In a statement just posted at ERLC.com, the ERLC trustees address the actions taken by the SBC Executive Committee during Tuesday’s meeting. Full Text Below:
Letter from the ERLC Executive Committee
Feb 20, 2020
Dear Chairman Stone and Members of the Executive Committee,
As convictional and grateful Southern Baptists, we would like to thank every member of the Executive Committee for their service to the Southern Baptist Convention. Our convention is indebted to all who take time to do the unglamorous but vital work of serving on our various boards and committees.
At the same time, as members of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, we write to express our strong opposition to the recent Executive Committee formation of the ERLC study task force. There are several reasons why we believe this task force is unwarranted, divisive, and disrespectful.
1. The Task Force Inappropriately Seizes the Responsibility and Work of the ERLC Trustees
To begin, Chairman Stone’s own statements in Baptist Press regarding this action describe the need for this task force as being based on “reports that are largely anecdotal.” Chairman Stone stated that the task force is “looking for facts . . . we are making a statement about effectiveness.” To be clear, this task force seizes the work and responsibility of the trustees of the ERLC. Evaluating the effectiveness of Dr. Moore and the ERLC team is uniquely the work of the trustees of the ERLC. The appointment of this task force can be taken in no other sense than a vote of no confidence in the ERLC Board of Trustees, which is both insulting and, in our view, inappropriate and out of step with Southern Baptist cooperation.
Furthermore, as we review not only our own ministry assignment but the other Convention-approved ministry assignments, we see that there seems to be an intentional latitude in them so as to allow the work of our various entities to conduct their gospel ministry in ways that meet the demand of the moment. Our question, then, is which aspects or assignments have supposedly been violated such that it could justify a task force? This is all the more confusing to us when, unlike our other entities, virtually every single thing the ERLC does in its day to day ministry is, by necessity, in public view, for any and every Southern Baptist to see and evaluate.
Not only that, but, again, we point to Chairman Stone’s own words in Baptist Press, when he said that this task force is “a formal process by which we can receive information and determine the level that this issue is affecting the Cooperative Program.” But the issue of whether or not the ERLC is adversely affecting giving to the Cooperative Program of the SBC was dealt with in 2017. The CP study created then found that Cooperative Program impact was “not as significant in fact as it is in perception.” By way of reminder, only fourteen churches in our vast convention were estimated to have diverted funds. Rather than create a new study or task force, we believe the wise and appropriate approach is to refer those offering present anecdotal complaints back to the 2017 Executive Committee study findings. Regardless, the entire premise of evaluating the ERLC effect on CP giving is flawed unless one also investigates how many churches have increased their giving because of their enthusiastic support of the work of the ERLC.
2. The Executive Committee Failed to Consult with ERLC Trustees
Further, as we reviewed both the comments by Chairman Stone, as well as the text of the approved motion itself, we were struck in particular by Bylaw 18.E(9):
To maintain open channels of communication between the Executive Committee and the trustees of the entities of the Convention, to study and make recommendations to entities concerning adjustments required by ministry assignments or by established Convention policies and practices, and, whenever deemed advisable, to make recommendations to the Convention. The Executive Committee shall not have authority to control or direct the several boards, entities, and institutions of the convention. This is the responsibility of trustees elected by the Convention and directly accountable to the Convention.
We are curious: At what point did the Executive Committee “maintain open channels of communication between the Executive Committee and [ERLC] trustees” as is the Executive Committee’s obligation under this bylaw? It appears to us that the Executive Committee cites one aspect of a bylaw to justify its action, but defies a critical part of the very same bylaw. Were any of our trustees consulted? If not, why not? Were any of our trustees invited into relevant discussions of this motion? If not, why not?
3. The Executive Committee Inappropriately Formed the Task Force During a Closed-Door Executive Session
More still, it appears that discussion of this motion at both the committee level and in the plenary session was done in executive session. Your Board, of course, has a right to go into executive session, but executive sessions are used most often to protect proprietary, financial, or sensitive information. We believe it was unnecessary and inappropriate for such a divisive move to be deliberated and decided in secrecy.
This is all the more confusing because Dr. Moore gave a presentation to the Cooperative Program Committee during the meeting, after which there was a question and answer session. According to several reports from that session, there were no antagonistic questions and no frustrations expressed whatsoever. If there was enough evidence, confusion, or frustration sufficient to justify the creation of a task force (1) why would none of that been expressed directly to Dr. Moore in public session when there was ample opportunity; and (2) why would the Cooperative Program Committee feel the need to discuss the task force in secrecy the next day?
4. The Task Force Overrules the Will of the Messengers of the SBC.
We also believe that it is critical to point out that every time any question about Dr. Moore’s leadership of the ERLC has come before the convention, the elected messengers at the SBC Annual Meeting have overwhelmingly supported Dr. Moore’s leadership of the ERLC on behalf of Southern Baptists. A motion to defund the ERLC in 2018 was nearly unanimously rejected; the question of the messengers’ support for the ERLC has been asked and answered. If the job of the Executive Committee is to carry on the work and represent the will of the business carried out at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, this task force is doing the very opposite. It is taking the clear, expressed will of the body and calling it into question.
Not only that, but why would present-day anecdotal reports lead the Executive Committee to take an action that creates an undeniable and completely unnecessary culture of suspicion regarding the work and ministry of the ERLC? Is there any reason to think present-day anecdotal reports are any more accurate when anecdotal reports just a few years ago (1) proved not to align with reality, according to the Executive Committee’s own report; and (2) when the messengers have spoken at the Annual Meeting with overwhelming support.
5. We Support Dr. Moore’s Leadership and the ERLC Board of Trustees Will Continue to Hold Him and the ERLC in Trust on Behalf of Southern Baptists
More importantly, as members of the Board that is charged with holding the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission in trust on behalf of our churches, we as members of the ERLC Executive Committee want to be crystal clear in our confidence in Dr. Moore’s leadership and in the effectiveness of the Commission’s ministry. We grieve this task force in part because of the suspicion that it inevitably casts over Dr. Moore’s character. And we are firm in our belief that Dr. Moore’s character, convictions, and theology are both biblical and unimpeachable.
All told, we find the action of the Executive Committee in appointing this ERLC study task force disappointing, unnecessary, and harmful to our cooperative work in the SBC. The Executive Committee, of course, has a financial stewardship, particularly in terms of allocating the resources of the Cooperative Program. But that should not result in a disregard of the clearly-expressed will of the denomination it purports to serve. It should not include a disregard of the very bylaws the Executive Committee is claiming as justification for its action. It should not include a culture of secrecy leading to a committee that unmistakably creates suspicion regarding one of our own entities. It should not include ignoring the directive to “maintain open channels” and instead create hostile channels with what should clearly be first a matter for the ERLC Board of Trustees to consider.
At a time where a unified voice is needed for our cooperative gospel work, the Executive Committee is sowing needless division, treating trustees with disrespect, and spreading suspicion with this unnecessary task force. Even if the appointment of this task force does not violate the letter of the law, the existence of the task force and the process by which it was created unquestionably violates the spirit of friendly cooperation.
All this being the case, we as members of the Executive Committee of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission consider it critical that messengers at the SBC Annual Meeting be given the opportunity to signal whether they agree with the Executive Committee’s action in the creation of this task force. Should messengers approve such a task force, we will be happy to entertain questions. Until then, we are instructing Dr. Moore and the ERLC not to comply with it until messengers have an opportunity to signal their belief that such a task force is appropriate and legitimate.
For Christ and His Kingdom,
David E. Prince, Chairman
Lori Bova, Vice Chairman
Ron Harvey, Secretary
Trevor Atwood, Chairman, Administration and Finance Committee
Michael Wilson, Chairman, Research and Public Policy Committee
Tony Beam, Chairman, Communications Committee
If you have any doubts about the goodwill (or lack thereof) demonstrated by the Executive Committee’s chair – as if going into secret session to establish a task force, make yourself chair and appoint the task force yourself isn’t enough – look at item 3. They had Dr. Moore there for a Q and A. They asked him NO difficult questions and gave him no opportunity to respond to anything.
Then, they ambushed him with this task force.
Is this the way we want the Southern Baptist Convention to operate?
Is this honorable?
This statement does a better job of conveying many of the points I tried to make in my article earlier today. I’m really thankful this trustee Executive Board stood up. There’s no excuse for Mike Stone and the Executive Committee to have acted like this. No excuse.
I am a layman and unfortunately for me cannot follow the ball (issues) of this decision by the EC to form a task group to investigate the ERLC. After reading this and the other articles on this site pertaining to the EC decision I am still unclear about the main objection to the task force and if the EC acted properly within their prevue. So here are a few simple questions that I have and respectfully respect simple, straight forward answers.
1. Does the EC have the authority to from a task force to investigate any entity they believe requires an investigation to make further actions or to settle an issue? Yes or No.
2. Does the EC having a task force show a lack of confidence in the Trustee of the an entity or are they acting to insure the Trustees are acting in the best interest of the entire SBC/CP over just the actions of the ERLC which might affect the CP program. Not daily oversight but review of programs, statements and actions that might cause concern and need to be addressed.
Would it have been a good thing to have a task force looking into the IMB before the financial collapse or was there one? Is this action actually negative.
3. I cannot follow the timeline on DR. Moore’s interview before the EC. Was it right before the EC decision to form the task force. Was the intent of the interview to get general information or to press specific concerns? What did Dr. Moore take a way from the interview at the time or what was the purpose other than perhaps DR. Moore answers could allay some concerns.
4. What is the harm of the EC sanctioned task form? If it is a legal and authorized function/duty carried out in a fair and professional manner what is the issue. I likened it to an Inspector General investigation and report to Congress like has happened in the national government before.
Again, the average SBC concern is that their faith giving is being well managed and used in a proper manner. They do not know about all the inner baseball issues that plague a bureaucratic organization. Does the ERLC serve a vital function that would be sorely missed by the average SBC member if it were abolished?
Thanks if anyone answers
As no one has answered my questions yet I would add this. Is it legal, ethical and proper for the ERLC trustees to instruct Dr. Moore not to cooperate with the EC task force. Why would this be the instruction if the EC is acting lawfully and under the rules. To say the messengers at the convention will pursue this is just a dodge based on how the convention operates. So make this Question #5 is this good advice to DR. Moore, is it legal under the rules of the SBC and what is the value of this type of instruction? Thanks for any replies
I am the LEAST qualified person to answer this. But….It seems like the EC (or rather Mike Stone’s) task force is to investigate the effect the ERLC has had on the CP and not be a direct investigation of Dr. Moore (though let’s be honest that is the real motive). The EC cannot order Dr. Moore to do anything but the ERLC Trustees can. Therefore there should be no problem with the ERLC not cooperating with the investigation. Let the EC’s task force do what they can based on the “anecdotal” evidence they claim to have. I am grateful that the ERLC trustees have refused to be bullied.
Also wasn’t Dr. Mohler critical of Trump? When will there be a task force to investigate Southern Seminary?
My frustration is clearly showing through.
As to this point, being that every entity is autonomous, yes it is proper for the Trustees to protect the entity they’ve been committed to. It is not the EC’s job, but rather the Trustees to keep the entity in check. The Trustees have every right to instruct Dr. Moore to do so as they are acting autonomously. The value is to stop a dangerous precedent of committees being set up to investigate anything any one EC member doesn’t like.
I personally don’t like the fact that Al Mohler regularly preaches at non-SBC churches or events in SoCal, and declines invitations from SBC entities in SoCal; but I trust the Trustees of Southern to make sure he’s doing what I give CP money to: to instruct ministers in the Gospel and prepare them for Kingdom work.
Steve,
In regard to point one: the SBC Exec Comm’s website states this in relation to its entities: “The Executive Committee shall not have authority to control or direct the several boards, entities, and institutions of the Convention. This is the responsibility of trustees elected by the Convention and accountable directly to the Convention.” That’s found in the bylaws SBC Bylaw 18E(9).
In regard to point two: The EC doesn’t have the responsibility to keep the Trustees in check, the Committee of Nominations and the messengers of the convention do.
In regard to points three and four: The Trustees have the oversight of the entity. Further, the messengers to the 2018 convention were asked if they would like to alter the budget to defund the ERLC, overwhelmingly, they voted “no.”
So by these definitions, the actions of the SBC Exec Comm are redundant at best and a coup d’etat at worst.
Finally, yes the ERLC does serve a vital function (The messengers to the 2018 convention answered that). And if we’re going to play the game of “would it be missed by the average SBC member if it were abolished?” We can ask that of any entity as the reality is most typical congregants’ lives aren’t directly impacted by most of the Entities, it’s why we have special emphases and seasons of giving to highlight the work of our cooperation. If the IMB shut down today, only the pastors, ministry leaders, and a handful of congregations would notice out of the thousands of SBC congregants in my association.
Matt, thank you for addressing and answering my questions in such an understandable way. I appreciate it as I am unfamiliar with the actions of the EC. So that helps me greatly understand the concerns of most on site regarding this issue.
Wow, what a strong and powerful statement!! Kudos for the great leadership and wisdom of the ERLC Exec committee. Grateful for their clarity and Gospel focused drive. Thankful
Well, this certainly throws down the gauntlet.
I was glad to see deescalation in the pastors’ conference situation from Uth today. I wish the same was possible here but I don’t think the ERLC trustees had any other choice if they weren’t going to be steamrolled.
Brent, what did Uth say? I missed that one.
Les, he wasn’t going to make a decision by their deadline. Suggested 40 days of prayer/fasting. Should decide by end of March. Extension was granted in response.
It came to my mind that the church could leave the SBC.
Thanks Brent. I actually found your other post on that subject. All very interesting to say the least.
The full statement from Uth is posted over at sbcpc.net
Hats off to ERLC Board. For those trying to fix or correct what is happening themselves, I would suggest to consider just hanging tight and let the boards duke it out.
Looks like ERLC has things well in hand.
My personal thought, EC might have bit off more than they can chew.
Will be interesting, to say the least, to see this play out.
Now, has anyone heard of a response from David Uth on the venue issue. I guess he has until the 24th. Just curious.
The Executive Committee of the SBC has beclowned themselves. Perhaps the investigation about who is damaging the CP should focus on the EC and not elsewhere.
Extra points for “beclowned”
William Thornton will appreciate that.
Perfect description too.
It seems that just an SBC member has no input. For three years I have been perturbed at the comments, supposedly the SBC philosophy, and I know it is not! As a former Democrat assistant to a Congressman this man was very vocal in supporting a Democratic nominee in the last election. Have you checked the platform of today’s Democratic Party. Abortion on demand up to and including after exiting the birth canal. I don’t think it is necessary to name all the questionable, proven deceit, unlawful activities and now we know more than ever the unlawfulness, using Executive Branch Departments to form a coup to duly dismantle the elected president. It’s would have also put back in the White House the man who soiled the Oval Office. He has lost numerous lawsuits for sexual harassment and $850,000 alone to one, not to mention others. Talk about an oxymoron.
Could you provide some proof of this? I don’t recall ever seeing Moore voicing support for Hillary Clinton. I could be wrong.
As the semi-resident Godless Liberal ™ around these parts, it *always* amazes me to see people talk about Russell Moore as though he were somehow progressive.
Dude ran the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood for a looooooong time. That alone establishes that he’s an arch-conservative. In his ideal society, women would /overwhelmingly/ be mothers and housewives — which is to say, they’d be dependent on men for all of the material necessities of life & would have very little presence, or representation, in the public sphere.
For this reason alone, he would be persona non grata in liberal circles.
P.S. The claim that Democrats want “abortion on demand up to and including after exiting the birth canal” is an outright lie. I’ll be happy to explain if you’re curious; abortion is a question I’ve wrestled with extensively and I still do to this day. I almost never make black-and-white statements about it. But /that/ is a /lie/, and I don’t want to derail the whole thread but I do want to stand up for the truth.
The Democrat Party platform certainly does support abortion on demand, though I guess as with any term the words, “on demand,” can be parsed. Certainly Democrats have, through their platform, endorsed partial birth abortion (cutting the spinal cord after the head has exited the birth canal). If you want to support that, well, it is America.
But, strap in tight to your moral high horse when you call the accusation that Democrats support “abortion on demand” as a matter of policy, a “lie.”
You may struggle with cutting the spinal cord of a fully viable, partially born child. This is not a struggle for most Christians I know. The fact that Christians oppose this based upon a “lie,” well, that seems a bit over the top.
There is clearly a distinction between the GOP platform and the Democrat platform that touch on ethical issues–basically, Christian versus non-Christian views. I think Dr. Moore’s comments in the last election cycle were such that discussing them seems a worthy and necessary discussion.
Whether this “task force” is the best way to address them is yet another question.
By the way, some may not be aware of the Democrat Party resolution declaring the Party to be the party of the “non-religious,” and then goes on to define what they mean by “non-religious” which certainly touches the perimeter of “non-Christian.”
So again, you may fully support the Democrat Party which is your right, but it seems a bit much to call people, “liars,” who see a problem with a Christian supporting (directly or indirectly to any degree) the policies stated by the Democrat platform and resolutions.
Let me add, I don’t suggest that someone who does not embrace the character and practices of Donald Trump (which clearly it seems Dr. Moore did not) is the same as supporting the Democrat Party platform. That is what, at least on the surface, this “task force” is allegedly seeking to “investigate.”
I also am not suggesting Dr. Moore is the villain that many make him out to be. I don’t sit at his feet enough to really know much more about him than the sound bites that make the news. I’m sure I agree with the majority of what he believes, and would not agree on everything.
We live in a time in our nation when it is not ethically possible to “avoid the discussion of politics” and the way the ethical issues are parsed by party politics. (I am NOT a party affiliate of any party).
If ever there were a time we need a strong ERLC, it seems it is today–even more so in times past during the battles in the days of the Moral Majority.
My humble and unsolicited opinion is this whole “task force” approach to this issue obliterates the very foundation of our trustee system. The trustee system is not perfect, but it has served us well for a long time.
Jack: I took D Dilla to be repeating the claim, often made by President Trump, that the Democratic Party supports “aborting” an infant after it’s been born — or, as D Dilla put it, “after exiting the birth canal.”
That is a lie. Killing a child after it’s been born is murder. This is a bright line that I, and every Democrat I’ve ever been intimately acquainted with, would uphold.
So no, I wasn’t saying that you’d reached *your* position on abortion because of a lie, or that you’re a liar for holding it.
P.S. I realize that the natural retort is, “Well, what *about* partial-birth abortion?”; and if you’re desperately curious to hear my views, sure — ask away. Otherwise, I hope I clarified what I was actually sayin’.
The discussion was about withholding care and letting an infant die. I see little ethical difference between that and murder. And, you are correct to point out that partial birth is killing a child after she exits the birth canal.
These are cases where the infant simply won’t live long, no matter what kind of medical intervention you do.
If the child will die in, say, two weeks even with invasive and painful treatments, or it will die in, say, six hours without them… do you think the doctors should go ahead with the treatments /even if the parents don’t want them to/? Are the doctors guilty of murder if they /don’t/? Are the parents guilty of murder for not demanding the most aggressive treatment, even if it prolongs the child’s agony (and theirs)?
I see an /enormous/ ethical difference between that and infanticide. I find it hard to imagine you don’t.
Do you really, in your heart of hearts, think that people who are making end-of-life decisions for their loved ones are murderers if they choose anything but the most aggressive treatment options? If not: OK, then. Stop equating this to murder. You know better.
Dilla, I am calling you a liar. If you can show where Dr. Moore supported a Democrat in the last election I will apologize. If not, you will be banned from commenting here.
Demonstrate that Dr. Moore has EVER lost a lawsuit for sexual harassment or you will be banned.
These are lies. Document these lies or begone.
We are no longer tolerating people who lie. It is unholy, ungodly. IT IS SATANIC.
So, you have two options – Demonstrate that you are telling the truth or be done.
Lying liars who lie are no longer welcome at SBC Voices.
As to the lawsuit, I believe he was referring to Bill Clinton.
Yes, it seems he was.
That almost looks like a bot comment.
Dilla has been a semi-frequent commenter.
But the email/name is somewhat suspect.
Nearly every single thing you said is viciously false. You need to read and learn quite a lot. You’re pretty far off.
I doubt I will get a response, seeing as Dave has rightly called you out “D Dilla”, but just incase you do read this, or for the others of their view out there who may actually have an open mind, consider this.
That “evil” Democrat that Dr Moore was an aid for is one Gene Taylor. Want to guess what party he is apart of today? Well by golly that would be the Republican Party. You see there use to be such a thing as a Conservative Democrat. They were people like Rep Taylor or Sen Zell Miller would be right of center by any standard of measurement, but as the DNC took a huge swerve to the left in the past 20 years, it left men and women like that behind. To condemn Dr Moore for being an aid to Taylor in the early 90’s is disingenuous at best.
BTW…for the record, I proudly voted for President Trump, will again. I think Dr Moore’s critique of President/candidate Trump these past 4+ years is flawed to say the least. I disagreed with Dr Moore regarding the Confederate Flag. But not once have I wished Dr Moore removed as ERLC president, nor have I once wished the ERLC to be defunded. I believe it is possible to have disagreements over clearly tertiary issues as it relates to Kingdom Work. But as a Trump Supporting Calvinist, it seems like I have no welcome home in the SBC anymore.
But who am I kidding, “D Dilla” nor others of their ilk, will likely never honestly interact on this forum. So maybe I am just shouting at the sky..
SV, I disagree with you on almost every position and I like you very much. Thanks for this comment.
SV, I was startled by your conclusion. I don’t know why you say that as a Trump supporting Calvinist you have no home in the SBC. The mouse who started the elephant of the SBC stampeding was, I believe, J.D. Hall, who has been publicly accused by other Calvinists of being a hyper-Calvinist. So the conclusion to draw would be that, as a Trump-supporting Calvinist, you have great future potential at making the SBC stampede. (Though I’m told it is just folklore that mice make elephants stampede.) Admittedly other non-Calvinists were involved, like Peter Lumpkins, and the rumored shadowy presence of Paige Patterson. I’m always surprised when the reaction to a Pulpit & Pen attack is a total cave-on.
I haven’t been around SBCVoices for a long time. It is is good to see that Calvinism can still find a way into just about any issue :).
Everyone knows that Dr. Moore was an aid to a conservative, pro-life Democrat many years ago. Dilla said he supported a Democrat in the last election. That was the lie.
You want to buttress Dilla’s lie – prove that. Don’t prove things we all know are facts. I am not permitting lies, Steve.
I’m not aware that the ERLC exec, in that capacity, has endorsed any candidate for office nor has the ERLC. You can play the connection game all you want to, what you’ve posted here is your opinion, not fact.
I am praying for our convention and our boards and commissions, as gospel servants and for the work they do. The ERLC does vital work in to communicate the Biblical values and concerns of Southern Baptists in the halls of government and academia. (they provide excellent spoken and written commentary and information on such as apologetics, sanctity of life, marriage, and many others). Having learned that it was and is the goal of the ERLC to serve the local church and to communicate to and for our denomination in the advance of God’s Kingdom. I appreciated the letter of the ERLC executive board Feb 20, 2020. Their communication is well said and supported. The entities and convention will need to work together. The Lord said, a house divided will not long stand. Praying for unity and trust.
“ This is all the more confusing to us when, unlike our other entities, virtually every single thing the ERLC does in its day to day ministry is, by necessity, in public view, for any and every Southern Baptist to see and evaluate.”
If so, then it seems that the task force has nothing to uncover, and no reason for being.
But also, if so, it means the ERLC has nothing to hide or fear from the task force.
So it seems to me that something is going on here than meets the eye.
Why not the response:
“Go ahead and waste CP money, nothing to find here.”?
How many investigations does the ERLC have to put up with?
They have done it over and over again.
This is not an investigation, it is an inquisition.
I am glad the ERLC is standing up.
Dave,
Put up with?
Does it cost them money?
Time?
Honor?
They have to put up with as many as legitimate authority decides..
If they are being persecuted for doing the Lord’s work, they shoud accept investigations and praise God for being counted worthy to suffer for the Name.
It looks like there is something to hide.
They have to put up with as many as legitimate authority decides..
EC is not the Pope. The letter clearly states that the EC has the right to form a task force. Thing is, the trustees totally have the right to write the letter they did. In fact, that letter is uniquely Southern Baptist. We don’t like being bullied and we always stand up to anything that smells like manipulation and intimidation. The EC can do whatever it wants but the consequences of messing with real Southern Baptists is a reply letter that just might burn your hands! To be honest I don’t think we are very godly much of the time but I love us very much just the same.
The last phrase in your list is the money shot-
“Legitimate authority”
This isn’t legitimate. The job they are undertaking is for the ERLC Trustees. Not a personally selected hit squad.
The EC is in the process of finding out how few people agree with their actions.
Twitter bots won’t show up in Orlando. People who support Russ Moore will.
That kind of attitude is the same that saysif you refuse to talk to police you must be guilty.
ERLC haters gonna hate.
The EC does not have the authority to conduct an investigation into other SBC entities without support from the convention, which it does not have. The convention has repeatedly affirmed its confidence in the trustee system, including taking the additional step of affirming the ERLC trustees and preventing political tampering with their board by attempts to replace trustees with floor nominees. Voted down by an overwhelming majority..
If you are going to suggest that the ERLC has something to hide, then you’d better provide specific evidence of the charge. Otherwise, you are making an insinuation for which you have no facts and which is nothing more than pushing gossip.
Dave, you follow these matters much more closely than I. You know more about Dr. Moore’s approach to life than I. But, even from my spot in the “cheap seats of the SBC arena” I quickly spotted something amiss on the field when I first saw these articles on the “task force.”
And, I’m sure you are not against holding Dr. Moore accountable. But, that is why we have trustees. The very word, “investigation,” has come to mean “guilt by accusation.”
This is a well thought out and eloquently stated response and a great response in terms of their instruction to Dr. Moore to not comply. Let the messengers speak at the convention.
Tom, I asked some questions at 6.13 pm comments above. As you seem to follow the ERLC line of thinking based on your comments, would you be kind enough to address my questions. I am a layman and not familiar with the rules and procedures of SBC so mine are from a layperson’s perspective. Thank you
I did add another question about the topic you addressed about Dr. Moore not to comply, perhaps you could address that also thanks again
Steve,
The issue is most likely related to the political desires of the new CBN. My guess is that the EC is either trying to anticipate Patterson’s dark arts or there are those who believe that he and his thugs are worth following. Procedure doesn’t really matter. If they follow all procedures for an evil objective, it won’t really matter. Fundamentalists know how to manipulate the system. We have seen it before.
I hate to look for conspiracies behind actions but Rob I think you may well be right. Does anyone know if Mike Stone is a PP fan/advocate/follower?
There’s some suspicion there but he’s not tied closely like a few others on the EC. Seems like there are other motives for Stone. Keep in mind he was thoroughly embarrassed last year around this time for mishandling EC business. There’s a lot going on. At the end of the day motives don’t really matter that much but incompetent results sure do.
The suspicion that Mike Stone is operating under the direction of Paige Patterson is widely believed. No proof, but it makes sense.
Thank you Dave. If that is true it is incredibly disheartening on one hand and enraging on the other.
Honestly, I have no idea why I keep reading these comments. One one hand you blast any and everyone who disagrees and take specific aim at unfounded claims. On the other hand you forward unfounded claims.
There is nothing unfounded about these claims. Perhaps unproven, but certainly not unfounded. The evidence may be circumstantial, but it is strong.
Rob Rice, thank you for your reply also.
1. So the EC is allowed to form a task force to investigate whether the actions of the ERLC are affecting CP contributions/success. Do I understand that correctly.
2. This is the proper or if you prefer the allowed procedure under the rules but you question the motive of the EC, assuming that they have been influenced by those who want to remove Dr. Moore or eliminate the ERLC. You believe their motives are evil and it is impossible they are trying to get ahead of a potential problem by doing an overview. The ERLC is in a defensive position, that is my opinion, and does not think the over sight is proper or warranted. Am I correct.
3. So you seem to think that thugs, dark forces have influenced the 80 members of the EC to go on what others call a witch hunt with the primary target being Dr. Moore, Am I correct assuming that.
4. Are the EC or the EC leader fundamentalist? I am asking , I do not have a clue and if so fundamentalist compared to who?
5. If the ERLC and Dr. Moore opened up the books what value , what precedent would be lost or harmful. Just to be honest , I personally think that lack of transparency is a real weakness of the SBC at the state and national level. Are the entities not accountable to the EC? Again I do not know.
6. Is it possible that the EC is trying to take away some talking point ammo from detractors of the ERLC or the new organization who will use any issue to promote their viewpoint. Again I likened the EC task force like an internal review of an Inspector general who is not taking action but presenting facts they discovered, either good or bad.
Bottom line to me as a lay person, if we err let it be on more not less transparency. Should the EC ignore inquiries or charges that may have been present or evidence that the CP is being harmed or to head off a problem.
Thank you for responding to my questions,
The EC’s decision to work behind closed doors doesn’t breed a lot of confidence. Their decision to investigate is presented as a financial issue, but we don’t know who is threatening to withdraw CP funds if they don’t act. The idea that 2,500 “signed on” to support CBN is certainly of great concern to anyone who cares about our cooperative commitment to one another.
https://baptistnews.com/article/spokesman-says-conservative-baptist-network-already-a-success/#.Xk_T0mhKhhE
Because the CBN has included political support for Mike Pence in their websites description of their reason for forming, it seems reasonable for the EC to see this uprising as something related to their disdain for Dr. Moore, or really anyone who does not share their political viewpoint. Looking at the books of the ERLC may be an attempt to prove publicly that there is no political bias against or for one political party. The problem is that Patterson has a history of dirty denominational politics and there is no reason that anyone should give him the benefit of the doubt.
The ERLC is not accountable to the EC. The EC’s role is related to disbursing funds that are designated by the SBC. They, however, can wield some power through controlling the nomination process for trustees of the institutions. They are right to see the Pastor’s Conference as chum in the water for CBN. Unfortunately, it fits their narrative that there are people who think that they are Christians but secretly view women and others as equal to white men in the eyes of God that might infiltrate the SBC. If their concern was presented at the convention, and there was an opportunity for both “sides” to present their case, they would lose, but by organizing and stirring the crowd before the convention, they may be able to force their views on everyone else.
I think the reason that your questions have not been answered is that you do not appear to be asking honest questions. The reason I say that is that most of your questions were answered in the ERLC letter itself, which begs the question, ‘If you didn’t like their answer would you like mine any better?’ So, I will answer you but not point by point because I’m lazy and it’s Friday night.
Yes, the EC can form a task force.
The motive is questioned because we just had a task force two years ago and Dr. Moore was right there and they asked him nothing. If they wanted his cooperation they had it- and turned him away.
Transparency is not the ERLC issue. Their policies and positions are public. The EC on the other hand went into executive session so someone has something to hide but it seems to be Stone rather than Moore.
Bottom line for me as a Southern Baptist is that the EC can do what it wants but the consequences are that the Trustees can do what they want. EC is not the Pope. Southern Baptists don’t like to be bullied and I think that even people who disagree with Moore are going to stand up and cheer when they read this letter.
Hi Steve I responded to one point about if the ERLC could direct Dr. Moore to not cooperate with the current witch hunt (see above). I looked back at your other questions and they are very reasonable and well asked but I am definitely not qualified to give a thorough answer. I am sure they will get answered quickly though. Not being difficult I just don’t have accurate answers for those.
Tom, thanks for the quick and honest reply. I am trying to get though the weeds of opinions on both sides. Again, is the ERLC trustees advocating that Dr. Moore basically take a fifth amendment approach or that the EC does not have the authority to ask him to aid in their endeavor.
Just a side note from a layman in over his head trying to follow the thread, Rob Rice describes dark arts being followed , he also describes thugs , evil objectives and EC as incompetent . Understand the passion in the issue but those are descriptions not facts, while he may be might about motive. If the new organization called CBN does indeed have influence in the EC, is that a fact and even if true does that negate the concern.
I appreciate your personal response and courtesy and do not expect you to reply to the thoughts and comments of others.
Perhaps some others could address my questions I asked at 6.13. Is it okay just to label this endeavor as a witch hunt and conspiracy theory.
Again, thanks Tom.
The EC does not have authority over Dr. Moore. They will need to work through the trustees who have clearly stated that this is inappropriate.. Previously, multiple pastors, around 100, but most notably Prestonwood’s Jack Graham, threatened to or actually did withhold funding from the SBC because of national political preferences. https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/february/trump-advisers-church-withholds-donation-sbc-graham-moore.html
CBN gives them a new tool for organizing churches to withhold funding in order to get their way. This is the way Patterson and his ilk have always worked. I view this as thuggery. The dark arts is the scheming and organizing that goes on behind the scenes to lever their way into positions of authority. I hope that Pastor Stone is able to navigate this, but without transparency, there is little reason to be optimistic.
Well said Rob! The whole thing does not pass the “smell test” – “anecdotal evidence”? Isn’t the more accurate word for that “gossip”? Also:
1. A task force formed in the secrecy of executive session
2. A task force headed by the chairman of the EC (the same committee that created the task force)
3. A task force whose members will be appointed by said chairman/task force head
All to investigate “anecdotal evidence”. We have vastly more than anecdotal evidence of lots of things in the SBC that we are not creating task forces for.
Perfect statement by the ERLC trustees. Exactly what the EC deserves.
This isn’t going to end well.
Again, I suspect that there are many in the SBC who are not satisfied with Russell Moore 2.0’s tempered responses, even relative silence, regarding the President’s behavior. Perhaps they want a more active advocate for him like the FRC, an organization that will provide cover for the President.
John Wallace , trying to follow this, what is the FRC? Excuse my ignorance but I have no clue what it is. Thanks
FRC = Family Research Council (Tony Perkins)
John Wallace, Thanks , driving me crazy , I just got down the Southern Baptist Convention abbreviation committed to memory.
After all providing cover for the President is the primary goal of the Church….oops. Oh well.
I wouldn’t have said that Donald Trump and the Holy Spirit were the same person, but blasphemy against Donald Trump seems to be the unforgivable sin.
Well, that and daring to approve of “racial reconciliation.”
Maybe the erlc trustees ought to get their heads out of the sand. Where I live every pastor I know is asking questions about the erlc. If someone doesn’t answer those questions the cp will suffer. The let to he watchbloggers go along largely unanswered so folks believe them. If they don’t start acting to restore confidence we are going to have a real problem. Thankfully the EC sees this and have acted.
Ham handed actions by the EC in the shadows of executive session are not going to do anything positive for the CP. Quite the contrary. The EC’s actions are controversial to say the least and will damage the CP. Baptists have a right to demand accountability and transparency from the EC on this matter. If they are right, what are they afraid of? Being exposed?
Amen
These twin fiascos from the EC point to the poor shape of Discipleship in the SBC. Apparently a majority of our EC members (who ought to be the most spiritually mature among us) are so poorly discipled that they have no problem bullying the PC and the ERLC even though Jesus never bullied anyone.. They are so poorly discipled that they have raised tertiary issues to the level of major doctrine. They are so poorly discipled in that they wish to impose their personal preferences on duly elected officers and entities. None of these things is acceptable behavior for a believer.
If you think me uncharitable, I am supposing poor Discipleship is the culprit rather than something worse.
I’ve seen a lot of words written about Mike Stone’s leadership / involvement in all of this related to the EC’s action taken toward the ERLC, but where is Ronnie Floyd on all of this? He’s the President/CEO. What’s he saying? In what direction is he leading?
Ronnie works for the EC. He can try to influence them but when Mike Stone charts a path of destruction, he cannot overrule it.
I would add to Darren’s questions: Does Dr. Floyd disagree with what the committee is doing? Has Dr. Floyd commented on the new Conservative Baptist Network? Does he have a close connection with the CBN or any of its leadership?
This political in-fighting reminds me of Sean Connery’s famous line in The Untouchables, “You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That’s* the *Chicago* way!” It’s sad that the ERLC had to respond, but boy what a response. Tough, truthful, pointed, and well-reasoned. In a word, devastating. By the looks of it, I’m gonna guess there are a few more lawyers on the BoT of the ERLC than there are on the SBC Executive Committee.
No matter how the powers-that-be on the EC try to spin it, this debacle will hopefully result in a complete house-cleaning in the SBC. “Drain the Swamp” is not just applicable to Washington, D.C. politics. Draining our own SBC swamp will not be easy, but it will be the only way forward for those who want to cooperate together for the sake of the Gospel. The SBC and its member churches need revival. Sometimes God brings it through the front-door with new members. And, sometimes He brings it through the back-door with the exit of disgruntled members. Either way, let revival come.
Stone, nor more importantly the process, gains nothing by saying anything until the investigation (that certainly has been initiated with the support of at least half of the 80+ members of the board of trustees for the executive committee) is complete.
I truly, at this point, have no idea as to how I feel concerning the validity of any investigation… I’m choosing to wait until the report comes out.
Stone is getting the lion share of the attacks… But he could not have begun this investigation nor set the parameters of it without the majority favor of the trustees of the executive committee. Apparently they have seen enough to warrant the investigation and are comfortable with the parameters and process …. I am choosing to wait it out – otherwise I an tempted to reflexively assume the worst… And I’m trying not to do that. In my experience – assuming the worst and getting all outraged has proven utterly unproductive and painstakingly exhausting time, after time, after time.
The reason that I disagree with your position is that I believe that, like the trustees, the act of an investigation is intended to smear Dr. Moore and to establish a false issue of a tiny contingent of Fundamentalists who want the SBC to align itself publicly with the GOP. We must raise our voices to avoid giving this group an opening to impose its beliefs on others. The gospel is too important to allow them to stain it with their political lust for power and authority.
Question:
Do you know that – or are you assuming it? If you know it for certain – you know more than most.
After the report – hopefully all will be known – if its as you say – that will be revealed. If there is something we don’t yet know/appreciate/understand that sheds a good explanation on why 40+ trustees of EC approved doing this investigation and its perimeters – we should know that too.
I say lets keep our powder dry until we know. That’s all I am saying.
I pretty much know it. But folks are gonna believe what they decide to believe.
Yeah some will. Others will try to assume the best regarding all involved.
That’s what I want to do. Time will tell