convict leasing was enormously profitable because businesses could obtain a controlled workforce without assuming the long-term costs slaveholders had once associated with ownership. If a prisoner became sick, injured or died, the state could supply another laborer.

Black Americans were disproportionately trapped in this system.

Brown did not merely live in a society where convict leasing existed. His businesses used the system, and his fortune benefited from it.

The $50,000 That Helped Save Southern Seminary

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary experienced a severe financial crisis during the nineteenth century.

In 1880, Brown gave the seminary $50,000—an enormous contribution for that period. The donation helped save the institution from financial collapse.

The financial chain is difficult to deny:

1. Discriminatory laws criminalized Black life.
2. Courts and prisons supplied forced labor.
3. Brown’s companies leased prisoners.
4. His businesses profited from their labor.
5. Brown donated $50,000 to Southern Seminary.
6. The donation helped preserve the institution.
7. The seminary continued training Southern Baptist ministers.

The seminary did not operate Brown’s mines, but it accepted and benefited from wealth connected to forced prison labor.

Southern Seminary later honored Brown by naming an endowed chair in Christian theology after him. In 2020, the seminary removed Brown’s name from the chair and announced a $5 million scholarship fund for Black students.

Removing a name is not the same as returning an institutional benefit.

Critics proposed transferring the original $50,000 contribution, with accumulated interest, to Simmons College of Kentucky, a historically Black Baptist institution. Southern Seminary rejected that proposal.

It removed Brown’s name but retained the financial and institutional benefit his donation helped create.

Jim Crow Preserved White Religious Power

Convict leasing formed part of a broader racial system.

Jim Crow laws enforced segregation and inequality in education, housing, employment, transportation, voting and public accommodations. Black citizens faced disenfranchisement, racial terror and unequal treatment under the law.

White churches helped normalize that order.

Some ministers openly preached white supremacy. Others defended segregation as tradition or divine design. Many remained silent while Black Americans were denied fundamental rights.

White Southern Baptist churches accumulated property, established schools, supported seminaries and expanded denominational programs within that unequal system.

This does not mean that every white Southern Baptist received an identifiable payment from Jim Crow. It means white Southern institutions developed within—and benefited from—a racial order that transferred labor, property, opportunity and political power away from Black Americans.

The Empty 1995 Apology

In 1995, exactly 150 years after the Convention’s founding, SBC messengers adopted a formal resolution condemning racism and apologizing to African Americans.

The resolution confessed wrongdoing and promised racial reconciliation. Those admissions were important, but they remained words without proportionate restitution.

The resolution did not:

• Calculate the institutional benefits derived from slavery and segregation;
• Establish a comprehensive reparations program;
• Return the value received from Brown’s convict-leasing fortune;
• Transfer meaningful institutional power to the injured communities;
• Or allow Black descendants to determine what adequate repair required.

The SBC subsequently adopted other resolutions against racism, increased some racial representation and elected Fred Luter as its first Black president in 2012.

These actions prevent the literal claim that nothing whatsoever followed. They do not constitute repair proportionate to the admitted history.

An apology that leaves accumulated power and wealth largely untouched can serve the institution more than those it injured.

The 1995 resolution improved the SBC’s reputation and gave it language with which to recruit Black members and racially diverse churches. It allowed the Convention to portray itself as reconciled without surrendering the institutional benefits of the history being apologized for.

In that sense, the apology functioned as a recruitment and public-relations instrument.

From Religion to Political Mobilization

The SBC’s political character is visible in its organized campaigns concerning abortion.

The Convention has not merely expressed a theological belief inside its churches. It has adopted national resolutions, operated a public-policy agency, urged government officials to enact laws and called Southern Baptists to organize around the issue.

In 2021, SBC messengers adopted a resolution demanding the immediate abolition of abortion “without exception or compromise.” The resolution called upon state and federal legislators, judges and officials to enact and enforce laws reflecting the Convention’s position. Baptist Press summary of the 2021 resolutions

In substance, the Convention treated abortion as a national sin and “a crime against humanity,” then called its churches and members to support political and legal action.

Whatever one believes about abortion, this was organized political influence. It was an effort by a national religious body to change civil law and public policy.

The SBC was no longer speaking only about salvation, repentance or an individual’s relationship with God. It was mobilizing its constituency to impose an institutional moral judgment through government.

Who Gave the SBC Authority to Create a National Hierarchy of Sin?

The SBC’s abortion campaign also raises a theological contradiction.

The Convention elevates abortion as though it occupies a singular position above other sins. It uses national resolutions, political pressure and legislative demands to treat this one issue as a defining test of Christian faithfulness.

Yet Scripture states:

“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” — James 2:10, KJV

If breaking one point of the law makes a person guilty, what scriptural authority allows the SBC to construct a political hierarchy in which one alleged sin becomes the nation’s defining offense?

Where was the same national campaign when Black people were enslaved?

Where was the demand for immediate abolition when Black prisoners were being leased to businesses?

Where was the uncompromising mobilization against segregation, lynching, voter suppression and racial terror?

Why did the institution require 150 years to apologize for its own wrongdoing but demand immediate government action concerning the conduct of others?

These questions expose the difference between consistent moral conviction and selective political power.

The SBC’s founders defended slavery while claiming biblical authority. Later Southern Baptists tolerated or defended segregation. The institution benefited from money connected to convict leasing. Yet it now assumes the authority to define abortion as a national moral crisis and organize millions of people around changing the law.

That selectivity should be examined critically.

Issue Advocacy Is Legal—but It Is Still Political Influence

Federal tax law permits religious organizations to discuss public issues and conduct some lobbying. Therefore, campaigning against abortion does not automatically violate §501(c)(3).

That legal distinction must be stated honestly.

Issue advocacy becomes a tax problem when lobbying constitutes a substantial part of a charitable organization’s activities or when an organization directly or indirectly intervenes in a political campaign for or against a candidate.

The SBC’s abortion activity does not automatically prove that it has violated federal tax law. It does demonstrate that the Convention functions as an organized political influence operation in addition to its religious work.

The proper questions include:

• How much SBC money supports lobbying and public-policy advocacy?
• Are church resources used to favor particular candidates?
• Do voter materials functionally direct members toward one political party?
• Are politicians promoted during worship services?
• Does the denomination coordinate messages or events with campaigns?
• Has influencing legislation become a substantial institutional activity?
• Where is the boundary between religious teaching and electoral mobilization?

Those questions deserve answers supported by financial records and documented conduct.

Trump’s Executive Order and Sunday-Morning Politics

On May 4, 2017, Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13798, “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.”

The order instructed the Treasury Department to exercise “maximum enforcement discretion” regarding political and moral speech by religious organizations. The complete order is available through the Federal Register.

The executive order did not repeal the Johnson Amendment. A president cannot repeal a federal statute enacted by Congress through an executive order.

It nevertheless sent an unmistakable message: the federal government would be less aggressive about enforcing political restrictions against churches in certain circumstances.

Sunday-morning worship consequently became even more valuable as a political platform.

A church provides a regularly assembled audience connected by common identity, trusted leadership and claims of divine authority. When political messages enter sermons, voter guides and church communications, a partisan preference can be presented as a spiritual obligation.

A preferred politician becomes “chosen.” Supporting him becomes a religious duty. Opposition is portrayed as rebellion against God.

That is not merely religion influencing personal conscience. It is political mobilization operating through religious authority.

A Pastor Opposed Trump on Sunday—and Faced Removal on Monday

A revealing example occurred at Stuarts Draft Baptist Church in Stuarts Draft, Virginia, a congregation identified in church directories as affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.

William Kopp had served as the church’s pastor for approximately 14 years. On Sunday, May 31, 2020, during an outdoor service held amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Kopp delivered a sermon criticizing President Donald Trump by name and challenging Christians who continued supporting him.

Kopp described Trump as dishonest and argued that Christians could not simultaneously claim allegiance to truth while excusing conduct they would condemn in other political leaders.

His language was severe. Kopp reportedly called Trump “the antichrist” and said that supporting him was incompatible with following Christ. One church deacon later said the decisive objection was Kopp’s assertion that a person could not vote for Trump and remain a Christian.

The congregation’s response was swift.

Church deacons met with Kopp after the Sunday service. The following day—Monday—he was informed that members were demanding his resignation. Kopp formally resigned on Wednesday.

Therefore, it is most accurate to say that the removal process began the day after his sermon, not that he was formally fired Monday morning. Crosswalk’s account of Kopp’s resignation

The congregation was autonomous, and there is no evidence that the national Southern Baptist Convention ordered or participated in Kopp’s removal. The case nevertheless provides a documented example of political conflict inside an SBC-affiliated church.

The church’s interim pastor later said that mixing religion and politics did not improve religion. Yet the circumstances expose an important contradiction: the congregation objected when its pastor used the pulpit to oppose Trump, while conservative evangelical institutions and leaders frequently used religious language to support Trump and the policies associated with him.

Kopp’s sermon certainly can be criticized. Declaring that everyone who voted for a particular candidate was not Christian imposed a sweeping spiritual judgment upon individual voters. A congregation had the right under Baptist polity to evaluate whether that message exceeded its pastor’s authority.

But the speed of the reaction remains significant.

After approximately 14 years of service, one politically charged sermon led to demands for Kopp’s resignation within a day. That suggests that support for Trump had become more than an ordinary political preference for at least some members of the congregation. Criticism of the president was treated as a threat serious enough to end a longstanding pastoral relationship.

The incident raises several questions:

• Was the congregation protecting Christianity from politics, or protecting a politician from Christian criticism?
• Would an equally forceful sermon supporting Trump have produced the same response?
• Why was political speech considered unacceptable when directed against Trump but frequently tolerated when conservative pastors supported his policies?
• Had partisan identity become more important than the pastor-congregation relationship?
• Where was the boundary between religious conviction and political loyalty?

The Kopp case does not establish how every Southern Baptist church would respond. It does show how political allegiance can influence what a congregation permits from its pulpit.

It also illustrates the larger tax-exemption question. Churches are permitted to preach about public affairs and moral issues, and individual religious leaders retain political rights. A single sermon criticizing a president does not constitute proof of unlawful campaign intervention.

The concern is institutional inconsistency: political messages may be condemned as an improper mixture of religion and politics when they challenge a preferred candidate, yet accepted as religious conviction when they support the same candidate or advance favored legislation.

An organization’s political character cannot be evaluated only by the messages it officially publishes. It must also be evaluated by the political speech it encourages, tolerates, disciplines or suppresses.

At Stuarts Draft Baptist Church, opposition to Trump brought a 14-year pastor’s ministry to an end within days. Whatever one concludes about Kopp’s sermon, the incident provides a documented example of how deeply partisan loyalty had entered the life of at least one SBC-affiliated congregation.

Political Power and Selective Morality

The contradiction became especially visible through white evangelical support for Trump.

The SBC cannot control how individual members vote, and election surveys measure white evangelical Christians more broadly than Southern Baptists alone. Those qualifications matter.

Nevertheless, approximately eight in ten white evangelical voters supported Trump in 2024. He received similarly overwhelming support from this constituency in 2016 and 2020. Associated Press

In May 2024, a New York jury convicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Manhattan District Attorney

A federal civil jury separately found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll. Trump denied the allegations and appealed, but the verdict was upheld. Reuters

Millions of white evangelical voters nevertheless supported him.

This does not establish the conduct of every Southern Baptist. It demonstrates a broader religious culture in which proclaimed moral standards became negotiable when political power was available.

Autonomous Churches, Centralized Political and Financial Influence

The SBC frequently emphasizes that its cooperating congregations are autonomous. The national organization ordinarily cannot appoint pastors, seize property or manage local affairs.

But autonomy does not mean disconnection.

The Convention decides which churches remain in friendly cooperation. It supports national agencies and seminaries, adopts policy resolutions, maintains a public-policy arm and receives substantial financial support originating with participating churches.

According to official SBC figures:

Financial measure	Reported amount
Undesignated church receipts reported during 2023–24	$9.56 billion
Cooperative Program contributions during fiscal 2023–24	$446.64 million
Cooperative Program gifts received for national SBC causes	$187.47 million
Adopted 2025–26 Cooperative Program Allocation Budget	$190 million

Sources: SBC Fast Facts and the SBC Annual Meeting Book of Reports.

The SBC cannot claim the collective numbers, donations and political influence of its churches while denying meaningful responsibility for how that power is used.

The Case for Reviewing Tax-Exempt Status

Tax exemption is not recognition from God. It is a legal benefit granted by the government and indirectly supported by taxpayers.

Religious organizations generally do not pay federal income tax on exempt activities. Eligible donations may be deducted by taxpayers who itemize. Churches also receive exemptions from some public financial-reporting requirements imposed upon other nonprofit organizations.

These are valuable public privileges.

The SBC’s racist founding does not automatically cancel its current tax exemption under federal law. Neither does an empty apology, opposition to abortion or the voting behavior of individual members.

Revocation would require evidence that a particular tax-exempt SBC entity violated applicable law—for example, through prohibited campaign intervention or impermissibly extensive lobbying.

The IRS should therefore conduct any review according to documented conduct and apply the same standards to religious and secular organizations alike.

The relevant question is not whether Southern Baptists may hold political beliefs. They may. The question is whether an organization can use tax-exempt money, religious authority and a nationwide church network as a partisan political structure while continuing to receive the privileges granted to a religious charity.

If investigation establishes that political activity has displaced or overwhelmed qualifying religious and charitable purposes, the responsible entity should lose its exemption and be classified according to what it actually does.

That conclusion should rest upon evidence, not simply opposition to the SBC’s beliefs.

Label the Institution According to Its Conduct

An organization should be evaluated by more than the name it gives itself.

If the SBC primarily preached salvation and ministered to human needs, its claim to religious status would be straightforward. But when it adopts national political objectives, directs members toward legislative action, operates a public-policy agency and uses religious authority to influence civil law, it also functions as a political institution.

The SBC cannot demand that government enforce its moral conclusions while insisting that its own political conduct remain beyond government scrutiny.

Its actual activities should determine its legal treatment.

The SBC’s Unresolved Crisis

The Southern Baptist Convention arose from a defense of slaveholding. Its founders and institutions benefited from enslaved labor. A fortune tied to convict leasing helped save its flagship seminary. Jim Crow protected the racial order in which Southern Baptist power expanded.

The denomination waited 150 years to apologize and then offered no restitution proportionate to the admitted harm.

It later elevated abortion into a national political cause, called members to mobilize, demanded legislative action and attempted to define civil law according to its institutional theology.

At the same time, the broader white evangelical constituency repeatedly supported Trump despite legal judgments and conduct contradicting the morality preached from conservative pulpits. Trump responded by directing the government to exercise greater restraint over political speech by churches.

These facts do not make every Southern Baptist personally responsible for every historical or political act. They do establish that the national institution’s history, finances, lobbying and political relationships deserve thorough scrutiny.

An apology cannot rewrite the SBC’s origin.

Removing Brown’s name cannot remove the money that helped preserve the seminary.

Selective outrage cannot substitute for consistent morality.

An institutional resolution cannot transform a contested political question into a divinely established hierarchy of sin.

Sunday worship cannot become campaign machinery merely because political advocacy is presented as religious instruction.

Tax exemption cannot be treated as an unconditional entitlement.

The SBC admitted part of the truth about its history in 1995. Whether it functions primarily as a religious body or as a political institution protected by religious status must be determined by its conduct—not by what it chooses to call itself.