Published on June 18, 2024, 12:45 am

Promoting a Christian worldview on trending issues, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) recently experienced significant internal disagreement regarding its continued support for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC). Despite there being significant opposition within the SBC against certain ERLC policies, it was decided through a 4-1 vote in favor of maintaining their funding.

Earlier this year, calls were made for Brent Leatherwood to step down as president of the ERLC. The proposal cited his departure from traditional biblical norms and his promotion of views outside those typically endorsed by Southern Baptists. Grounds for such claims consisted of Leatherwood’s perceived undermining of pro-life legislation and argued that he had supported policies seemingly compromising life’s sanctity and scriptural authority.

The recent vote revealing strong support for this branch has spotlighted the SBC’s apparent shift towards progressive values at odds with previously held conservative stances. This is evident in their decision to continue backing an entity that has shown disapproval for pro-life legislation intending to abolish abortion. Critics argue that this endorsement assumes a problematic adherence to a political agenda at odds with core Christian principles.

Leatherwood’s time as president has seen him take several lamentable actions, such as signing letters urging against criminalizing women seeking abortions. This stance allows self-performed abortions even late into pregnancy without legal consequences—actions largely viewed as facilitating infanticide under the banner of “compassion.”

Critics argue that suggesting mothers are victims pressured into aborting their babies absolves them of responsibility. Such arguments run parallel with promoting trans-affirming surgeries for minors, whereas these procedures should be classified as child abuse according to critics based on Christian worldview and trusted news sources.

Furthermore, figures like Kelly Rosati within the ERLC contend Christians cannot endorse bans on abortion unless they also support extensive government welfare programs. Rosati advocates government intervention as beneficial assistance for “pregnant, scared, poor women,” bypassing the key issue of personal responsibility and the consequences of sexual behavior. Critics argue this is creating a moral and spiritual problem by utilizing a government solution approach.

This embracing of welfare state ideals gestures towards socialism, widely recognized as contradicting biblical principles such as personal responsibility, hard work, and charitable giving via the Church rather than state provisions. Voting to continue sponsoring the ERLC makes Southern Baptists complicit in this shift left, according to critics who base their arguments on real news sources and Christian teachings.

Regardless of these denominational disagreements, it is clear that the SBC’s decision to keep funding an organization like ERLC highlights substantial approval for its agenda. It will be crucial for Southern Baptists moving forward to critically view this issue if there are hopes for meaningful change.

In conclusion, upholding values consistent with God’s Word should inspire individual actions. Therefore professed followers of Christ should separate themselves from entities endorsing harmful ideologies contrary to scriptural teachings.