Having grown up as the child of an Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) staffer and having served as an ERLC Trustee for eight years, I’ve witnessed the Commission’s transition from a Nashville-based ethics group to a Southern Baptists’ public policy voice.
While the ERLC has notable achievements—such as its role in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) and the Nashville Statement (2017)—recent trends suggest its controversies are growing. At the 2024 SBC Annual Meeting, nearly 40% of messengers voted to abolish the ERLC.
No SBC entity has ever lost so much messenger support and survived without fundamental reorganization or reform.
Have we, the Convention, given the ERLC an assignment that produces division and anger? Can it produce unity for a Cooperative Program missions and education effort? I have spent my time as an ERLC Trustee seeking to uphold the best possible version of the Messengers’ assignments. But it is time for a fresh assessment of the modern experiment.
I see three recurring issues at the heart of messenger anger:
1. Unbiblical Political Theology: The legacy of Russell Moore’s ‘Kingdom consensus’ has fostered a vague political inclusiveness that undermines clear doctrinal distinctions, resulting in division rather than unity.
2. Uncertainty About Success: Without clear metrics, it is difficult for Trustees to distinguish between active engagement and effectiveness. Whenever success is unclear, so is failure.
3. Unauthorized Statements: The ERLC often speaks to the public beyond its mandate, representing positions the SBC has not adopted, which further fractures unity.
1. Unbiblical Political Theology
A key issue today is the problem of unbiblical political theology in the SBC — a legacy of former ERLC President Russell Moore. Moore’s attempt to craft a ‘Kingdom consensus’ failed because it avoided taking a clear stand on policy matters that required one. The result only deepens our divisions by imposing a vague, muddied, politically inclusive program in search of an “evangelical witness.”
Until this ‘Kingdom consensus’ is rejected, this unbiblical political theology will divide us.
A key to understanding today’s mess is Moore’s doctoral thesis, published in 2004 as The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective. In it, Moore claimed that a new “Kingdom consensus” among evangelicals offered “a renewed theological foundation for evangelical engagement in the social and political realms.”[1] “Gospel centrality” was a kind of glue that could overcome divergent views of almost any kind—whether cultural, political, or denominational.
1. Russell Moore, The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), publisher’s description.
In hindsight, the idea was a ruinous failure. Moore failed to develop the necessary theological tools for assessing political outcomes. In the conclusion to the book, he asserts that the “emerging evangelical consensus” would succeed where Progressivism had failed, because the new evangelicals recognized that “the disparate traditions are based on partial truths,” and “unlike Rauschenbusch . . . evangelical theology did not start with a social or political agenda, and then seek to find a theology to fit it.”[2]
2. Russell Moore, The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 177.
A conservative reader might assume that a gospel foundation would have avoided the Social Gospel entirely. But Moore was stating that Rauschenbusch’s politics might have succeeded with better theological foundation.
Instead of contradicting the Social Gospel, Moore’s Kingdom was a roadmap to Social Gospel 2.0.
Without critical theological foundations, Moore’s project collapsed. It made “good progressives”—those on the political left—a necessary part of a “gospel witness,” even at the expense of concrete results wherein success could be measured. Under such a system, the value of, say, the fall of Roe v. Wade is hard to quantify, since it was mostly a victory for all Evangelicals. In contrast, for Moore, a movement without evangelical progressives was obvious ‘proof’ of “politics” above “gospel witness.”
Thus, Moore and his disciples continually hunt for imaginary “orthodox evangelicals” with modern liberal politics. They venerate Jimmy Carter, a Democrat who claimed Baptist faith but refused to use his role to counter Roe v. Wade, so called gay marriage, and female pastors. They praise “evangelical” scientist Francis Collins who does not affirm a historical Adam. They lament any break with “social justice” proponents who claim a Gospel motivation. A political version of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” became the test for whether a Christian is meets the requirements of a proper “evangelical witness.”
Moore’s political theology is not limited to Moore. It has many disciples in Evangelical institutions.
Andrew Walker recently criticized “Our Confession of Evangelical Conviction” a statement signed by Dr. Moore, Beth Moore, Richard Mouw, and a who’s who of the Evangelical left. Walker observed:
This statement seems to assume that the gospel is the solution to political fracture. It is and isn’t. That sounds controversial, but stay with me. . . . Yes, I need my political foe to ultimately understand that Christ is Lord. But I also need my political foe defeated if they’re wrong with regard to the substance of what politics is and political morality requires: political justice done to procure and advance the institutions of creation order necessary for the common good.
The gospel can unite political foes if and only if the one who has the wrong political morality has his error rectified in light of Christ. Until a political foe stops opposing God’s authority over creation order, he is indeed a political foe, and power should be wielded against him so he can stop doing harm.
As Walker sees correctly, Moore was actually in conflict with historic, Baptist theology. The Baptist Faith & Message calls us to cooperate on ends, not just intentions (See Article XIV in the Baptist Faith & Message [2000]).
An ERLC captive to Russell Moore’s failed political theology will perpetually remain in conflict with Southern Baptists.
2. Uncertainty About a Vision of Success
Another challenge in the ERLC is the lack of clear metrics for success. Trustees struggle to distinguish between mere activity and true influence, leading to ongoing debates about whether the ERLC’s actions are effective or merely divisive.
My own understanding of a “successful” ERLC is one that meaningfully advances Baptist political theology and ethics in the public square, consistent with its assignments, in a way that protects and encourages the Cooperative efforts of Southern Baptists.
Few SBC pastors and laymen have a practical background in government or politics. Membership in a local church provides much of the education necessary to judge seminaries and missions agencies’ mission fidelity.
But few churches equip members to judge policy efforts. Trustees can tell that staff are busy and earnest. But how do they know when that activity is effective? There are many meetings in Washington, but do they get things done? Is the ERLC invited to draft legislation, or merely asked to support it? Are the hand-stamped ERLC letters read by a Congressmen before his staffer puts them in the trash? If we lack influence in Washington, is it because of our uncompromising stand, or have we pursued irrelevant strategies?
As I explained above, Dr. Moore’s theology sought to frustrate a lopsided, conservative evangelical consensus. As Southern Baptist professor Hunter Baker observed: “Every evangelical org[anization] should think carefully whether they want to drift into something like the role of the old Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, which basically existed to protect America from conservative Christians. The secular progressives are already on it.” Under Moore, protecting “the gospel” from too much conservatism was seen as its own success, even when it frustrated goals supported by the majority of Baptists.
This frustration of larger Convention goals runs contrary to the Baptist belief in democratic congregationalism. The beliefs of the (conservative) majority became suspect and dangerous, unless that majority included progressives.
One might hope that an almost 40% vote to abolish the ERLC is an unmistakable signal. But in response, you are likely to hear a now-familiar quote from the modern ERLC’s founder, Dr. Richard Land. He repeated it to RNS recently: “[Land] would often remind his staff that if they did their job right, they’d eventually end up in hot water. ‘Sooner or later, we’re going to make everyone in the Convention mad.’”
So, far from being a warning sign, making “everyone in the Convention mad”—100% opposition!—can be spun as evidence that the ERLC “did their job right.” A few leaders have reasoned themselves out of this circle, but it maintains a potent talking point.
As long as “success” and “failure” in public policy remain fuzzy and abstract concepts, the ERLC will continue to divide the SBC.
3. Unauthorized Statements for SBC Churches
A further concern is that the ERLC frequently speaks for the SBC on issues where the Convention has remained silent. Whether addressing conflicts on Ukraine, immigration, or gun control, these statements often extend beyond the narrowly defined mandate of discussing religious liberty and ethical positions. Under current practice, Trustees do not vote on these positions.
The actual “Ministry Assignment” from the SBC to the ERLC might surprise many people. The ERLC has a wide assignment to speak directly with churches; in this role, supporters have sometimes called it the “conscience of the Convention.” But ERLC’s authority to speak to the public and public officials about Southern Baptist beliefs is narrow.
The ERLC’s assignment to speak to the public and public officials is constrained to the area of religious liberty, and “the moral and ethical positions of the Southern Baptist Convention.” If a statement is not about religious liberty, or “the moral and ethical positions of the Southern Baptist Convention,” the ERLC isn’t assigned a representative role.
But it has proven irresistible to put words in the mouths of our churches.
The ERLC often speaks beyond the positions adopted by the SBC. The majority of my fellow Trustees interpret the assignment to allow the ERLC to speak on any issue, so long as it does not unavoidably contradict the positions of the Southern Baptist Convention. This allows the ERLC to speak to the public where the SBC has been silent.
For example, in 2022, Messengers called on Vladimir Putin to “end this war of aggression against Ukraine,” Messengers said nothing about urging the United States to fund Ukraine’s defense. But in 2024, the ERLC told Congressional Leaders that Southern Baptists opposed efforts in Congress to limit funding out of the United States Treasury (echoing Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer’s attack on Republican House Members blaming them for Ukraine’s military losses). Whatever you might think of the US defending Ukraine, the ERLC was not communicating a position taken by the Southern Baptist Convention. The messengers had remained silent on the US taxpayer’s obligation to fund Ukraine.
The same thing has happened repeatedly in the area of immigration. Despite very little immigration legislation passing since the 1980s, “comprehensive” immigration reform is a steady drumbeat in ERLC articles and policy proposals.
Because the ERLC has a privileged role in the SBC’s Resolutions process, messengers have passed multiple resolutions listing, but not balancing, policy goals. Messengers repeatedly affirm that “border security” is a chief priority. The also oppose the separation of families. They support human dignity. They support legal immigration. They support requiring illegal immigrants to pay restitution as a prerequisite to citizenship. But apart from these broad outlines, the Convention takes no position on any particular immigration bill or proposal.
Under current policy, the ERLC staff then decides how to balance these factors for the churches. In 2024, the ERLC staff made a public show of supporting (Baptist) Sen. James Lankford’s “bipartisan” immigration reform proposal. ERLC’s “explainer” said the bill was “in line” with SBC resolutions.[3] Mr. Leatherwood told Baptist Press: “The SBC has been very clear. Reform needs to happen … My understanding is that Sen. Lankford is pushing for that exact combination,” he said.[4]
3. ERLC. “Explainer: Bipartisan Border Proposal Surfaces in U.S. Senate – ERLC,” June 21, 2024.
4. “Immigration Reform, Care for Children Highlight ERLC Policy Agenda, Leatherwood Says | Baptist Press.”
However, the bill was doomed from the start, in part due to opposition from other Baptists, including Speaker Johnson. “The ‘border deal’ is an easy NO. It reads like a parody of an actual border security bill,” then-Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, posted on social media. Again, the Convention clearly took no position on Lankford’s particular bill proposal; the Convention did not agree that Lankford properly prioritized border security. Sen. Rubio and Speaker Johnson’s opposition to the bill had as much support in SBC resolutions as the ERLC’s full-throated approval. But the ERLC once again spoke for the churches where the churches did not speak.
As long as the ERLC speaks for the Convention where the Convention has remained silent, it will continue to divide us.
Conclusion
A trustee’s responsibility is to carry out the Convention’s assignment. But it is a fair time to ask if the “modern” ERLC experiment is working. If our political theology remains divided, letting a few voices set policy only deepens the rift. If our political theology is unified, letting our outliers frustrate progress will bring division, too. We must ask whether we have unwittingly adopted a strategy that tends toward division, not unity.
