In March of this year, David took on Goliath.
Or actually, it was two Davids writing two respective essays—one that raised questions (the first essay by David Schrock) and one that gave solutions (the second essay by David Mitzenmacher)—concerning the conundrum that was, is, and remains to be the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission. Indeed, for the entire month of March, Christ Over All took time to look at the history, the trajectory, and the efficacy of the Southern Baptist entity that has seemingly attacked the messengers with Goliath-like rhetoric (cf. 1 Sam. 17:43a).[1]
1. If this sounds hyperbolic, remember that when Brent Leatherwood was pressed to respond to his critics, he called them “outrage artists and grievance grifters.”
To be most fair, the charge of Goliath does not exactly fit, because our concerns for the ERLC do not put the current leadership in the camp of the seed of the serpent. We don’t deny Brent Leatherwood’s faith in Christ or his sincere desire to serve our Lord. But to be fairly honest, we do believe that enemies of the faith have used the ERLC to advance their progressive politics.[2] And so, while effecting little positive change in places like Washington, D.C., the ERLC has become a source of constant division within the SBC.
2. This has come through participation in things like the Soros-funded Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT) and through conferences like the ERLC-sponsored MLK50, which received $50,000 from the socially progressive Democracy Fund.
In March, we, along with a band of merry keyboard warriors (not grievance grifters), chronicled these frictions in a series of essays that revealed concerns with the ERLC’s woke agenda, support of Muslim mosques, their financial ambiguity, and what the ERLC could be if it were unburdened by what has been. Long story short, Christ Over All made the case that the time has come for the ERLC to be radically reformed. Sadly, because no internal ERLC movement has sought such reform, and because the ERLC has both seeded progressive ideas into churches and lost the trust of many conservative politicians, we are now connecting the articles of March to our actions in June.
In what follows, we want to offer a short argument for why abolishing the ERLC is both good and necessary, and what that will mean if and when messengers vote “YES” for abolishing the ERLC.
What Do We Do in Dallas?
Based on everything we have said and seen, we are calling Southern Baptists to vote to abolish the ERLC, as outlined by Bylaw 25.[3] For our purpose, the word “abolish” may not communicate exactly our intended desire, as it communicates an immediacy that the action doesn’t quite entail. Two consecutive years of majority votes are required to fully abolish the ERLC (more on this below). Likewise, this seemingly harsh action (to abolish the ERLC) has been used by the few who support the ERLC to argue for a more placid plan to reform or repurpose the ERLC.[4] But “abolish” is the proper term and the needed action, because we long for the ERLC to “discontinue” its current ineffective and divisive trajectory.
3. Bylaw 25 (New Enterprises and Abolishing Entities) reads in full: “No new enterprise, involving expenditure of money, shall be authorized by the Convention except upon favorable action by the Convention in two (2) succeeding annual meetings; provided, however, that this restriction shall not apply to a recommendation of an entity of the Convention concerning its own work. No entity shall be discontinued without a majority vote at two (2) successive annual sessions of the Convention.”
4. On the scant support for the ERLC, one might consider (1) the limited number of voices defending the ERLC, (2) the lack of online support for ERLC initiatives, and (3) the lightly attended ERLC event held on June 8, 2025 in Dallas.
Ultimately, what we want is reformation—in the SBC and with the ERLC—but for reasons that are now well documented, the ERLC has demonstrated ongoing disinterest in internal renewal. For instance, after Tom Ascol made the motion to abolish the ERLC in 2024, ERLC President Brent Leatherwood has never sought to take an honest assessment of the problems. Instead, he has ignored the pastors (not godless protestors, mind you) who called him to account, and since March 2025 he has committed himself to series of photo shoots promoting the work of the ERLC. Finally, in preparation for the SBC, the ERLC capped off their PR campaign with a well produced “keep us in business” video.
If only such effort (and cooperative program dollars) could be used to lobby delegates instead of lobbying the Southern Baptists to keep the ERLC. But to no avail. While one might think that last year’s narrow vote to abolish the ERLC would have been a wake-up call, it appears to be treated like a minor nuisance, conjured up by “outrage artists,” who do not understand the supposed great work the ERLC is doing.
To the amazement of those who have raised concerns, the ERLC has carried on with little course correction. No stated repentance. No visible reform. Only business as usual.
To Reform or to Abolish?
Adding to the media campaign, some prominent voices have come out in defense of the ERLC. For instance, ten former SBC presidents—including many who opposed the Law Amendment and led the SBC into the moral and financial quandary of Sex Abuse Reform—have lobbied against this vote. Yet, if you read their letter, they do not deny the need for reform at the ERLC; they simply think that the entity has all it needs to make changes.
As the aforementioned articles demonstrate, our assessment is different. And we are not alone, as many other SBC leaders, including Willy Rice and Albert Mohler, have voiced publicly. Clearly, we are at a make-or-break moment for the SBC, and a positive vote to abolition the ERLC will do one of two things.
First, voting to abolish the ERLC will give the ERLC a scalpel to begin cutting out the cancer that resides in its body politic. If the ERLC took the scalpel and used it skillfully, they could mitigate their demise by making substantial changes (e.g., a new president, new board leadership, a new mission, or some combination of the above). This would be the surgical approach, and for many, this option would be the best. And so, voting for abolition would simply tell the ERLC, the changes must be substantial.
Yet, if such changes are not implemented, and the proffered scalpel is not effective, then the vote for abolition also gives a sledgehammer to the messengers when they arrive in Orlando (in June 2026). At that point, the messengers can make a decision (with another year of evidence) to shutter the entity. Yet, the only way messengers could render such a verdict in 2026 is if the messengers vote for abolition in 2025.
To put it procedurally, a single vote to abolish the ERLC does not eliminate the ERLC in 2025. It doesn’t even defund it. It doesn’t put the ERLC staff out of a job. For all the personal (and personnel) reasons not to vote for abolition, a “YES” vote does not harm any individual. Instead, it is a vote to rigorously pursue organizational health.
Indeed, this is the wisdom of Bylaw 25, that the ERLC (like any SBC entity) has one year to change, before a second vote would shutter them. This means that a “YES” vote would not destroy the ERLC overnight. It would simply put the trustees and leadership on notice: the churches have had enough. Things must change.
Vote to Abolish? Yes!
Whether the scalpel or the sledgehammer is put to use will ultimately be determined by the ERLC, its staff, and its trustees. Yet, what a vote to abolish the ERLC means for the convention is that Southern Baptists are serious about holding entities and their leaders accountable. And more than that, a “YES” vote calls the trustees to excel still more in holding the ERLC to account, which would be the next immediate step if the convention votes “YES” on a motion to abolish the ERLC in 2025.
In the end, all entities should be fulfilling the mission given to them by the messengers, and if the messengers vote to abolish the ERLC this year, then they would not be taking an effective commission offline or hindering the public witness of Southern Baptists. If anything, from the sad reports coming out of Washington, D.C., they would be repairing the reputation of Southern Baptists. And more, they would help Southern Baptists focus on issues that unite us, rather than those that divide us.
For truly, that is our hope and aim with this motion. We pray God would use Bylaw 25 to spur the ERLC on toward love and good deeds. And we pray that by its abolition, or its wholesale reformation, that Southern Baptists would be more effective in the wider culture, as we stand together for Christ and bring his light into all parts of the public square.
