The Pastor’s Conference has been a slow-motion train wreck from the start. One would expect the Executive Committee to exert control over what happens at the venue identified as the Southern Baptist Convention in annual session. I still have gripes about who gets display space in the exhibit hall for the SBCAM even though the EC has guidelines for that. If the EC establishes guidelines for the PC if they want to meet in the same space that is to be expected. But, I’m not all that heavily invested in the SBCPC, so I yield to Dave Miller and those who are.
But the investigation of the ERLC is troubling.
Here’s the Baptist Press story on the action: SBC Executive Committee creates ERLC study task force.
Here is the full text of the EC’s motion:
MOTION TO REVIEW THE ETHICS & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION
Whereas, the members of the Executive Committee are entrusted with the responsibility to recommend the Cooperative Program Allocation Budget to the Southern Baptist Convention on an annual basis, as required by SBC Bylaw 18.E(6); and
Whereas, the Executive Committee is directed by the Convention to study and make recommendations to entities, and the Convention when advisable, concerning adjustments required by ministry statements or by established Convention policies and practices, as described in SBC Bylaw 18.E(9); and
Whereas, the Executive Committee is directed by the Convention to present to the Convention recommendations required to clarify the responsibilities of the entities for ministries and other functions, as provided in SBC Bylaw 18.E(13); and
Whereas, ongoing concerns have been expressed both publicly and privately to various members of the Executive Committee and other Southern Baptists regarding how the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission’s actions in relation to its ministry statements are affecting the Convention and its relationships with local churches, local associations, and state conventions; we recommend
That a task force be created consisting of the now-serving Executive Committee chair (who will continue serving until the task force concludes its work) and six Executive Committee members appointed by the Executive Committee chair; and
That the task force review the past and present activities of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission in the fulfillment of its Convention-approved ministry assignments and;
That the task force assess whether the actions of the Commission and its leadership are affecting Cooperative Program giving or the further advancement of the Cooperative Program; and
That the task force report back to the Executive Committee on or before its September 2020 meeting.
Questions:
- Who made the motion?
- Why was this discussed in Executive Session?
- Why shouldn’t private critics of the ERLC be told to make their criticisms public, by name?
- Who are the six Executive Committee members who will form this task force along with chairman Mike Stone?
- Several SBC entities have had some notable and severe problems recently (SWBTS, MBTS earlier, NAMB earlier, IMB earlier) why is the ERLC being singled out and why were these others not given scrutiny?
- Are prominent, undisclosed SBC leaders behind this motion?
- Was the new network involved in any way in this action?
- Were any reporters in the Executive Session on background?
Noteworthy from the BP story:
As Stone noted, the task force created Tuesday is similar to the one formed in 2017 by the SBC Executive Committee to monitor the activities of Southern Baptist entities in relation to how their activities might adversely affect the Cooperative Program and churches.
The 13-member ad hoc committee in 2017 received reports from executive directors of state Baptist conventions that 75 churches across the SBC “were withholding, designating or escrowing Cooperative Program funds.” While only 14 churches were able to be confirmed by the committee, those 14 churches were estimated to have diverted a total of about $1.5 million away from the Cooperative Program.
9. Is this an indication that a handful of churches, possibly megachurches, are driving this investigation?
10. Is it helpful for the Executive Committee to be seen as being driven by a handful of Southern Baptists?
11. Did the 2020 presidential election come up in the executive session?
12. Would a request from the EC to the ERLC trustees have been a better route?
It’s probably not realistic to expect openness and transparency from the Executive Committee. I see no reason why questions 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 cannot be answered.
We’re Southern Baptists. We have a long history of train wrecks and never seem to tire of them.
Whatever you think about Dr. Moore, about the ERLC, etc. aren’t William’s questions worthy of answers? WHY was this done in secret? Why did they hide this from the SBC? If they are going after Dr. Moore, shouldn’t they do so in public?
Another example in a different mode of how lack of transparency hurts a faith based organization. As a small % of SBC even follow national SBC issues/events this is a non news story except for the insiders. I say release all the information that William Thornton asked for plus the salaries , expenses, accomplishments and real world contributions to spreading the Gospel of all SBC entities. Transparency all the time in all areas, why not.
I do think that the vast majority of SBC members would be upset and request a review of ERLC if they were aware of the purpose and need for the ERLC . In my opinion they serve no useful purpose other than bloat the bureaucracy at the Nashville level. At the state and national level the SBC is too top heavy and the expenses way out of line of the tight rein on expenses and budget of most SBC churches. Again this is all ego drive, inside baseball bureaucratic power struggles that would appall the average SBC who does not know about this .
I think it will come to a head soon.
Excellent questions, William. For me, the top question is why this was handled in executive session. Perhaps if this hadn’t been discussed in executive session we would have answers to some of the other questions.
It’s hard for me to see any reason for an Executive Session on this issue. I think the EC owes it’s constituency an explanation and transparency about the decision. Executive Session is for sensitive personnel or asset purchase decisions. Executive session is not to shield members from being accountable for their actions. This is a shameful precedent.
I’ve got an extra question for the EC:
Has this mixture of pure hubris mixed with complete incompetence ever been witnessed in an EC chairman before?
Mike Stone has probably set the standard here.
Wish you wouldn’t sugarcoat stuff, Brent.
I’ve never been a big fan of the ERLC in some areas. We had a meltdown that led to the last CEO’s resignation. I think the atmosphere, particularly the emphasis on religious liberty issues, by the current CEO was an improvement. It shouldn’t be forgotten that he brought presidential candidates (but not Trump) to a NAMB event in Nashville which I though was a bad move. And I’ve always thought that the ERLC was overfunded at 1.65% of the CP Allocation Budget.
If there’s going to be an investigation of the ERLC, there should be an investigation into the trustees of SWBTS and their dereliction of duty in regards to fiscal oversight of Southwestern and Paige Patterson.
What’s worse? Making supporters of Donald Trump uncomfortable, or wasting literally millions of dollars on personal vanity projects and fake Dead Sea Scrolls while cutting the retirement of faculty members?
Eggzactly.
If they are determining whether the ERLC has had a negative impact on CP giving, they should also determine what caused the steady declines in enrollment at Southwestern and whether all of that personal kingdom building had a negative effect on CP giving or personal giving to the school.
Ryan,
Preach on!
I am glad for the investigation. I am on record for not being an ERLC fan. IMHO, they are an unnecessary entity that is unnecessarily divisive. If we eliminated the ERLC and funded a few more missionaries we would be much better off as a denomination.
That set aside, why does this investigation trouble anyone? Isn’t it in response to a duly acted upon SBC motion? I find the responsiveness of the EC to a request from the floor of the SBC a refreshing change. Carry on, EC!
This was not a motion from the convention, it was from the EC itself. That’s the issue
You referenced a “new network”. Educate on what you are referring to.
This sentence is the most difficult to measure in my mind:
“That the task force assess whether the actions of the Commission and its leadership are affecting Cooperative Program giving or the further advancement of the Cooperative Program;”
With millions of Southern Baptists and thousands of churches how can this be truly measured, UNLESS they look at mega-churches or the largest donors and at that point we circle back to the issue of some people’s opinions mattering more. I.E. Those who give more get more of a say.
I also echo Ryan Abernathy in that if we are going to look into concerns let’s look into ALL of them.
You know I was thinking of having the Deacons(only the ones I pick btw) investigate our Music Ministers style because Stan & Mable are directing their monthly tithe to a designated fund since they don’t like his style. It is affecting our bottom line. That’s not overreach is it?
I don’t know anything about what happened at the EC meeting because I was not there nor did I contact my state representative on the Board, but I think you all are minimizing the groundswell against the ERLC at the grassroots level that has been happening the past few years. I know of many churches who have either stopped giving to CP altogether, are designating that their CP not go to ERLC at all, and others who are very concerned at the direction of ERLC. I don’t think this is a megachurch agenda, but a real issue. Why would the EC form this task force unless they received an overwhelming amount of contact/complaints/redirected giving in recent months? The concern must have raised to a level greater than any other seminary or entity issue for them to single out ERLC. I may be wrong, but I think there is a large majority of churches in the SBC who are not liking the direction of the ERLC and frankly don’t think we need it. I could be totally off base and I’m limited in my sphere of influence out in here in Colorado, but I have friends at seminaries and around the country and I think the movement against ERLC is bigger than we may think.
There may be a number of side issues involved, but it seems clear to me that at its core, this is about Donald Trump.
Bill you hit the nail on the head. Much of what is happening, including the new network and other issues such as ERLC, IMHO, is in response directly or indirectly to Donald J. Trump.
I don’t think so. Folks were up in arms about Moore well before Trump regarding statements about gay weddings and Social justice.
Would love to see the specific examples of these statements. Thanks
I can think of one about a mosque in NYC. Has nothing to do with Trump. He treated an Arkansas pastor as less than human from the annual meeting floor in 2016. Here’s that pastor’s response: http://armorelbc.com/blog
Bill Mac,
Is this about Donald Trump, or about the perception that many in the SBC have about the ERLC? Could it be that the EC is trying to moderate what the ERLC does this election cycle as not to duplicate the errors of the past?
Woody
Whose errors Woody?
Christopher,
Hi, I confess I did not read the article closely the first time around and I thought it was concerning ethics, when it really is about money. My apologies.
Blessings
woody
I’m not Bill, but I concur with him on the Trump issue. That could be part of the justification with the study.
I think Moore learned his lesson in 2016. We’ll see. And for full disclosure, I did not vote for Trump in 16, but may in 20. Still very conflicted, so not defending or condemning him or those who choose to support or not support him.
Forgot how effective a political machine PP and his cronies run.
Launch a new “baptist network” claiming big problems in sbc.
Baptist Network member on EC proposes task force to investigate ERLC over “big problems”.
Baptist Network now claims “problems so big the EC had to launch an investigation! We were right!”
Yeah. Hmmmm.
You know, I had taken a break from regularly reading here, but as soon as I whiffed more controversy (thanks twitter) I couldn’t help but come back and see what the contributors were saying. All I keep thinking is one day the convention will implode. It won’t matter in the end who’s fault it is, but the endless posturing of those in charge and those who want to be will cost the SBC it’s existence in the end which will be sad because cooperation is so beneficial. However, when the cooperation ceases, so will the convention. Maybe I shouldn’t have come back to post on such a dreary day here in GA, LOL.
We want peace, but the only peace available is that of surrender to Paige Patterson’s CBN,to those who call justice Marxism.
These relentless and dishonest attacks make peace impossible. I hate conflict. There are guys who love this stuff. I hate it. But i cannot let them lie about and ruin Dr. Moore and do these other things.
I agree with your sentiment and motive. I don’t like what’s gone on at the EC, not one bit. This new network smells to high heaven. These divisive attempts to control a convention of churches are misguided at best, a selfish evil at worst. Fight on because the cooperation we have is worth preserving. I just really hate it because church members and other in the world look at this like a circus, endlessly entertaining, but of little consequence compared to what else is happening on earth.
Blake,
You said the new network smells to high heaven. Just wondering what you have read from their website that is so repugnant to you? Or, are you speculating that the work by the EC is directly because of this new group? If that is the case, they certainly worked quickly! I think the problems that are being attempted to be addressed by the EC have been long in the making. While it is not directly related, your Dad and I were good friends. Please don’t attribute the very worst motivations to those whom you may disagree with because there may just be a greater basis for what they are doing than what you realize. By many accounts, the Pastors Conference was a dumpster fire. Even Mr Miller had some reservations regarding the speaker selection. Surely you can see where others may have come to an even stronger conclusion. Russell Moore will stand or fall by his own words. Suffice it to say that his words/opinions/actions have certainly not met with anywhere near unanimous support by Southern Baptists.
Agreed! It’s like his own political entity.
How about just being honest that Patterson is involved in it’s launch?
Hey Kevin! I hope you and your family and church are doing well. Always cool to hear from you. I’ve got a couples of things here:
1. Why did the CBN start? Who all is involved in its launch? I see what the website says and on its face, it’s fine, but behind that, it looks like something set up to cause division. This line in their Our Purpose section of the website: “The Network rejects various unbiblical ideologies currently affecting the Southern Baptist Convention such as Critical Race Theory, intersectionality, and social justice.” is the really odd one to me as I am unaware of any SBC group that is being successful in using CRT…etc. to influence the SBC. It is also the only item the CBN rejects in it’s Our Purpose section, which telegraphs a major reason they started this network. We also are all familiar with the slurs and falsehoods that have been thrown at several prominent SBC pastors and other denominational leaders (like the current president). That is a start of why I don’t think the motive behind starting the CBN is pure.
2. I don’t tie the EC’s actions of late to the CBN. I don’t really have a strong opinion of the Pastor’s Conference debacle, but why is the EC’s reaction to grab for more control over things they don’t like? I don’t think Russell Moore is a problem, but even if he was saying things I disagreed with, that’s not the point. If he was really a problem (for example, was unfaithful to his wife or had tried to cover up sexual abuse on a seminary campus), then I don’t think a task force would have been formed as a show of seriousness by the EC. That is the least effective way to deal with real personnel problems at SBC entities. Trustees of that entity are equipped to step in if the director of that entity is out of line with the organizations purpose and values. I don’t think Russell Moore is obligated to only say things that all southern baptists agree with in order to keep his job. What it looks like is that he’s said things the wrong people (Mike Stone…etc) disagree with and rather than standing or falling by his own words, the EC thinks he should fall and they need to give him a shove.
Does anyone see what is really a problem here? Read it carefully. The only question they will really look at is whether the ERLC has affected CP giving. The matters of whether they have been faithful to their mission assignment and whether they have upheld biblical inerrancy are not part of the actual investigation. ERLC has been faithful on both points. This comes down to money and power. Nothing else. I suspect that they may use CP giving as a smokescreen because they cannot “get” them on the basis of either mission assignment or biblical fidelity. This whole thing is as wrong as it can be. What if IMB or one of the Seminaries was evaluated solely on whether their mission increased or decreased CP giving?
Yessir
Thank you Fred, you said far more directly and eloquently what I was trying to say above. The focus of the investigation is financial.
I think it’s much deeper than that.
Fred Smith’s comment should be a post. He is exactly right! This whole thing is so disgusting!
At first glance, I may agree with you, Fred. However, if you look at the deeper issue, what caused the decrease in giving? Is it for the reasons that many churches do not believe that the institutions like the ERLC do not adequately or accurately represent them? Giving is the smoke, but bad representation is the fire. Russell Moore has said enough things publically to dismiss the opinions of a great majority of Baptists that this decreased giving should absolutely be expected. Is he the reason for it? I can only speculate that the answer, at least in part, is yes.
http://www.bpnews.net/54000/cp-giving-off-to-best-start-in-decade-up-328-over-last-year
Uhhh…giving is down?
Christopher, that may become a post of its own, and if it is, of course, you will receive NO credit. Unless you want to write it and submit it.
Is that a threat or a challenge???
Consider it a challenge.
Yes, you see the total picture.
Jack Graham and Robert Jeffress endorsed a Paula White book and no one cares. Russ Moore is friends with Beth Moore and the foundation of the SBC is shaken.
Jack Graham and Robert Jeffress look away when the president of the United States demeans the office and the SBC yawns. Russ Moore looks at the candidate’s moral failings and writes about it and the SBC shudders.
Graham and Jeffress threatens to withhold monies from the SBC and the SBC Executive Committee caves. I wonder who God is proud of this morning.
Pastor’s answer to their churches and in some cases to others as well but the people who are in the leadership of SBC agencies answer to a larger constituency. Sometimes I wonder what pastor was thinking but I am not in his church so I move on. When a leader of one of our agencies does something that causes me concern…what can I do? At some point in some way they are responsible to us and we get to seek answers.
You didn’t answer my question … who is God proud of today?
I have jumped in this battle with both feet, but I’m not sure there is much to be proud of on anyone’s side right now.
I was not trying to answer your question. I am pointing out that pastors and leaders of the convention have different avenues of accountability. Since I am not a member of a pastor’s church I may not like what they do but they are not accountable to me. I am a member of the SBC and when I have issues with it or support for it, there are things I can do.
I have not always agreed with any of the men you named and have done the “face palm.” As to the ERLC there are things I wish they or Dr. Moore had done differently. If I remember correctly Dr. Jeffress took flak for endorsing Paula White’s book. Maybe there is some shame on both and thankfully forgiveness too.
I do not know Mike Stone or any other member of the SBCEC save the representative from New Mexico. Some on here have very strong opinions about the Chairman of the EC, but, unless something was amiss, this recommendation to stand up a task force would have to have been approved by a majority of the EC members. Although I may not have voted for a Task Force and would have preferred that the debate and vote be held in the light of day and not in Executive Session, I think we have to be consistent in our application of, “Trust the Trustees and Trust the System.” Is the Trustee system perfect? No. Do we need different voices on all of our entity boards? Absolutely. Should William’s questions be answered sooner rather than later? Yes. But, I’m not willing to second-guess the Executive Board or question motives at this point. Perhaps down the road, but not yet. The politics of it all will eventually come out. If there is something truly nefarious going on, then maybe this is the catalyst that is needed to bring much-needed reform (including transparency) to our SBC entities. I’m quite sure this will be a topic of discussion in Orlando.
If the Task Force and their findings lead to some type of censure of Dr. Moore or cutting CP funds from the ERLC, then the messengers at the SBC’s annual meeting should have the final word. I am hopeful that the Task Force will find that Dr. Moore and the ERLC have been faithful to their mission, have not strayed from the BF&M or pertinent SBC-approved resolutions, and are worthy of the continued and full support of the churches that comprise the Southern Baptist Convention. In the end, I suspect that, much like our secular politics, different groups in the SBC will interpret the Task Force’s report through radically different lenses and will come to diametrically opposed conclusions, regardless of what the “facts” show. But, we can always hope.
“but, unless something was amiss, this recommendation to stand up a task force would have to have been approved by a majority of the EC members”.
As they say, ” Winner! Winner! Chicken dinner!”
By my count from the EC website, there are 86 members including JD Greear, etc. That means, if everyone were there, a simple majority would have required at least 40+ votes of agreement. Let’s not place this decision simply on Mike Stone’s shoulders. While that is convenient, it is certainly not accurate or appropriate.
The decision to take this to an executive session and do this under the cloak of secrecy would have been made by Mike and the leadership.
There are two aspects here, Howell. We have to let the Trustees work, but we do not have to do so silently. And when they hide their work behind this cloak of secrecy so no one can know what is going on or hold them accountable, it is especially troubling.
I was ready to seek a recall election of Mike Stone yesterday. I’ve been convinced by wise counsel that such is not likely my best course. But there are other avenues – totally within the boundaries of propriety and Baptist polity – by which the convention can express its disdain for Mike’s secret works here.
I completely agree with you regarding not being silent while the Trustees do their work. That would be downright unBaptistic 🙂 I believe that Executive Sessions, secrecy, and sealing of records (i.e., the GRC) should happen only in the most extraordinary cases and should, therefore, be exceedingly rare. Sunshine acts not only as a disinfecting agent but also as an agent of accountability.
Ultimately, the SBC entities and Trustees, including the Executive Committee and its Trustees, are accountable to the churches that comprise the Southern Baptist Convention. I am glad that you are choosing to take another course of action in response to the SBCEC’s actions. As I am unfamiliar with Mike Stone’s background or history within the SBC (including SBC politics), I don’t have your personal experience as I comment. If people have ulterior motives that are less than Christ-like, then it will be hard to hide those motives for very long. Come June in Orlando, I think things will be much clearer than they are today. Hope all is well with you. Look forward to catching up with you in Orlando.
I agree that we should trust the trustees. Let’s allow those who were actually elected to serve as the trustees of the ERLC to fulfill their oversight function and keep Mike Stone’s little task force out of it.
Question 9. Is this an indication that a handful of churches, possibly megachurches, are driving this investigation?
Answer: Of Course!!! The SBC is controlled by a handful of people, probably always has. These are the most powerful. Presidents of Seminaries, Pastors of Mega Churches and Entity Leaders. They appoint their people to Trustee positions, Committees, etc.
They are the Kings in the High Castles and the rest of us are the Serfs.
If you are the same Nate I’m thinking of, we’ve tended to disagree. On this one, 100% agreement.
Giving is up. Check the stats. If it is about giving, it is about CERTAIN givers being upset. “That the task force assess whether the actions of the Commission and its leadership are affecting Cooperative Program giving or the further advancement of the Cooperative Program” means someone(s) is/are directing their giving much like the people in our church do when they are trying to “starve out” the preacher. There have been multiple attempts to remove RM & defund the ERLC from the floor of the SBCAM, and they’ve all been voted down. If some SBC folk want him gone or defunded then they need to be a messenger & make a motion & vote him out. But last I checked the MESSENGERS elected by their CHURCHES were ok with RM & the ERLC. If some aren’t then they need to stand up publicly like Nathan Rager & make a motion. That’s how we roll as the SBC.
http://www.bpnews.net/54000/cp-giving-off-to-best-start-in-decade-up-328-over-last-year
See, look, you almost have that post ready now.
The ERLC has been misrepresenting Southern Baptist’s, to the world, for years, it just took churches withholding money to get them to look into it. That’s pretty sad in itself. The ERLC pretends to speak for all Baptist’s and us “little people,” that probably make up the majority, want different or no representation coming from the ERLC. And I resent the voices that say it is about Trump. It is NOT about Trump. The deflection is less than honorable.
Liz: That is totally false. The ERLC has never spoken for all Baptists nor has it pretended to do so. I think truth is important, especially for Christians. Let’s try telling it shall we Liz?
Yes he does. Liz spoke the truth. But sometimes the truth hurts!
You know D, it’s easy to give part of a name aka be anonymous as you, Liz and others do and just spout off anything true or not. That’s not courageous. In fact it is quite cowardly.
I wholeheartedly agree!! And you summed up the problem perfectly.
I see you must have seen the irony of saying it was not about Trump while accusing someone of TDS.
Honest question: When is the last time Moore has said something negative about DJT?
I always wondered why big dogs came down so hard on Moore and threatened to withdraw funds from the ERLC but said nothing about Mohler or threatened to withhold funds from SBTS when Al Mohler said in a 10/9/16 /Washington post editorial, “I am among those who see evangelical support for Trump as a horrifying embarrassment — a price for possible political gain that is simply unthinkable and too high to pay.'”
It is ironic that people object to Moore allegedly insulting evangelical Trump supporters while throwing their support behind a man that spews hate over the internet every day. I guess it depends on who the targets are.
Ron,
That is a good question.
I was at Heritage Week at Southern the following week in 2016. I actually thought Mohler’s column and the NPR interview were earlier in the cycle.
At any rate, during a Q&A with Trustees and guests, Dr. Mohler said that he could see how many Christians would vote for Trump, and that he saw that as an acceptable alternative.
Dr. Moore later apologized, but after the election.
The MLK 50 conference was a year or 2 after the election. And that was followed by T4G. I have heard and seen criticism all over the internet about concepts presented there.
And then Res 9 was passed and there’s been all the backlash and the Founders Cinedoc.
The Tennessee Baptist Convention actually passed a resolution that in effect rebuked the SBC for passing Res 9.
I wonder to what extent the current action toward the ERLC are just an outlet to look at all of this, and the ERLC is getting the brunt of it.
[…] I came to that realization HERE. Also, for those who’ve not read it, William Thorton wrote a good piece about this topic. He always beats us to the good […]
Perhaps this is a shot across the bow. I have been wondering how much longer Russell Moore will be able to keep his mouth shut as corruption within President Trump’s administration becomes increasingly evident.