My take on the core 'issue' (and I'm not a Southern Baptist, so a bit removed, for sure) relates to concerns not so much about the ERLC in principle, but in practice. The criticisms from those opposing (and I will avoid the name-calling as the 'woke right', which does little to foster healthy dialogue, IMHO), I understood, related primarily to the ERLC's ineffective and inconsequential execution at the 'street' level in D.C, etc, in successfully moving 'good' policies forward via the lobbying process. Certainly open to different perspectives here. I found the recent March Theme at the Christ Over All website (www.christoverall.com) multi-faceted, and helpful, on this perspective, and irenic in its different constructive suggestions for reform and renovation of the ERLC.
I'll receive your point about the unhelpfulness of name-calling. You're probably right, but I do want to point out that these guys are proving horse-shoe theory correct. The extremes of both sides sure look a lot alike.
Regarding the critique that the ERLC fails at the 'street' level in DC and fails at lobbying--that's not the org's mission. Never has been. Now, the ERLC has certainly lobbied in the past, but it's stated mission is "to assist your churches by helping you understand the moral demands of the gospel, apply Christian principles to moral and social problems and questions of public policy, and to promote religious liberty in cooperation with churches and other Southern Baptist entities." Lobbying in DC is not what the SBC has commissioned the ERLC to do.
It goes back to Russell Moore opposing President Trump and the move to defend sexual abuse survivors--things I didn't cover in this brief article. To sum up, the ERLC isn't on the right side of the culture war against the left that we're all supposed to be fighting. Of course, this is me speculating. I'm sure he'd say it differently.
My take on the core 'issue' (and I'm not a Southern Baptist, so a bit removed, for sure) relates to concerns not so much about the ERLC in principle, but in practice. The criticisms from those opposing (and I will avoid the name-calling as the 'woke right', which does little to foster healthy dialogue, IMHO), I understood, related primarily to the ERLC's ineffective and inconsequential execution at the 'street' level in D.C, etc, in successfully moving 'good' policies forward via the lobbying process. Certainly open to different perspectives here. I found the recent March Theme at the Christ Over All website (www.christoverall.com) multi-faceted, and helpful, on this perspective, and irenic in its different constructive suggestions for reform and renovation of the ERLC.
I'll receive your point about the unhelpfulness of name-calling. You're probably right, but I do want to point out that these guys are proving horse-shoe theory correct. The extremes of both sides sure look a lot alike.
Regarding the critique that the ERLC fails at the 'street' level in DC and fails at lobbying--that's not the org's mission. Never has been. Now, the ERLC has certainly lobbied in the past, but it's stated mission is "to assist your churches by helping you understand the moral demands of the gospel, apply Christian principles to moral and social problems and questions of public policy, and to promote religious liberty in cooperation with churches and other Southern Baptist entities." Lobbying in DC is not what the SBC has commissioned the ERLC to do.
Thanks for your clarifications. Appreciate the dialogue here, Casey.
Thanks for reading Bill. Appreciate your input.
I’m confused as to why Ascol would oppose the ERLC, other than the issues you highlighted with Leatherwood.
It goes back to Russell Moore opposing President Trump and the move to defend sexual abuse survivors--things I didn't cover in this brief article. To sum up, the ERLC isn't on the right side of the culture war against the left that we're all supposed to be fighting. Of course, this is me speculating. I'm sure he'd say it differently.