{"id":19542,"date":"2025-04-02T16:20:11","date_gmt":"2025-04-02T20:20:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/?p=19542"},"modified":"2025-04-08T17:27:41","modified_gmt":"2025-04-08T21:27:41","slug":"march-intermission-from-the-erlc-to-the-cross-in-the-ot","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/article\/concise\/march-intermission-from-the-erlc-to-the-cross-in-the-ot\/","title":{"rendered":"March Intermission: From the ERLC to the Cross in the OT"},"content":{"rendered":"

After one call for abolition<\/a>, four recorded<\/a> conversations<\/a>, eight articles specific to the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission (ERLC<\/a>), and four articles addressing positive ways<\/a> Baptists have and should address the public square, the eight questions I posed to Brent Leatherwood in a January email (and in my open letter to Southern Baptists<\/a>) have gone unanswered. Even more, no one from the ERLC has had the courtesy to send a postcard.<\/p>\n

Over the course of this month, it has become apparent that the ERLC is quite aware of the conundrum related to their representation of Southern Baptists. In addition to showing off their field trip to Washington DC<\/a>, I have received many reports of renewed activity around the capital. I\u2019ve also been reminded that many of my questions were addressed in the ERLC\u2019s FAQ page<\/a> that was launched on July 29, 2024, the day before Shepherds for Sale <\/em>launched.[1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

1. To see the update from the sparse and idiosyncratic FAQ page to the current webpage that answers questions raised by Megan Basham\u2019s Shepherds for Sale<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>compare these three dates: May 22, 2024<\/a>; June 1, 2024<\/a>; and July 29, 2024<\/a>.<\/h6>\n

Despite this activity, however, neither Tom Ascol (who made the motion to abolish the ERLC), nor I (who wrote the open letter), nor any of the authors (who wrote articles this month), have (to this point) received a response from the leadership of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission. Now, lest it sound like Christ Over All<\/em> has some complex of self-importance or that I demand others to \u201crespect my authoritah,\u201d let me say that the ERLC has no obligation to seek my<\/em> input or to answer my<\/em> questions. However, as entity that represents Southern Baptists, they do have a responsibility to give an answer for the ongoing concerns. And, wisdom would suggest that they would take initiative to \u201ccome and reason\u201d with those who have publicly questioned their work.<\/p>\n

Yet, to my knowledge, nothing like that has happened.<\/p>\n

Speaking Up is a Matter of Stewardship<\/h2>\n

The leaders of the ERLC have trustees to whom they report, and they have the freedom to treat those who raise concerns publicly as Sanballat\u2019s and Tobiah\u2019s who are simply interfering with the Lord\u2019s work. In fact, Brent Leatherwood has said as much, labeling those who raise their voice in public as \u201coutrage artists and the grievous grifters<\/a>.\u201d Still, for all the liberty that the ERLC takes to ignore the questions and concerns of Southern Baptist pastors and church members, one wonders: How does one get an audience with the ERLC?<\/p>\n

In June, if nothing changes, I expect that I will make my way to the microphone to ask that question. Or, if the reports I am hearing are accurate, I expect there will be another motion to abolish the ERLC. As the authors of this last month (Megan Basham, David Mitzenmacher, Jon Whitehead, and John Michael LaRue) discussed on a recent podcast hosted by the Center for Baptist Leadership<\/a>, it is not only the prerogative of Southern Baptist messengers to raise concerns at the annual convention\u2014it is also our duty! Stewardship<\/a> requires Southern Baptists to hold their entities accountable, especially since some recent SBC leaders believe the SBC will cease to exist within a decade.[2]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

2. The actual words, that come from Mark Tooley, are these<\/a>: \u201cA former senior SBC official told me last year he does not expect the SBC to exist in ten years, as the older people with strong SBC attachments leave the scene.\u201d<\/h6>\n

The entire reason Christ Over All<\/em> took up the subject of Ethics and Religious Liberty Conundrum is not because we are rabble-rousers (at least, we don\u2019t think so), but because the public witness of the ERLC, as reported all month long, is out of step with common Southern Baptists. This is not to say that there is no support for the ERLC in the convention, as a select<\/a> group<\/a> of pastors<\/a> recently reported. It\u2019s only that vocal support does not take into account a growing number of concerned pastors and parishioners.<\/p>\n

As Jon Whitehead<\/a>, an ERLC trustee, wrote this month, the rift between the conservatives of the convention and the heads of ERLC (Russell Moore first, and now Brent Leatherwood) is a combination of three things: (1) Moore\u2019s unbiblical political theology, (2) an uncertainty about what defines ERLC success, and (3) Brent Leatherwood\u2019s unauthorized statements. While more can be said, these three issues illustrate the great divide between how the ERLC congratulates itself on fulfilling its mission and the way pastors that don\u2019t make trips to Washington, D.C. think about the ERLC.<\/p>\n

One such pastor is John Michael LaRue<\/a>, who expressed his loss of trust in the ERLC when it jumped on the Woke Wagon. According to LaRue, the MLK50 conference in 2018\u2014which promoted multiple speakers who affirm Critical Race Theory along with the anti-biblical teachings of anti-racism\u2014was the watershed moment, and one that served the interests of those outside the SBC more than Southern Baptists themselves.<\/p>\n

As the ERLC website itself reports<\/a>, portions of this event were funded by The Democracy Fund, \u201can organization funded by a liberal billionaire who follows the teachings of the Dalai Lama\u201d (David Mitzenmacher<\/a>). As the ERLC acknowledges that such funds were received under Russell Moore, not the current president, the question of financial transparency remains. Rhett Burns<\/a>, another Southern Baptist pastor, picks up this question in his article, even highlighting the \u201cspin room\u201d feel of the current ERLC report.<\/p>\n

Further questions about the ERLC and funding can be found in Megan Basham\u2019s book, Shepherds for Sale. <\/em>Yet, this month, it was not finances that found her focus. Instead, she applied her investigative reporting to the question of the ERLC\u2019s efficacy in representing Southern Baptists in our nation\u2019s capitol. As her article (\u201cToo Busy with Woke Stuff<\/a>\u201d) reveals, the ERLC\u2019s reputation around Washington, D.C. is a mixture of inconsequence and actual counter-productive actions. While Russell Moore famously shared his picture sitting in the Oval Office with Barack Obama, one abiding reputation of the ERLC is that of being a group of Never Trumpers. The majority of Southern Baptists voted for Trump (with varying degrees of moral qualifications), and so the fact that the SBC\u2019s public policy arm would be known for \u201cwoke stuff\u201d and opposition to the current president illustrates a public relations problem that needs deliberate attention.<\/p>\n

The Need for Change<\/h2>\n

Truly, the Southern Baptist Convention should never be (or be seen as) a pawn for the GOP or a chaplain for any political party or movement. Nevertheless, to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves will require work\u2014and<\/em> change. At present, the ERLC has assumed the unfortunate position of being ineffective in public and unsupported at home. And it\u2019s likely that those two things are connected. It is difficult to lobby politicians for the interests of Southern Baptists when those politicians either don\u2019t know who you are, or worse, they do know that the ERLC doesn\u2019t have support from large numbers of its SBC pastors and churches.<\/p>\n

To all of this, the question remains: Do the ERLC leaders, trustees, and supporters have what it takes to make the necessary changes?<\/p>\n

Sadly, when the vote to abolish the ERLC came to the floor of the SBC in 2024, one would think that Brent Leatherwood would have swallowed his pride and set up a meeting with Tom Ascol, the one who made the original motion. Just the same, knowing that a month of articles was being planned to raise questions about the ERLC, it would seem wise, in the spirit of Isaiah 1:18 (\u201cCome now, let us reason together . . .\u201d), to at least take a phone call with the organization that planned the month and invited participation.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the ERLC took no interest in fielding such an open and honest conversation. And this, combined with all the concerns raised this month, is final evidence: instead of being able to course-correct by itself, the ERLC leadership needs a systemic change. As David Mitzenmacher notes in his call for reformation<\/a>, organizations rise and fall with their leaders. And as the history of the ERLC proves, the president of the ERLC (and its various precursors) have had an outsized role in determining their direction and their effectiveness. And this is why, as Mitzenmacher suggests with no sense of gloating, there is a sober need for a change in presidential leadership.<\/p>\n

Yet, as this month concludes, I might go further, suggesting that the problem does not originate in one person\u2014unless that person is Russell Moore. It is with great sorrow that I bring up the name of my former theology professor, seminary dean, and Sunday School teacher, yet the marks of Moore\u2019s errant political theology touch every aspect of the current ERLC. And as long as his acolytes, agenda items, and progressive associations define the ERLC, it is going to be an entity that fails to represent the conservative churches of the SBC. Indeed, without a disavowal of the last ten years, the ghost of Russell Moore will continue to haunt the ERLC and spook genuine conservatives\u2014in the Southern Baptist Convention and on Capitol Hill.<\/p>\n

For this reason, if a vote calling for the abolition of the ERLC comes to the floor of the annual convention in 2025, I would stand before Brent Leatherwood again<\/a> and raise my ballot. I won\u2019t do that vindictively or maliciously, but I will do so willingly, because a systemic change is needed. And if that is not clear to anyone reading this, please take the time to revisit the articles and podcasts of this month<\/a>. From the professorial Tom Nettles to the turn-around expert David Mitzenmacher, and from the investigative reporting of Megan Basham to the pastoral perspective of John Michael LaRue, it is undeniable that that conundrum of the ERLC is of such a magnitude, that shuttering the ERLC (and rebooting something else in the future?) seems like the best option. And if the majority vote is to abolish the ERLC in 2025, then perhaps the year in between the second required vote in 2026 (according to Article 25 of the SBC bylaws<\/a>) would bring about the needed leadership change. Or perhaps the problems are so deep that a second year majority vote to close the ERLC\u2019s doors would be necessary.<\/p>\n

Is it the only option? Maybe not. But without the ERLC\u2019s unwillingness to address the concerns outlined this month, it is the leading option for Southern Baptists heading to the SBC annual meeting Dallas. If you are in the SBC, put the June 10th\u00ad-11th convention on your calendar,and come ready to do business. As the Lord allows, I hope to see you there. And Lord willing, we will be able to bring some positive changes to the SBC and the ERLC.<\/p>\n

\"This<\/p>\n

The Ethics and Religious Liberty Conundrum<\/h2>\n

Thanks to all the men and women who wrote for Christ Over All<\/em> this month. This ministry is nothing without the Lord and without his gifted writers, so thank you for writing. And dear reader, thank you for taking time to entrust to us your eyes and ears. May these resources serve the church\u2014both now and for generations to come. The longform essays from this past month are in bold below, along with all of the other articles and podcasts we produced.<\/p>\n