A Roadmap for Reforming the ERLC

There are some things that are certain to elicit strong opinions among Southern Baptists. Hymnals versus projectors. Preferred Bible translations. Proper potluck etiquette.

However, few topics are more polarizing than the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention. Opinions about the ERLC often cluster into two camps. On one hand, there are those who would settle for nothing less than abolishing the ERLC in its entirety. On the other hand, there are those who dismiss any criticism of the entity as political attacks from “outrage artists and grievance grifters.”

Before the Lord called me to full-time pastoral ministry, I was a corporate executive specializing in leading turnarounds for organizations that had lost the confidence of their stakeholders. In this article, I will apply that turnaround playbook to the ERLC. First, I will answer two critical questions: (1) Is the ERLC worth fixing, and (2) does the ERLC need to be fixed? From there, I will present several key reforms necessary for the ERLC to regain the confidence of the churches it serves.

Two Critical Questions About the ERLC

Before charting a course for an organizational turnaround, two fundamental questions must be answered: is the organization worth fixing, and does the organization need to be fixed? If the answer to either (or both) of these questions is no, then it is not worth expending the precious time and treasure that a turnaround requires.

Is the ERLC Worth Fixing?

This first question is existential—there is little sense in attempting to resuscitate something that was never a good idea to begin with. For instance, when Juicero (a company that sold a $700 WiFi-enabled juicer) went out of business, nearly everyone agreed that the company was based on an absurd premise from the outset. It only makes sense to try to fix something if it is worth fixing.

Many who share my concerns about the ERLC have concluded that abolishing the entity in its entirety is the only acceptable path forward. I understand this position. However, I still believe that the ERLC, at least on paper, is a good idea. The path to reformation will not be easy, but the potential for what the ERLC (or an entity like the ERLC) could be remains compelling.

The Southern Baptist Convention is founded on the theological conviction that autonomous local churches can and should voluntarily cooperate when doing so would most effectively direct the energies of our members. In other words, we can do some things better together.

For example, a local church can certainly send missionaries overseas without help from other churches; however, cooperating to send gospel workers to the ends of the earth is wise stewardship. Similarly, working together to provide retirement and insurance benefits for our church staff (GuideStone) or to educate our pastors (the seminaries) present remarkable economies of scale.

The case for the ERLC, however, goes beyond mere efficiency. It’s not so much that the ERLC allows us to do certain things more cost-effectively. Rather, it allows us to do certain things that we could not do on our own. It has also done many things—good things—that local churches should not do, lest they deviate from their primary task of making disciples.^[1]

1. On the history of the ERLC and precursors, see Tom Nettles’ Christ Over All Interview, along with his written essays (part one and part two).

For better or for worse, numbers matter when it comes to making our voices heard. Of course, individual Christians and local churches can (and should) engage in matters of public theology. However, when we consider such things on a national scale, it is challenging to gain a hearing in the halls of power where such messages must be proclaimed to effect change. Lawmakers, corporations, and powerful institutions can easily brush aside the concerns of a single church, but it is much harder to ignore the millions of voters (and consumers) that make up the largest Protestant body in the country.

If we believe that every Christian has an obligation to make the will of Christ supreme in society, and if we acknowledge that there is strength in numbers when advocating for Christian morality in the public square, then it becomes clear that the ERLC is an idea laden with potential for good. As such, I don’t think we should discard the ERLC as an inherently flawed idea—instead, it is something worth trying to fix.

Does the ERLC Need to be Fixed?

If the ERLC is an organization that ought to exist, the next question we must answer is whether a change in direction is warranted. As the old saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” If everything is peachy with the ERLC, it would not make sense to embark on a turnaround effort.

Many Southern Baptists are of the opinion that somewhere along the way, the idea of the ERLC that looks so good on paper went awry in practice. I won’t rehash the criticisms that others have made regarding the ERLC’s mission drift, financial secrecy, advocacy for mosques, divisiveness, or political advocacy. Needless to say, the ERLC has its share of critics.

At the 2024 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in Indianapolis,Tom Ascol made a motion to abolish the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.^[2] The fact that such a motion was made (yet again) was not particularly surprising, nor was it unexpected that the motion failed to pass. However, what was notable is that the motion failed by a smaller margin than in previous years. Although the ERLC was not disbanded in 2024, the messengers’ sentiment is not trending in a positive direction.^[3]

However, it is not just the critics of the ERLC who acknowledge that change is needed. Even Brent Leatherwood, the current President of the ERLC, has acknowledged that the results of the vote at the 2024 annual meeting “weren’t just disappointing, they were unacceptable.” So, the ERLC is both worth saving and desperately needs to be fixed. Where do we go from here?

It would be a mistake to interpret the fact that the motion fell short of the 50% necessary to pass as any sort of referendum of support for the ERLC. We must acknowledge that SBC messengers are generally hesitant to take actions that might be viewed as adversarial towards those on the platform, as well as the so-called 11th commandment (“thou shalt not criticize an SBC entity leader”). We must also consider that, sadly, many messengers are unenthusiastic about spending time on the “business” part of our business meeting. Given such dynamics, the surprising number of votes cast to abolish the entity should be viewed as a significant problem for the ERLC. The ERLC cannot perform its core function of representing the voice of Southern Baptists in the public square when a material number of Southern Baptists have explicitly stated that the ERLC does not speak for them.

Six Suggested Reforms

I don’t believe the ERLC is so far gone that it cannot be saved. So, in the spirit of bringing solutions to problems, I am proposing six concrete reforms that would set the ERLC on a better path.

1. Ensure that the Entity Looks to the Churches for its Positions

The Organization Manual of the Southern Baptist Convention explains the relationship between the various entities of the Southern Baptist Convention and the churches that make up the convention as follows:

“The charge assigned to each entity is founded upon the conviction that the entities of the Convention exist to serve the churches, their ministries, and mission.”

Within this same document, we read that the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission is to “represent Southern Baptists in communicating the moral and ethical positions of the Southern Baptist Convention to the public and to public officials.”

These descriptions of the entity and its mission are a critical starting point for our project of reformation. The entity has been charged with communicating, not determining, the positions of our churches. Pastors have not outsourced the work of bringing Scripture to bear on the moral issues of our day to a brain trust in Nashville, where the ERLC has its headquarters. When the ERLC speaks, it must speak on behalf of the churches that it represents. The cooperating churches of the SBC have agreed upon documents such as the Baptist Faith and Message and specific resolutions adopted in annual meetings. The ERLC’s assignment is to advocate for these positions in the public square—not to rethink, reshape, edit, or add to what the messengers have agreed upon.

Much of the unease regarding the ERLC has come from the entity advocating for positions where there hasn’t been an agreed-upon consensus within the convention. One recent example was when ERLC President Brent Leatherwood, speaking on behalf of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, praised Joe Biden’s announcement not to seek re-election as a “selfless act.” Leatherwood had no mandate to make such a statement on behalf of Southern Baptists. There was no reason for Leatherwood to believe that his statements represented the views of the convention—in fact, the Associated Press reported that SBC President Clint Presley was among the many Southern Baptists who belittled the idea that Biden acted on principle. Sadly, this was not the first time an ERLC President has taken it upon himself to present his own views as if they were the position of the Southern Baptist Convention.

If the ERLC is to fulfill the responsibility it has been given by SBC churches, it must embrace its charge to communicate (rather than determine) the moral and ethical positions of SBC churches.

As part of this reform, the ERLC should take a more focused, disciplined approach in which things the entity gets involved. There’s a well-known axiom in strategic planning—the most crucial decision is saying no to important things so that you can focus your attention on the most important things. This is the only way an organization stays on mission. No organization can do everything, and an organization the size of the ERLC cannot get involved in every issue discussed in the public square. The ERLC must look to the churches that it represents for direction on what issues we want to be addressed and what positions we want to be advocated.

Such a change involves rethinking how the ERLC gets direction from SBC churches. Public policy is ever-evolving; not every situation can wait for a resolution to be voted on during our annual meeting. Furthermore, the resolution system is often inadequate for conveying the positions and priorities of the messengers. For example, just because the messengers passed a resolution in 2022 affirming Ukraine’s right to self-defense does not necessarily mean that we wanted the ERLC in 2024 to urge Congress to send another $61 billion in U.S. taxpayer money to continue funding the war. Similarly, just because the messengers approved a single resolution in 2014 condemning payday lending does not necessarily mean that we expect the ERLC to make this one of the top legislative priorities eleven years later in 2025.^[4]

4. Please don’t misunderstand my point. I am not arguing for or against the merits of giving military aid to Ukraine or ending payday lending. Rather, I am pointing out that the ERLC’s advocacy in the former case exceeds what the resolution states, and in the latter case, it does not seem to rise to the level of a top priority for Southern Baptists.

Even with these challenges, it is not an insurmountable problem for the ERLC to better align with the will of the messengers. In 2025, the technology exists for an entity like the ERLC to quickly and efficiently poll its constituents on breaking issues, asking the churches that make up the convention to give timely direction on whether we want the ERLC to engage and, if so, what we want our message to be.^[5] These technology solutions would also allow the ERLC to ask for relative prioritization of their efforts, acknowledging that the entity cannot do everything. Corporations have figured out ways to gain feedback from millions of customers, and there are a number of reasonably priced technologies that the ERLC could implement to meet this need. The entity can and should develop a proposal for implementing such a system and present it to the messengers for approval at the next annual meeting.

5. In early 2025 the ERLC sent out a survey asking Southern Baptists to indicate priorities. This should be recognized as a positive step in the right direction.

2. Advocate Without Apology or Nuance

As mentioned earlier, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission’s ministry assignment includes communicating the moral and ethical positions of Southern Baptist Churches. Where a clear mandate exists, the ERLC should unapologetically advocate on behalf of the churches it represents.

In practice, it can seem at times that the ERLC edits our positions to make them less controversial. Rather than advocating for the positions of SBC churches without apology, the ERLC appears to sand off the rough edges to be as inoffensive as possible.

For example, the messengers of the SBC passed a resolution stating that “the murder of preborn children is a crime against humanity that must be punished equally under the law.” Whether or not the employees of the ERLC personally agree with that position is irrelevant—the charge that the churches of the SBC have given to the ERLC is to advocate for this position, not to soften it to make it more palatable or politically expedient.

One of the drivers behind this behavior might be a case of mistaken identity. In ERLC materials, the entity often refers to itself as “Missionaries to the Public Square.” Of course, we should expect the employees of every SBC entity to look for opportunities to share the hope of the gospel with those they interact with during their work. Evangelism is something that every Christian ought to do. But we must correctly understand the nature of our vocations. As it is said, “The Christian shoemaker does his Christian duty not by putting little crosses on the shoes but by making good shoes.”^[6] The ERLC has been given a specific job to do, and the focus of the entity (as an entity) should be fulfilling the charge it has been given to the glory of Christ, even as the individual employees (as Christians) seek to share the gospel with those in their spheres of influence.^[7]

Despite how it conceives of itself, the ERLC was not created to serve as a missions board to Washington, DC. When an organization misunderstands its identity, misapplied tactics soon follow. Perhaps this is why so many Southern Baptists view the ERLC’s messaging in the public square to be, “Don’t worry, we aren’t like those other Southern Baptists.” It often seems that positions of the Southern Baptist Convention that are culturally unpopular are downplayed, and the positions that happen to be culturally acceptable are emphasized. Such an approach is contrary to what we have charged the ERLC to do, which is to represent the moral and ethical positions of the Southern Baptist Convention whether or not those positions are popular.

It is instructive to consider what many have called the “vibe shift” that occurred in the public square in the latter half of 2024. Suddenly, things everyone knew but were afraid to say (like, “men can’t become women”) are safe to say again. Strikingly, the neutral-world tactics of the ERLC seem woefully antiquated and misguided. Rather than adopting a conciliatory or mediating tone, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention should assume the center. Rather than making our views palatable to the progressive gaze, the ERLC should advocate for the positions of Southern Baptists as if our views regarding life, sexuality, marriage, human dignity, and religious freedom are self-evidently true, and engage the conversation without qualification or apology.

I would also challenge the ERLC to think beyond Washington, DC. We cannot ignore the fact that one of the most seismic shifts in free religious expression in decades came not as a result of amicus briefs but because the editors of a satire website had Elon Musk on their podcast. Similarly, Alliance Defending Freedom has filed 68 shareholder resolutions, including a resolution that will be voted on at Apple’s annual shareholder meeting that addresses religious freedom. ADF also helped lead a campaign by shareholders of Costco, Walmart, Kroger, Albertsons, and McKesson urging the companies not to carry abortion drugs in their pharmacies.^[8] My point is that the ERLC’s charge to advocate for the moral positions of Southern Baptist Churches must expand beyond Washington, DC, to include the centers of power in Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and elsewhere.

8. It is encouraging that The SBC entity GuideStone has partnered with Alliance Ddefending Freedom on this effort.

To reform the ERLC, the leaders, employees, and trustees must begin thinking of the entity not as missionaries, but as heralds—delivering the message of the ones who sent them clearly and without compromise.

3. Focus on Equipping, not Steering, SBC Churches

One common critique of the ERLC is that rather than influencing the world on behalf of churches, the ERLC seems to try to influence churches on behalf of the world. Whether or not ERLC leadership agrees that this critique is accurate, they must consider why it is that many believe it to be true.

Consider the following scenario: Imagine you were an elder of a Southern Baptist Church years ago during the Covid pandemic. One of your church members has been told by their employer that they must take the COVID-19 vaccine or they will lose their job. Your church member, after much prayer, searching the Word, and listening to counsel from you and your fellow elders, is convinced that taking the vaccine would violate their conscience. As a shepherd accountable for watching over their soul, you determine that this is a Romans 14:23 issue and that for this church member to take the vaccine would be a sin against their conscience.

You seek to give direction to this church member, and you recall that your church gives money to the SBC, which includes an entity charged with helping Southern Baptists advocate for their religious liberty. And so, full of optimism, you direct this church member to the ERLC website.

Here’s what your church member finds:

• A podcast where the president of the ERLC interviews Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, in which concerns about the vaccine are dubbed misinformation.
• An explainer quoting Francis Collins as saying that refusing the vaccine is “not the Christian answer, that’s not loving our neighbors.”
• An article arguing, “Because we follow a Savior who willingly laid down His life for us . . . we can experience the same joy as we set aside our preferences and desires and [take the vaccine] for the good of those around us.”
• A podcast arguing that if Christians are truly pro-life, they will take the vaccine.
• An article urging churches to become vaccination sites for the Black community because “while many members of the Black community mistrust medical institutions, they retain trust in the church.”
• An article discouraging employees from seeking religious exemptions, arguing that 1 Corinthians 6:20 “includes acknowledging the mounting evidence to the safety of vaccines” and “contemplating the risks in refusing [vaccines], not only to oneself but also to one’s neighbor.”

I could go on, but I trust that you get the point. This example illustrates a broader pattern in which the ERLC appoints itself as the conscience of the SBC and tries to steer Southern Baptists into adopting the commission’s particular convictions.

It should be uncontroversial to state that two historical Baptist distinctives are freedom of conscience and local church autonomy. These two bedrock principles of Baptist theology must be integrated into how the ERLC goes about its work in equipping churches. The ERLC has no right to bind believers’ consciences or to compel them to violate their conscience on issues where Scripture isn’t clear. While it is true that one’s conscience can be misinformed, it is the role of the local church—both its elders and fellow members—to exhort and correct individual Christians. If the ERLC takes on such a role, it oversteps its boundaries in a decidedly un-Baptist way.

A reformed ERLC must come alongside churches rather than try to steer them toward the entity’s preferred positions. The ERLC must respect freedom of conscience in areas where the Bible and the Baptist Faith and Message are silent.

What would this look like? To return to our previous example, when our hypothetical church member visited the ERLC website, they should have been presented with tools and resources for defending their religious liberty in their workplace. Rather than articles attempting to guilt them into foregoing their God-given and constitutionally protected freedom of conscience, the church member should have been equipped with sample religious exemption letters, guidance on how and when to invoke such protections, and help for those whose religious freedom was being impinged upon. The ERLC should provide such resources, trusting that the pastors of local SBC churches will shepherd individual Southern Baptists through the question of whether or not to use them.

In short, the ERLC must refrain from viewing itself as the conscience of the convention and instead take the role of a helpful resource. Southern Baptists have charged the ERLC with defending the religious freedom of Southern Baptists, not to convince us to set said freedoms aside to make government agencies happy. The ERLC must operate in a manner that respects the local church’s autonomy and the individual believer’s conscience.

4. Operate with Unquestionable Transparency and Integrity

Transparency and organizational integrity are prominent in our cultural zeitgeist, as the newly instated Department of Government Efficiency has brought to light numerous examples of waste and corruption. As Christians, we should both welcome and lead the way in such things.

The call for transparency and integrity has also reached the Southern Baptist Convention. Efforts toward financial transparency that were previously stymied by procedural maneuvers have gained a momentum that is hard to ignore. Southern Baptists have previously been told by convention leaders that “the world is watching”—now it is the messengers’ turn to use this phrase. Out of fear of the Lord and a desire to protect the reputation of Christ, SBC leaders ought to operate in a way that even outsiders would admit is above reproach,

Entity leaders and trustees must aim higher than “we are as transparent as the messengers demand us to be.” Of all the entities, the leaders and the trustees of the ERLC should lead the way in transparency and integrity, as the very mission of the entity depends on it.^[9]

9. For more on the need for transparency in the ERLC and all the SBC, see Rhett Burns, “Transparency, Trust, and the Great Commission: It’s Time to Open the Books of the ERLC (and SBC),” Christ Over All, March 18, 2025.

Consider again the mission of the ERLC. The ERLC is the entity that Southern Baptists send into the public square on our behalf to advocate for our positions on moral and ethical matters. To perform this task, the ERLC must be impeccable in their worldly dealings to make clear to all that they cannot be bought, steered, or influenced by outside interests. I am reminded of Eliot Ness, as portrayed in the movie The Untouchables, which told the true story behind capturing Chicago gangster Al Capone. Ness assembled a group of law enforcement agents known as the Untouchables—because they were known by all to be incorruptible. When the ERLC goes to the public square to advocate on behalf of the Southern Baptist Convention, it should be an undisputable fact that these men cannot be bought, flattered, or otherwise coerced into adopting positions that contradict the moral positions of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Transparency must become a foundational aspect of the ERLC’s culture. Some supporters of the ERLC might point to the Frequently Asked Questions page on the ERLC website. Does not the detailed answers to questions about finances prove that a culture of transparency already exists? That’s a fair question, and one that needs a fair answer. I believe that both the context and the content of that page show that it is an artifact from a damage control campaign, not evidence of a culture of transparency.

The real answer probably has something to do with the timing. According to the Internet Archive, the ERLC FAQ page was first published on July 29, 2024, the day before Megan Basham’s best-selling book Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda was published. For those who have not read Shepherds for Sale, you can catch up on the book’s argument by listening to the Christ Over All podcast, where David Schrock and Trent Hunter interviewed Megan Basham.^[10]

10. According to a query of the Kindle edition of Shepherds for Sale, the ERLC is mentioned 51 times and various ERLC leaders are mentioned by name over 100 times. One can get a sense of how the ERLC is discussed in the book by reviewing this transcript of a speech given by Megan Basham at a 2024 event hosted by Founders Ministries and the Center for Baptist Leadership.

The relevance to the ERLC website update—dated to (cor)respond to Megan Basham’s book—is significant, because the financial questions are clearly aimed to address her concerns. And by comparison to previous iterations of the FAQ page, they reveal that without Basham’s findings there would be no financial transparency on the ERLC website.

In all, the ERLC’s FAQ is certainly better than silence, but we should not confuse a culture of transparency with an 11th-hour damage control webpage in response to bad press. A public relations campaign reacting to unflattering information being made public is not true transparency. To use an illustration: I doubt you would be lauding your child for their truthfulness if they confessed to not brushing their teeth only after you discovered that their toothbrush was dry and their teeth were covered with chocolate.

The ERLC must create a culture that proactively models transparency and integrity. Practically, this includes fleeing even the appearance of evil. The ERLC must adopt a policy that radically limits money received from outside the Southern Baptist Convention. If the ERLC believes a proposed new initiative is essential to fulfilling its charge, its leaders should attempt to make it work within the existing budget or make the case to the messengers for more funding.

If the ERLC’s leaders believed, for example, that holding a conference honoring Martin Luther King was essential, then the entity should have sought funding from Southern Baptists. Instead, the ERLC took money from The Democracy Fund, an organization funded by a liberal billionaire who follows the teachings of the Dalai Lama. Likewise, if the ERLC felt that studying healthy political discourse was necessary, they should have appealed to the convention for funding rather than taking money from the New Age Fetzer Institute.

Currently, the ERLC’s position on taking outside funds from explicitly non-Christian organizations is that it’s not that much money, and the trustees keep an eye on things. Frankly, such responses miss the point. Whether it is one dollar or one million, and whether these outside donors gain influence or not, the very act of taking outside money from organizations that explicitly disagree with the views of Southern Baptists undermines the credibility of the ERLC. Taking money from unbelieving billionaires, even if done in a perfectly innocent way, is a bad idea. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and a number of progressive organizations have stated that gaining influence among evangelicals is part of their strategy.^[11] Additionally, such actions raise legitimate concerns from those in the pews whose tithes and offerings fund the Southern Baptist Convention.

11. For example, the Acrus Foundation has given millions of dollars in grants to faith-based organizations in order to “create and disseminate accurate and positive narratives about LGBTQ people” and “counter the narratives of religious-based opponents” to the LGBTQ movement.

Financial transparency and limiting outside funding are among the most significant reforms that the ERLC needs to undertake. The ERLC must adopt policies that radically limit outside funds. Such policies should include the following:

• Before accepting outside funding for a specific initiative, the ERLC must demonstrate that the messengers have explicitly tasked the ERLC with this work.
• The trustees of the ERLC should hold leadership accountable for working within the existing budget as a matter of basic stewardship and effective management.
• If additional funding is absolutely necessary, the ERLC must first make the case to the convention. If the convention is unable or unwilling to fund it, the ERLC must look next to organizations willing to publicly affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM2000).
• The ERLC may solicit outside funds for a specific initiative only once it has publicly documented that (1) the initiative is essential to the work that they have been charged with performing and (2) there is no way to fund the initiative from existing budgets or though new money given by the convention or other organizations that affirm the BFM2000.
• The ERLC trustees should take a more cautious approach to external funding. The trustees should view outside funding (especially from organizations that will not affirm the BFM2000) as only allowable under exceptional circumstances. The trustees should hold the President of the ERLC accountable for working within the entity’s budget without relying on outside donors.
• The ERLC should publish a schedule listing all outside funding from organizations that do not affirm the BFM2000 and make such information available to every cooperating Southern Baptist Church. If taking outside money is unavoidable, let it at least be done in broad daylight.

In addition to financial transparency, the ERLC must commit to organizational integrity. While this is something that every entity must strive for, because of the ERLC’s unique role in serving as the voice of the convention, the governance of the ERLC must be above reproach.

Practically, this means rethinking how the trustees of the ERLC operate. The ERLC should abandon the practice of having an inner circle within the trustees that is given access to information not available to other trustees.^[12] The trustees of the ERLC should adopt an equal access policy in which every trustee has equal access to information regarding the entity’s finances and the compensation of its leaders.

12. See Section 3.04. Executive Committee  and Section 6.02. Administrative and Finance Committee of the ERLC Bylaws.

The ERLC should also commit to ensuring that the trustees are genuinely put in a position of oversight. To be frank, the circumstances surrounding the July 2024 firing and un-firing of ERLC President Brent Leatherwood have not been sufficiently explained, creating the perception among many Southern Baptists that the trustees are not empowered to provide accountability to the entity. The publicly available facts paint a concerning picture in which one might conclude that the trustees are accountable to the President, and not vice versa. The ERLC board of trustees must adopt policies that prevent such a situation from recurring.

As the entity entrusted to represent Southern Baptists in the public square, the ERLC must demonstrate transparency and organizational integrity. Such an approach is not just the right thing to do; it is a necessary imperative. Who would listen to a voice for Christian morality that doesn’t practice what it preaches?

5. Adopt a More Conservative Disposition

Southern Baptists, as a group, tend to be conservative in both our theology and our cultural outlook. This should hardly be a controversial statement—our emphasis on a literal interpretation of the Bible, core doctrines like the authority of Scripture, and upholding Biblical views on marriage, family, sexuality, life, and justice are central to our Southern Baptist identity. It is worth noting that our debates are most often framed not as conservatives vs. liberals, but rather conservatives vs. moderates. Even when someone speaks in opposition to the so-called conservative faction of the SBC, you can depend on them beginning their remarks with, “I’m as conservative as the next guy, but . . .”

Oftentimes, the ERLC seems out of sync with the conservative leanings of the Southern Baptist Convention. Some of the positions that the ERLC has taken on illegal immigration, gun control, race relations, and criminal justice have seemed foreign to the churches that the entity purports to represent.

If you don’t believe me, ask yourself this: when was the last time the ERLC caused controversy within the SBC by doing something viewed as too conservative? A related question: why is it that so many former ERLC leaders, staffers, research fellows, and close collaborators, soon after they leave the entity, go on to endorse positions that are significantly more liberal than the views of the Southern Baptist Convention? While not an explicit mission of the ERLC, it should have a track record of sending out staffers to build up other conservative institutions. Unfortunately, a quick google search will reveal mixed results.

From the outside looking in, therefore, it seems that the culture of the ERLC is less conservative than the convention as a whole. To represent the positions of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, the ERLC must better represent the conservative disposition of the churches it has been asked to represent. The entity should take steps to become a place where stalwart conservatives have a home. Such steps could include taking a critical eye to the ERLC’s hiring and employee retention practices, as well as asking hard questions like, “Is Nashville (described as “the San Francisco of Tennessee”) truly the best location for the ERLC offices?” Finally, the ERLC should take the crucial step of engaging with their conservative critics instead of dismissing them.

6. Take a Hard Look at Leadership

In my pre-ministry career, I discovered over the course of two decades that leadership is the one factor that best predicts whether an organizational turnaround will be successful or not. Organizations with humble leaders willing to listen to critics and deal with problems head-on stand a good chance of surviving the transformation. Organizations with leaders who dig in their heels, deny anything is wrong, and lash out at critics are almost always doomed to fail.

When an organization loses the trust of a significant segment of its stakeholders, a leader can do one of two things: listen to their critics’ concerns with humility or dismiss the critics as malcontents.

I was greatly disappointed when I read in a 2024 Associated Press article that ERLC President Brent Leatherwood has chosen the latter. While acknowledging that the results of the vote to disband the ERLC were unacceptable, Leatherwood made clear that he was not interested in engaging with his critics, whom he characterizes as “outrage artists and grievance grifters who will never be on our side, who spin up political attack committees to come and throw bombs at us.” Leatherwood shifted the blame. The issue, as he explains it, is not that something needs to change at the ERLC. Instead, it’s that the churches of the SBC fail to adequately understand the ERLC’s work and fail to recognize that the entity’s work represents “real Baptist leadership.” In other words, the problem is not the ERLC; it’s the ignorance of SBC churches and pastors.

While this approach follows in the footsteps of the last ERLC president, it is an approach that is more akin to self-preservation than leadership.^[13] Leadership acknowledges reality as it is. Leadership cares about all stakeholders, not just supporters and sycophants. Leadership humbly admits mistakes. Leadership doesn’t plug its ears in the face of criticism but listens intently out of a desire to do better.

13. On the series of unfortunate events that led to the baton shifting from Russell Moore to Brent Leatherwood, see Tom Nettles, “A Century-long Look at the Southern Baptist Commissions on Ethics (Part 2)” Christ Over All, March 17, 2025.

Christian leaders, especially, should be the first to admit mistakes and give criticisms a fair hearing. The Christian faith begins with the premise that we are so bad that it took the Son of God dying on a cross to deal with how bad we are. Criticism should not undo us. For whatever a critic says about us, we know that worse things can truthfully be said. Yet, whatever our failures and shortcomings, those who are in Christ know that we have a Savior who has already paid for our sins. Because of this, Christian leaders should be quick to repent, resting in the grace of Jesus Christ, in whom there is no condemnation.

If the ERLC is to be reformed, it must be led by a man willing to take ownership and not make excuses. The ERLC needs a leader who views critical feedback as a gift, not as a bomb being lobbed his way. The leader must be transparent and humble and lead the organization to repent when it has gone astray.

I take no pleasure in proposing this last reform. I have no reason to doubt that Brent Leatherwood loves the Lord, leads his family well, and is a faithful churchman.^[14] I wish him no personal ill-will and I am sure we could have many mutually edifying conversations. I love Brent Leatherwood as a brother in Christ. And with love, if the ERLC is to be saved, it will take a different leader to save it.

14. Editor’s note: Before and during this month, we have received testimony to these very things. And Christ Over All has attempted to avoid all unnecessary ad hominem arguments.

A Call for Reformation

It will come as no surprise when a motion is made at a future SBC Annual Meeting to abolish the ERLC. And if nothing changes, it is a matter of when, and not if, one of these motions passes. Should that day come, it will be a sad day for the Southern Baptist Convention and, dare I say, a sad day for our world.

As Christians, we are called to love our neighbors—to seek the shalom of the place where we live during this earthly exile. Out of love for our neighbors, we should desire that they live in a place where good is encouraged, evil is restrained, humans flourish, and the gospel can be freely proclaimed and believed.

For all of the problems that the ERLC has, the idea that 47,000 churches comprising almost 13,000,000 members can cooperate to make Christ’s will supreme in our society is an idea worth fighting for.

I remain convinced that the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention is worth saving. It will not be easy, and at times it will be painful. A successful turnaround is not guaranteed. But with God’s help, I believe it can be done—and we should at least try.