In a couple of months the NCAA selection committee will release its results and we will know which teams will participate in March Madness, the NCAA basketball tournament. My team, the Iowa Hawkeyes, after a slow start, is playing better now. The Big 10 does not seem to be as good as it has been in recent years, so maybe the Black and Gold can garner enough wins to secure a place in the tourney. We have a lot of young players – three freshmen start and by the end of the season they might have matured.
Let’s say that they are a 7 seed, so their first game will be against a 10 seed. They will take that game in a narrow win then benefit in the second round from a shocking upset. Last year, Syracuse got to play #15 seed Middle Tennessee after they knocked off the #2 seed, the Fighting Izzos. Same thing. The Hawks beat the #15 team, then meet (again, like Syracuse) the #11 team in the Sweet 16 and knock them off. In the Elite 8, they face the #4 seeded team who knocked off the top seed, and the Hawkeyes play the game of their lives and find themselves in the Final Four as a 7 seed. There is a #1 seed, two 3s, and the good guys. The Hawks play one of the #3 teams and have one of those games where Peter Jok can’t miss a 3. He hits one from the corner at the buzzer and we are in the national championship game – against the other #3 which upset a #1. That team lost its best player to injury in the last minute of the semifinal and the Hawkeyes again play way over their heads, and I sit with tears streaming down my face while the band plays “Beer Barrel Polka” (yeah, that’s our song) and we celebrate “One Shining Moment.”
It could happen.
It could also happen that Dr. Russell Moore will lose his position at the ERLC in 2017.
You say, “Your Hawkeyes will never win the NCAA.” You are right. But I say that is about as likely as any effort to fire Russell Moore succeeding.
I have been involved in several conversations online in which the prevailing sense is that games are afoot designed to get Dr. Moore fired. There is a genuine fear that it is going to happen. No way,
The Real Reality of Realness
The vast majority of Southern Baptists do not understand how we operate as a denomination, which is why there has been such panic among some of the supporters of Dr. Moore.
The convention is set up so that our entities have a large degree of autonomy. The Annual Meeting of the SBC is not authorized to micromanage the inner workings of the entities.
- We elect trustees to oversee them.
- We decide on their doctrinal parameters.
- We vote a budget for them.
- We ask questions of their leaders.
Have you ever noticed how many motions get ruled out of order or referred to Trustees? Why? Because the convention is not supposed to put itself in the place of the Trustees and when a motion tries to that it is ruled out of order. My eyes were opened years ago when the Garner motion passed and we all (on my side of the blogging wars of the day) thought we’d won a great battle. Lo and behold we found that our motion made very little difference in the long run. You can ask the good Dr. Bart Barber to explain the ins and outs of this as he did to a miffed Iowa pastor back then, but the convention doesn’t dictate details to the entities.
The common complaint is that this is evidence of the convention not being accountable to the churches. Nonsense. This is the way the SBC was designed and it is good that it was set up that way. Do we really want our entities to be ruled by the whims of the moment? When a group of people gets upset and organizes a majority at a convention, should they be able to change the course of the denomination in a fit of anger? Our denomination is designed to balance stability and accountability.
Want to fire Dr. Moore? Want to fire Dr. Mohler, or Dr. Patterson, or anyone else? It can be done. You simply have to convince the convention that it is necessary and then elect a president at the next annual meeting. That president must appoint a Committee on Committees who the next year will nominate a Committee on Nominations (that order may be reversed – I can never keep that straight). They will then present a slate of nominees who support your position to the convention. When you get a majority of Trustees supporting your position, they can vote to fire the president. It will only take most of a decade to get it done.
Should it be easy?
Of course, you can also convince the current Trustees that you are right and the entity president is wrong. If you just want to cause trouble, you can make a motion to cut funding. That might actually be in order, though it is highly unlikely to pass.
Are the Hawkeyes going to win the NCAA basketball tournament? It’s not likely. But it’s about as likely as the idea that the talk about getting rid of Dr. Moore will come to pass.
Nuclear Reactions
The tendency to overreact is common among bloggers, and among Baptists. It is time that we tone down the talk and take a reality check here folks. There is a small group of anti-Moore devotees out there and they are not going to be satisfied with anything less than the John the Baptist outcome. They want his head on a platter. Need I name names? Who these people are is hardly a secret. They’ve been hammering at Dr. Moore since he was elected.
- He’s a Calvinist.
- He’s a liberal.
- He’s a Democrat.
- He once worked for a Democrat who (gasp) voted for Pelosi for Speaker.
There is little that can ever be done about this group – they will oppose Moore to the bitter end. But this group is only a tiny fraction not only of the SBC but even of those who have complaints about Dr. Moore. I’ve talked with several people recently who were not part of the knee-jerk anti-Moore contingent, but they had issues with either his words or his tone during the election. Just because someone disagrees with or criticizes Dr. Moore does not mean he has joined the hit squads.
We must get away from the binary extremes. One does not have to choose between being a passionate devotee of Moore, hanging on every word and believing his BO should be bottled as a perfume or being one who seeks his removal from office. There are those who believe Dr. Moore hung the moon and those who would like to see him hung, but many (most?) fall somewhere in between.
- There are people in the SBC who think that Dr. Moore is a courageous voice of truth who overstepped a bit in his rhetoric during the 2016 election. They appreciate his principled stands and prophetic voice but wish he would dial back the stridency at times.
- There are people who disagree with a lot of what Dr. Moore says on a lot of issues but still respect him for his character and courage. They have no desire to join the death squads but they wish he’d be a little more affirming to them on some of their issues of disagreement.
All of that is to say, calm down, folks. Yes, there are some hostiles out there who would love to find a way to end Dr. Moore’s tenure at the ERLC or bring down the ERLC altogether. They are taking advantage of this opportunity to advance their hostile intent. But they will fail and it is best if we just ignore them – that is usually the best course. Too often we let a small band of extremist breaking pitchers and blowing trumpets create the sense they are more than they are.
Baptists Face the Music
A few years ago one of the least Baptist things I’ve seen happened at the annual meeting. Some bloggers heard that an entity leader they liked was facing some potentially tough questioning, so they flooded the mics and asked him softball questions during his presentation. “What is it about puppies and kittens that you love so much?” They made sure that there was no time to ask difficult questions. It was shameful. That leader should have said, “Thank you, but I wonder if anyone has any tough questions?”
Baptist leaders are supposed to be accountable, to answer questions, to hear the complaints of those who are not their biggest fans. A leader who surrounds himself with yes-men who fawn over him and tell him he is right about everything, who will never disagree with him or challenge him when he is wrong – that is not a true Baptist leader. We do not have popes or bishops. I wish we would increase the amount of time at the SBC annual meeting given over to Q&A with entity leaders. It can lead to uncomfortable encounters, but it is essential.
That is why I appreciated Dr. Moore’s apology from a few days ago. He did not back down from the convictions which I have appreciated, but he showed a willingness to reconsider the tone of his rhetoric which I know has rubbed some people wrong – people who share a lot of his views.
It is a good thing when a Baptist leader hears his critics and responds to them. It is always tricky. You cannot enslave yourself trying to please those who only seek to undermine and destroy you. But it is easy to assume that every critic is trying to undermine you. Most are not. They may love you, support you, desire the best for you, but simply see something in you that they believe needs to change.
Just because someone is a critic does not mean he is an enemy.
Suggestions
1. Any one of us should feel free to respectfully express a disagreement with Dr. Moore, or even to criticize his statements or the way he made them. This should be true of any one of our leaders (except Frank Page – don’t criticize Frank Page around me or I’ll poke you in the eye). Those disagreements and criticisms should be carried out with integrity and honesty and should avoid caricature, false accusation, and twisting of arguments. But criticizing a leader is as Baptist as immersion.
2. We need to avoid consigning all critics to the ranks of the death squads. A person can be unhappy with some part of Dr. Moore’s positions or tone without desiring his dismissal. Those who support Moore need to learn subtlety at times. Do not paint every critic of Moore as part of those who seek his ouster. Do not overreact to every criticism of Dr. Moore. It doesn’t help.
3. Ignore the Gideon squad. Gideon was used of God to defeat the Midianites. He and his 300 soldiers broke pitchers and blew trumpets and raised such a ruckus that the enemy believed they were a much bigger group than they were. They panicked and killed one another. Those who are seeking Dr. Moore’s hide are a modern day Gideon squad – without the blessing of God, I am convinced. They are raising a ruckus that makes people believe they are a bigger group than they are. They are aided by panicky supporters who paint everyone who criticizes Moore as part of the death squad.
But this is small group of people and the healthiest thing to do is simply ignore them. Don’t answer them. Don’t fight them. Don’t argue with them. Just let them blow their trumpets and break their pitchers but do not add to the din. They may have the right to raise a ruckus but we have an equal right to ignore it.
4. There is a clear path to peace in this for everyone but the Gideon squad, and they do not want peace anyway. Listen to each other. Critics, try to understand why people are so passionate about Dr. Moore. He is saying some things that Southern Baptists need to be saying, opening our eyes to some truths we’ve closed them to as we gave ourselves over to the GOP lock, stock, and barrel. On some issues, many of us believe that we often followed traditions instead of scripture. You may not agree, but at least try to understand. Moore supporters, (and Dr. Moore, if you happen to be listening), try to understand why people are a little bit piqued with us.
Critics, try to understand why people are so passionate about Dr. Moore. He is saying some things that Southern Baptists need to be saying, opening our eyes to some truths we’ve closed them to as we gave ourselves over to the GOP lock, stock, and barrel. On some issues, many of us believe that we often followed traditions instead of scripture. You may not agree, but at least try to understand. Moore supporters, (and Dr. Moore, if you happen to be listening), try to understand why people are a little bit piqued with us.
Moore supporters, (and Dr. Moore, if you happen to be listening), try to understand why people are a little bit piqued with us. We are upsetting the apple cart and telling them that what they’ve always believed and done is wrong. Is it possible that we’ve been a little overbearing at times? (NO! Never!) Is it possible we’ve come across as judgmental? Isn’t that something fairly easy to work on? Presenting the same truths in a slightly less harsh package? That isn’t that hard.
We can do this. The Moore supporters and critics can find rapprochement. The ghost of election 2016 doesn’t have to haunt us forever – not for those of good will and godly desire. Obviously, not everyone is going to come along, but most will.
Well said.
Well said, very well said. I think the most important point said was our need to stay away from “binary extremes”. I don’t agree with Dr. Moore’s approach and opinion about the recent election. I didn’t agree with his opinion on the use/non use of the Confederate battle flag. I do respect Dr. Moore for taking a stand, no one has to doubt where he is on an issue, whether we agree with him or not. We really need to avoid being so like the political extremes of the Democratic and Republican parties that brought us Clinton and Trump to choose from where you are either one way or another, to the point you are unable to have a rational (Godly) debate on the subject. Recently, on this very forum, a person was ranting on and on about how we are going to give the SBC away to Trump if we fail to support Dr. Moore, really? That is the very kind of divisiveness that keeps us passionate about things that don’t matter.
Good comment.
I do agree that SBC entities should not have to be fearful of every whim of public opinion. But I sure would like SBC entity heads AND employees to be more accountable, accessible and open to the thoughts and concerns of those who pay the bills. I do not understand why they choose to ignore us….frustrating, to say the least!
Perhaps, Alan, that has more to do with you and your approach.
Have you made personal contact with these men or do you just blare your complaints in angry screeds? Have you tried talking to them? I have found many of our entity leaders very open.
Have you even tried?
Thanks Dave, this helps me step back and consider the perspectives of others. I know I’ve allowed the Gideon squad to loom large in my own mind as I’ve felt the need to express strong support for Dr. Moore. Probably better to ignore them more than I do.
Good post, Dave.
I now consider the $100 I bet on the Hawkeyes to be money wasted.
Thanks a lot, Dave.
And to engage with the real concept: it’s probably a valuable consideration for most of us pastors, as well–while we can get sacked by a vote in the next business meeting, let’s not jump at shadows.
This is a great comment.
Allen, who is us? SB represent a wide spectrum of theological and political thoughts. Agency heads should respond to their Trustees who are elected by SB to represent all of us, even those who we might disagree with on politics or theology.
Hey Dave, You don’t really know me although we met in Columbus. I’ve known Dr. Moore for over 20 years (since before he was “Dr”) and much of what I read about him does not square with the man I know. That said, there is MUCH which he does that I disagree with him about – both the ‘how’ and the ‘what’. However, I still count him a friend and would like to think a close friend who I get to see very seldom. Someone said or has written that it is “difficult to lead an SBC entity because the SBC is made up of such diverse people.” Admittedly, taking a step back and reviewing our history reveals that to be the truth. The issues surrounding ‘non-accountable entity heads’ precedes Dr Moore by many years, but you know that and have not even hinted that ‘he started it.’ In your piece you spoke of what we can do at the SBC meeting…(I would add that we adopt “Resolutions” which I never understood until recent years. I actually at one time, thought those to be a waste of time, but now I know better.) We • appoint trustees, • vote on budgets, • elect officers, • hear reports, and • question our leaders. Quite honestly, that last bullet point or order of business is that one that has bothered me for years. And it is found in the ‘process’ and ‘procedure’ of the Convention. IT GOES LIKE THIS: Someone ‘dares’ to ask an entity head a question and, many times, ‘BAMM’ they are put in their place by the platform speaker AND their microphone is dead because ‘parliamentary procedure’ says so (and because time won’t really allow questioning and an exchange that is meaningful.) Now, this is NOT a shot at Barry McCarty, who does an outstanding job as Parliamentarian, but a personal observation which, I believe, needs to be addressed if the Convention Leaders are to ever become accountable to the convention. There are many voices for Dr. Moore removal (as well as other leaders) and I believe these voices do little for the furtherance of the gospel. Perhaps the better strategy will be a ‘resolution’ (which speaks for the SBC) naming a person to be the ‘public face’ of Southern Baptist. Candidly, the issue for me is that this role, as I read the “Mission” or “Ministry” of the… Read more »
I’d have to know what your specific situation is. A lot of time people who want to speak don’t really understand the process and therefore violate the rules of the meeting. If you are going to the microphone it behooves you to learn the rules and follow them.
For instance, when you speak during the Q&A, the rules say you are to ask questions and not give statements. So someone who embarks on a lengthy speech may find himself ruled out of order.
I think we should protec this time and even expsnd it. But it is also important that those who wish to ask questions learn the porcedures, rules, and follow them.
Sometimes, people come away feeling as if they have been mistreated when all that has happened is that they didn’t follow the rules and were thus ruled out of order. An unfortunate incident last year with a well known SBC leader is instructive on this point.
Its always bothered me that one question is asked and the entity head takes the entire remainder of the allotted time for questions to answer that single question – one time recently, I felt was sure the question was a plant and sure enough the entity president took The remainder of the time “answering” that question.
Often, there are people left at the microphones who don’t get an opportunity to ask questions.
I know it has to end someplace and time has to flow…but to be honest I have felt many times that the entity heads have filibustered the time away especially if controversial questions are expected to be or have been asked.
Like you, I have seen many at the microphone who have not ‘learned’ the rules & procedures – then return repeatedly – and walking feeling like they have been mistreated…the only point I was ‘attempting to make’ (I say attempting because I can miss the mark very easily 🙂 ) is what Tarheel alluded to – Much of the time when a question has merit, it is more than just a ‘one-question’ topic and requires a follow-up, yet that is OUTSIDE the bounds of the rules. And I do understand why – to some degree (we can’t let an unending conversation go on between an inquiring member and entity head because that would be counterproductive)….
However, I do think we must address this ‘one question’ process “IF” accountability is to be restored. Please know, that I have no axe to grind – have never been to a microphone because I have been able to get questions answered in the ‘hallway’ (GRIN)…That said, over the last 40 years, I have been close on a number of occasions to stepping to a mic for any of a number of reasons. The rules that are in place – in large part – discourage me from speaking because without follow-up, my point may never be heard because, I believe, real truth in circumstances like this comes from an exchange. For me, this is not as much personal as it is process. In fact, I have considered talking with Steve about anything which might be done to assist this process.
I do think the Q&A is important. I’m guessing entity leaders don’t always live it but it’s a crucial time.
One point. It seems the critics keep mentioning that Russell Moore claimed to speak for the SBC, but I do not see where that is true, and I never took him to be speaking for the SBC as it was many Baptists who were voting for Trump and were pro-Trump. In fact that is why it appears he did speak as he did. So many Southern Baptists and a few high profile ministers were pro-Trump. Falwell and Jeffress were making crazy remarks that I could not believe were from Christians. In fact Christians were making remarks that were racist, anti-woman and defending Trump’s moral failings, defending every crazy word he spoke that I think Russell Moore was appalled and spoke out using scripture and our beliefs as Southern Baptists and Christians as his talking points. He did not claim to speak for Southern Baptists he was speaking TO Southern Baptists.
I keep asking this, but no one seems to be able or willing to answer: How we people know that Moore is out of touch with the vast majority of the SBC? If you just keep saying it, does it make it so?
“Moore is out of touch” means “he disagrees with me.”
I know this won’t be popular, but it’s really time for the SBC to enter the 21st century. If you really want to know what the majority of SBCers want, if you really want greater participation in the governing process, then we have to embrace technology. I know the annual meeting is fun (in a way) for people, but attendance is waning, and the process is kludgy. There’s no reason entity heads can only answer questions for a few minutes once a year. Is there any demographic info on the size of churches who send messengers to the SBC? This is a convention of mostly small churches, governed by megachurch celebrities. Technology could level the playing field, at least somewhat.
I’m not sure how technology would solve this. If entity heads want to answer questions they already do. If they do not then they already avoid doing so. I don’t recall NOT getting some sort of answer from any SBC leader (or his staff) whom I emailed or whose office I called. The questions from the floor are more theater and not generally helpful to either leader or questioner.
Technology would level the field somewhat if it were used for voting. Messengers from 2,349 churches attended the 2015 annual meeting. I think small church pastors and spouses generally can get to the convention if they wish, unless it is in a distant location.
My guess is that remote voting would threaten the celebrity leadership system that we have had for some time now and the mega-brethren would oppose it. To some degree voting is already changed by technology with obscure, non-celebrity pastors like Dave Miller being elected to some positions (several VPs and now Pastor’s Conference president), rather than the celeb pastors who frequent the high visibility speaking venues.
Good topic on its own for next year.
Russell Moore will be fine. AL Mohler and the chairman of the Ethics Commission trustees are both supporting him.
I wish I could be as optimistic regarding Moore’s future as you, Dave. I agree that Moore isn’t likely to be fired any time soon. Yet I’m concerned about the long-term trajectory of the SBC. “Traditionalists” seem better at getting their supporters to the Convention than socially-conscientious conservatives. Further, a strategic alliance of high profile traditionalist pastors and state convention leaders, bolstered by support from SWBTS, seems to be taking shape. Further, the Calvinistic affinity networks have never shown much interest in denominational activism. I’m just wondering what would prevent an element from “going for the jugular” one more time with an entirely different agenda. I think vigilance is in order; the future of the SBC will be determined by those who show up.
I’m a layman who came of age during the CR years. I spent a lot of time in my father’s study during his seminary and early ministry years in the 70s and attended several SBC annual meetings with my father (a pastor) in from the late 70s into the 90s. I had a front row seat to the CR. A significant section of my personal library has most of the key books and pamphlets regarding what became the”conservative resurgence” from when the decades long left wing shift started becoming public in the 50s to the histories of the CR published into the 2000s I list the above to provide context. While being fully in support of the CR (again, having documentation of what was happening in various SBC agencies gave me something of an immunity to the leftwing and moderate pushback), I also saw how the movement spawned a generation of SBC leaders who seemed to see their own personal rise to prominence as a license to do whatever, whenever without meaningful consequence. Sure, there have been exceptions but very few. For every Bob Reccord (who was finally forced out at NAMB for his misuse of funds and dictatorial style), there is a Paige Patterson (who got a pass for acting as though the charter rules of SWBTS apply to everyone but himself). The unwritten rule in the SBC leadership club is that as long as you don’t completely embarrass the SBC and/or create an environment where the laity lose their passion to provide financial support to the agencies, the club will back you. At the moment, the club has Moore’s back. The problem, is that the club is almost exclusive comprised of pastors and denominational employees. They see a fellow leader who has created fresh opportunities for a new generation of up and coming pastors and leaders. His strident style and in your face attacks on straw man traditions are easy to follow and his folksy delivery almost acts as the spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down. But a growing number of laity have witnessed a growing boldness on Moore’s part to imply racism, a slavish devotion to politics and cultural, and even a lack of fidelity to the Gospel itself by those who don’t jump through the hoops he favors. To Moore, Roman Catholics are worthy of partnering with on areas of social and political… Read more »
This is a particularly astute comment, especially the last paragraph.
Moore has reflexive supporters, backing from the SBC oligarchy, and an income stream that is as secure. Absent a CR-like groundswell of opposition life will,go on as usual…except that the entire cooperative program will lose just a little more support from folks in the pews.
Wow. There’s much to agree with in Jonathon’s comment. I too have spoken of the boys club – and it certainly a reality. Your comments about the “conservative resurgence” heroes is a spot on…they Think they have a license to do is they will and have the support of many not only in the boys club but also pastors who appreciate the work in the conservative resurgence. You’re also right about the not an apology apology is being accepted from our leaders – and you correctly point out that this happened with Paige Patterson … remember at the end of his tearful apology he basically said he would do it again if it meant someone get saved – still receiving a vast majority standing ovation of the pastors in the room. I disagree with you on the Glenn Beck thing – Russell Moore was exactly right on that and Richard Land was wrong… Because Glenn Beck was talking about religious revival and seeking to link Mormonism and Christianity under the same God and theology. But thanks for posting your thoughts – they’ve been helpful to read. Now About Moore: I have disagreed with Russell Moore on lots of issues and sometimes the way he’s said things – and said so publicly many times – in so doing I too have been accused of being “anti-Moore”. Although I am not. I think he is a really good ethics and religious liberty commission president. I sincerely hope that he remains in that position because he makes us think – challenges the status quo and makes a stink – and doesn’t parrot and puppet what the Republican Party says ( or the old guard of the Southern Baptist convention for that matter) – but helps us think critically by provoking us to it. It’s necessary – it’s important – if we lose it we will lose something very very meaningful. I’ve been saying for a long time that the fire Russell more campaign is about two things – anti-Calvinism and Trumpism. I still believe that – but I’m also beginning to see that it’s about another thing – which is instinctively connected to the other two – it’s also about raw power. One of the most beautiful things about the cooperative program is that it is giving of financial means without maintaining control of those finances – we trust godly menand Women trustees… Read more »
A clarification of the Glenn Beck thing (quoting from a note I posted on my Facebook account the weekend that Moore did his hit piece on Land and every other member of a bible believing church who attended the event in August, 2010): “On July 13, I turned on the television to check the news, and Glenn Beck’s show was on. He was talking about liberation theology. I thought, “that’s not something you see on a news program everyday” and decided to watch for awhile longer. Beck was making a point about how the liberation theology of folks like Jeremiah Wright (Pres. Obama’s pastor for 20 years in Chicago) was different than the Christian view of how the Bible describes salvation. What I saw next was completely unexpected, at least to me. And rather than give my impression of it, I’ll quote from Beck himself: Beck: “You cannot earn your way into heaven. You can’t! There is no deed, no random act of kindness, no amount of money to spread around to others that earns you a trip to heaven. It can’t happen. It’s earned by God’s grace alone, by believing that Jesus died on the cross for you. This is what Christians believe.” Beck: “I also am wise enough to know that people will say, yeah, but Glenn Beck is a Mormon, He’s not even a real Christian. You can believe what you want. I will tell you that I am a man who needed the atonement more than most people do. I appreciate the atonement. I accept Jesus as my savior. I know that I am alive today because I did give all of it to Him because I couldn’t carry it anymore.” Beck: “salvation is an individual relationship between the individual and God through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross” Beck: “Jesus said, John 14:6, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life.’ I cannot be saved for you. I cannot save you. I can’t even save myself. If you’re a Christian you believe that Jesus can save you.” Beck: “Here is traditional Christianity. Jesus died, two thieves over here. He took on the sins of the world by choice. The empty tomb represents that he conquered death. He was not a victim because he did it by choice. He’s not a victim, he’s a victor. He was a conqueror. He conquered death. Got it?… Read more »