The problem is not the current assignment or the Convention’s clarity. The problem is that current ERLC Trustees do not want to enforce such an assignment.
Pastor Andrew Hébert of Texas has announced that he intends to offer a motion to “amend” the ministry assignment of the ERLC. The proposed motion is to amend ERLC ministry assignment 2 to read:
“Represent Southern Baptists in communicating the moral and ethical positions of the Southern Baptist Convention to the public and to public officials, limiting policy advocacy to positions articulated by the convention’s most recently adopted statement of faith and resolutions adopted by the convention.”
The italicized portion would be the new “assignment.”
As a Trustee who has been “in the room” for eight years, I’d encourage you to vote “no” on Pastor Hébert’s proposal. Let me explain why.
The problem is not the current assignment or the Convention’s clarity.
The problem is that current ERLC Trustees do not want to enforce such an assignment.
Sometimes, when there is disagreement, our Southern manners drive us to ask if there is confusion, not insubordination. Perhaps, we politely hope, prior generations of messengers were unclear.
But prior generations were not unclear: the ERLC’s assignment in communicating to the public is already limited to “the positions of the Southern Baptist Convention.” It is elementary SBC polity that the positions of the Southern Baptist Convention are those adopted by messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention. No more, and no less. If the messengers have not said it, the ERLC’s current assignment says it is not a matter for advocacy to the public or public officials.
And yet, the ERLC issues statements opposing bills to end abortion in Louisiana, supporting unconstitutional gun legislation that undermines Second Amendment rights, backing contentious Ukraine war funding, furthering pro-amnesty immigration policy, and more, all claiming to be positions of the SBC. The letters they sent on these issues contained positions clearly never taken by the Convention.
I know the current ERLC Trustees are aware of this and have decided against it anyway. I emailed them on August 19, 2024, asking whether there was any support for a motion to enforce the current ministry assignment, laying out the clear language.
The only response I received was opposition.
The vast majority of ERLC Trustees did not want to take action or discuss the matter in our public meeting; the consensus was that Mr. Leatherwood, as our expert, should get to decide what to say on any topic addressed by the SBC.
And so, you can see the problem with Hébert’s proposal. If the ERLC Trustees do not want “positions of the Convention” to mean positions of the Convention, then the “positions” in resolutions are just as broad. Nothing different will happen. “Positions of the Convention,” in any form, will be interpreted as topics for the ERLC’s leader to address in public any way he wishes. The substance of Hébert’s proposal is the one messengers have already assigned.
And so, the concept is a rare area of agreement between me and Dr. Hébert.
However, from firsthand experience, I can tell you that in practice, this makes no difference.
I also thought that a previous editorial in The Baptist Review by Pastor Ben Wright, which made a similar request, correctly expressed the view of the messengers and highlighted many of the same issues. I also forwarded Pastor Wright’s editorial to the Trustees.
But ultimately, Hébert’s proposal does not provide any new clarity, given the boardroom realities. Any board restriction on the CEO has been rejected.
The issue is not the ERLC’s assignment. The messengers have been clear. They have been clear for some time.
The issue is whether messengers will hold Trustees responsible for carrying out the assignment. And what to do when Trustees, collectively, say “No.”
