Regular readers will remember the ERLC, which is a branch of the Southern Baptist Convention that is often accused of advancing left-wing Democrat party policies. There was an opportunity to de-fund the ERLC at the most recent SBC convention, but the attempt failed. In this post, let’s review a couple of articles that explain what the ERLC is, and why conservatives wanted to shut them down.

The first article is from Daily Signal:

The Southern Baptist Convention held its annual conference this week, and delegates narrowly voted against eliminating the public policy arm, which has been accused of advancing left-wing ideology.

[…]ERLC has been accused of pushing social justice initiatives like critical race theory and gun control. ERLC President Brent Leatherwood has lobbied for gun control under a pro-life banner and led a group to block the release of the transgender Nashville shooter’s writings.

Former ERLC president, Russell Moore, repeatedly denounced President Donald Trump, even though the majority of Southern Baptists voted for him.

About that mention of critical race theory in the quote above… A resolution opposing critical race theory was blocked at a previous Southern Baptist conference. It makes sense to me that this refusal to condemn critical race theory would come from the ERLC, based on their other leftist positions on political issues. But let’s review the refusal to condemn first.

Here’s what Dr. Voddie Baucham had to say about it, as reported by Capstone Report:

The Southern Baptist Convention messengers were cowards for not repudiating Critical Race Theory by name, said Dr. Voddie Baucham on the Todd Starnes Show.

“I don’t think it was so much buying in (to CRT) as much as white guilt and cowardice,” Dr. Baucham said. “It was obvious building up to the Convention that the issue at hand was Resolution 9 on Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality from two years ago and how that was going to be responded to. And when you respond to it with a Resolution that refuses to even name Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality, that is an act of cowardice.”

And another black conservative Carol Swain said this:

I was most interested in the Critical Race Theory issue and a resolution that the Conservative Baptist Network crafted and put forward.

And I am on the steering committee of that network. Our resolution was killed by the resolutions committee. And they put forth a substitute that was vaguely worded and did not mention intersexuality or Critical Race Theory itself.

[…]…then they shut down any debate about how the issue was handled.

Critics of the ERLC claim that the ERLC associates with and is influenced by secular left-wing groups. Critics also claim that the ERLC takes their marching orders from the secular left – not from Scripture or Baptist faith and convictions. And those critics may have a point, when you consider the previous leader of the ERLC, Russell Moore. You might remember him, because he met with Barack Obama. They got along really well! And now Moore is heading up Christianity Today. Check this out: “Between 2015 and 2022, nine Christianity Today employees made 73 political donations. All of them went to Democrats“.

Regarding the ERLC’s links to the secular left, Daily Signal notes:

Between 2018 and 2021, during Moore’s presidency, ERLC received $150,000 from eBay founder and longtime Democrat donor Pierre Omidyar, Basham reported. The Fetzer Foundation, which gets money from Bill Gates, has given ERLC $220,000. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg gave another $90,000.

And that’s not even to mention their connections with the Evangelical Immigration Table, which receives funding from none other than George Soros.

The Center for Baptist Leadership explains in this May 2025 article:

The National Immigration Forum launched the Evangelical Immigration Table with funds from George Soros. The 2013 Open Society Foundations board book notes explicitly that funding from Soros’ organization was sent to the NIF action fund for the purpose of “muster[ing] evangelical support”.

[…][T]he ERLC continues to actively participate in the Evangelical Immigration Table as one of the leadership organizations.

[…]Not only does the ERLC serve as one of the leadership organizations of the Evangelical Immigration Table, but the ties between the ERLC, the National Immigration Forum, and the other leadership organizations of the Evangelical Immigration Table seem unusually interconnected.

Consider this: the ERLC’s former Director of Public Policy was hired directly from the National Immigration Forum. This alone should raise alarms: an employee of a Soros-funded organization that explicitly targeted evangelicals for ideological reformation was hired by the ERLC to represent Southern Baptists on matters of public policy. When she left the ERLC, she moved on to another EIT leadership organization. And she’s not alone.

Megan Basham authored a recent article with Christ Over All, where she talked about the current leader of the ERLC, Brent Leatherwood.

She wrote:

Though Leatherwood told The Baptist Press the ERLC supported a law to ban transgender treatments on children “as it made its way through the Tennessee legislature,” House Majority Leader William Lamberth, who was a principal architect and co-sponsor of the bill, couldn’t remember receiving that support. He did not recall any involvement from the ERLC.

[…]One issue that did not find the ERLC so motivated was protecting women’s private spaces. Lamberth’s colleague, Tennessee Representative Monty Fritts, told me the ERLC was similarly MIA on a bill he sponsored to keep men out of women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and prisons. Again, this is an issue the ERLC regularly highlights in its appeals to Southern Baptists for support. Fritts also said that while many ministries and faith groups in Tennessee backed his proposal to officially name July a month of prayer and fasting, the ERLC was not one of them.

How should the ERLC respond to the charges of conservatives? Well, they can differentiate themselves from the Democrat party, and show the conservatives that they understand what the Bible teaches that affects policy and apologetics. Where is the evidence for their advocacy for socially conservative policies? Do any of them even know how to make a case from the Bible for conservative positions like pro-life or natural marriage? What about defending the existence of God, or the resurrection of Jesus? Does anyone at the ERLC know how to use reason and evidence to make a case to non-Christians about the reasonableness of basic Christian beliefs? Where’s the evidence that this is a priority for them?

Recently, “conservative” Tomi Lahren has appeared on shows like Piers Morgan and Laura Ingraham, arguing that men are defective, weak, and lazy. She thinks that the deficiencies of men are the reason for the decline of marriage. Women want to get married, but the men are just so inferior that women cannot find any “real men”. And that’s why marriage is declining.

But are her views accurate? Is the decline of marriage really due to a shortage of high quality men?

First of all, it’s important to point out that women’s views of what a good man is have been changing. For one thing, a “good man” is now a man who embraces leftist policies like abortion, same-sex marriage, student loan bailouts, green new deal socialism, government-run healthcare, defund the police, open borders, transing the kids, etc.

The far-left UK Independent explains:

An analysis of survey data from across the developing world had found that “a new global gender divide” is emerging. The analysis, conducted by the Financial Times’ John Burn-Murdoch, showed that the developed world’s young women have rapidly become more liberal. Young men, however, have either become more conservative (as in the US) or been much slower to become more progressive (as in the UK). Gen Z, Burn-Murdoch concluded, is “two generations, not one.”

Today, young, unmarried women are more likely to support abortion and same-sex marriage than young, unmarried men. And it’s not just moral issues, it’s fiscal issues as well. Young unmarried women generally vote against the policies that make a country prosperous, such as low taxes and small government.

This study from the Journal of Political Economy explains:

This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross‐sectional time‐series data for 1870–1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.

Now, if you think that Christian leaders are opposed to this slide to the left among young women, then you are wrong. Christian leaders have embraced a view called “servant leadership”. And that view is simply that men are not supposed to lead on moral and spiritual issues, like telling the truth, making decisions, making plans, and achieving results. If men say anything that upsets non-Christians, then this is BAD, and the man has to be punished.

The new view of male leadership which is shared by Christian and non-Christian feminists is that men’s primary purpose is not to serve God, but women. Men are not there to confront lies and immorality in the culture, because “don’t judge”. Men are only there to “provide” (dispense money) and “protect” (be tall, and make muscles). Men should not expect their wives to stay home with their young children. Men must not expect their wives to homeschool the children. Men must drop off the kids at day care and public school, and pick them up. This allows men’s wives to be free to pursue their feminist goals – like buying expensive clothes, putting on make-up and going on TV, just like Tomi Lahren does.

So, how do traditional men respond to this assessment of the decline of marriage?

Here is a clip from Matt Walsh, where he explains what he thinks is wrong with Tomi Lahren’s view:

And then here’s another clip from Steven Crowder, where he explains why feminists (non-Christian and Christian) have failed to be convincing to young men:

Finally, a note. Tomi Lahren is not a conservative. Like most childless, career-oriented feminists, she’s pro-abortion. In fact, if she is like most Christian leaders, she doesn’t think that women sin by choosing abortion. It is somehow always a man’s fault when women sin, because women were not affected by The Fall.

Where are all the good men?

What about Tomi’s definition of “good men”? When modern women talk about “where are all the good men?”, they don’t mean men who are good at defeating lies and opposing moral evil. They don’t mean Matt Walsh. Conservative, Christian men “give them the ick”.

By “good men”, they mean men who:

• are tall and have muscles
• display wealth, rather than save it
• dispense lots of cash to women on demand
• put their kids in daycare and public schools
• vote for Democrat policies, e.g. – abortion, green new deal socialism, defunding police, open borders, transing kids, etc.
• don’t judge, especially don’t judge the woman’s past

Those are the “good men” that modern feminists are having so much trouble finding in their 30s and 40s, once they get tired of having “fun”, and want to settle down with a stable, boring ATM who agrees with them on secular leftism, and NEVER imposes any responsibilities or obligations on them. “Servant leadership”!

So, should traditional men wife up non-traditional women like Tomi Lahren? No. Traditional men should only get married to traditional women. Non-traditional women have to get married to non-traditional men.