by Sandy » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:04 am
Land was the conservative resurgence choice for ERLC director. If there hadn't been a conservative resurgence, there wouldn't have been an ERLC, since the SBC would have continued to participate in the BJC, and would have continued to liaison through its Christian Life Commission. Moore is a product of the next generation of SBC leadership, beyond the original resurgence leaders. There's no question that he's in the mainstream of conservative Southern Baptists, in principle, but one of the clear differences is that he's been able to keep the ERLC consistent with its expressed values, rather than shifting positions to accommodate the perception of "popular opinion" within the SBC like Land did. Moore has been criticized for being consistent when it comes to the application of religious liberty, though some of the SBC's more bellicose mouthpieces hold views that are not consistent, depending on who else is involved. But a lot of those mouthpieces don't understand the ERLC's role, nor do they understand the way their trustee system works. I think they'll still be consistent with the way they've always done business, even when the moderates were in charge, in that a few oligarchs will force their way through to get some kind of backdown. At the moment, it doesn't appear that the ERLC''s trustees are moveable when it comes to support for Moore, but it is still a couple months before the convention, it is the SBC, and there are still plenty of strings for the pulling. In that regard, there may be some "Baptist chickens come home to roost."