Two top leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention have warned that we are facing an existential crisis, but differ about the nature of the threat. The messengers will ultimately decide which threat we'd rather face. Let me explain. SBC President Willy Rice recently said the SBC could fall into a "chasm" of moral compromise if we do not clarify our position on women pastors. He said, this is "why I believe the Truth and Unity Amendment is so important." This is an argument from conviction. Executive Committee President Jeff Iorg recently warned that passing the Truth and Unity Amendment would open the door to hundreds of crippling lawsuits that would destroy the convention. He's afraid that clarifying our position on women pastors would cause the SBC to be sued into oblivion. This is an argument from pragmatism. So, who's right? In my view, Willy Rice is right and Jeff Iorg is wrong. Here's two reasons why I believe Iorg is wrong on this matter (this isn't personal; I'm disagreeing with his position). First, his legal argument is incorrect. Attorney Jon Whitehead explain why on the Center for Baptist Leadership podcast a few days ago, listen to it yourself and make up your own mind (link in comments). Whitehead said we need not fear an avalanche of lawsuits if we pass the T&U amendment. Second, even if Iorg were right about the lawsuits (he's not), then this is precisely the moment Christians should stand on conviction, not pragmatism. The SBC exists to contend for and propagate our Christian convictions, not to run from them under threat of a lawsuit. If the SBC does not have the courage to stand for the clear teaching of scripture, then what is the point of the SBC? Are we giving money to an organization that can get bullied by threats of litigation? That's not the SBC I know and love. Ordinary Southern Baptists are courageous people, not cowards. Our entities should reflect that. When faithful churches give their hard earned dollars to the Cooperative Program, they do so with the expectation to be funding their convictions, not mere self-preservation. If we have to compromise God's word to save the SBC, then the SBC isn't worth saving. That's what Willy Rice is warning about, and he's correct. This is a key issue for the future of our convention. The surface level issue is the Truth and Unity amendment. But the deeper issue is the need to stand for the truth of God's word even when it's not popular. Willy Rice warned the "chasm" we're facing is filled with "the bones of a thousand gospel movements and institutions that were once vibrant and strong, but they are now empty institutional shells, tragic monuments to a once-great past." Thus, the biggest threat to the SBC is a failure of nerve. We can't control lawsuits, but we can control our own faithfulness. I'm confident Southern Baptists will make the right call in Indy next year.