I was a vocal NeverTrumper during the days leading up to the 2016 election. Since then, I have not spoken much about political issues, for several reasons. First of all, I am burned out on politics. Second, politics has become so divisive in churches and in the SBC that I have not felt that raising partisan issues was a wise use of my time. My feelings about President Donald Trump remain largely unaltered. He has done some good things in his administration – Justice Gorsuch is probably at the top of the list. But he has continued to be crass, belligerent, and to be embroiled in scandals. His first year in office has been tumultuous beyond dispute – Democrats blame Republicans and Republicans blame Democrats.
I do not write today to reopen the discussion of Donald Trump’s qualifications for office, or even to review his competence in office. He is president and will be for almost three more years, possibly seven, barring something unforeseen. But I write because of two links brought to my attention today. First was an article from the New York Times (which immediately causes many of you to discount it, I am sure) called, “A Quiet Exodus: Why Blacks Are Leaving Evangelical Churches.” The premise of the article is that the nearly unquestioning support of Donald Trump among evangelicals has caused black evangelicals to feel uncomfortable and unwanted in predominantly white churches. Is this accurate? I would guess that to some extent, it is. I have heard this same idea from other sources, that the Trump campaign and the almost unquestioning support of many Christians and churches for him has created suspicion and distrust among minorities and has set back racial reconciliation dramatically. I hope it’s not true but I fear that there is substance there.
Had I only read that article, I would not be writing this, but I also was sent a clip of Dr. Robert Jeffress, a Southern Baptist pastor and an untiring advocate for Donald Trump. The president has been accused recently of sexual involvement (not recent, I believe) with a porn star. Accusations of hypocrisy are flying because evangelicals, who claim to uphold a biblical standard of morality, are seemingly ignoring the “stormy” days (sorry) that have enveloped the presidency. Here is what Dr. Jeffress said on Fox News. (My apologies for the somewhat racy pic there.)
Here are a couple of clips from what Jeffress said:
“Evangelicals still believe in the commandment: Thou shalt not have sex with a porn star…However, whether this president violated that commandment or not is totally irrelevant to our support of him.”
“Evangelicals knew they weren’t voting for an altar boy when they voted for Donald Trump. We supported him for his policies and his strong leadership.”
“Evangelicals understand the concept of sin and forgiveness…Whether the president needs that forgiveness, whether the president has asked for that forgiveness, is between him and him, and his family, and his God.” (In the ellipsis, Jeffress did give a rudimentary gospel presentation)
“Even if it’s proven to be true (the sexual allegations), it doesn’t matter.”
Anyone as old as I am might feel as if he were caught in the “upside-down” from the late 90s. Then, when President Clinton’s sexual escapades were being discussed, evangelicals spoke with one voice that character mattered, that personal behavior could not be separated from professional performance. I have a letter in my files from James Dobson written during that time saying that Christians simply could not support a president, regardless of his policies, who was guilty of such ungodly behavior.
Now, it is a Republican president who is guilty (he’s admitted adultery in his own books) and is accused of heinous moral behavior and evangelical leaders are saying exactly what the liberals said in the 90s. “It doesn’t matter.” Trump’s personal character doesn’t matter as long as his policies are good and he leads us well. That is exactly what the Democrats said about Clinton and we were horrified.
Please let me make it clear what this article is NOT about.
- I don’t want to discuss Trump’s policies or effectiveness in office.
- I am not interested in whether he was a better choice than Hillary. I met a man in the Dulles airport who worked for Hillary on my trip back from Africa and he told me that things would likely not be better today if Hillary was in office. He couldn’t say enough bad things about her. Fine. I don’t want to argue that Hillary should be president (I did not vote for her).
- I am not wanting to discuss politics in general.
- I am not even interested in discussing Dr. Jeffress or his loyalty to President Trump.
I have a very specific and limited point here. Dr. Jeffress repeatedly speaks as a self-appointed mouthpiece for evangelicals. “Evangelicals believe…” “Evangelicals think…” And it is true that a majority of self-identified evangelicals (an increasingly meaningless term) have shared some of his views. But I want to make a clear, unambiguous statement to the Baptist world, the Christian world, and the world at large – if it reads this blog.
I am a conservative, evangelical, Baptist. I believe in the inerrancy of the word of God, God’s special creation of the world, the miracles of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, the sinlessness of Christ, the Blood atonement, the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, and the Second Coming of Christ. As a political, theological, moral, and personal conservative, I want to make one thing absolutely and unequivocally clear.
Robert Jeffress does NOT speak for me.
When he speaks for evangelicals he is not speaking for me. I still believe what I believed when I said that Bill Clinton should resign from office. Moral character cannot be separated from professional performance. When Dr. Jeffress appears on Fox News and speaks on behalf of evangelicals, there is at least one Iowa pastor who is not whispering amen. I suspect I am not alone.
Dr. Jeffress is welcome to speak for himself and if they allow, for his church. But I hope the press will understand that “evangelicalism” is far from monolithic and he is not “the voice of evangelicalism.” He is not the voice of Southern Baptists and does not speak for us (nor do I or any other individual). Please understand, Dr. Jeffress has the right to lift his voice but as a conservative evangelical Christian I beg you to hear me – it is NOT my voice.
Does Robert Jeffress speak for you?
Robert Jeffress does NOT speak for me.
NO! He is a terrible representative of pastors, evangelicals, and Southern Baptist. I really wish people in his church would wake up and stand up to him.
If Jeffress is the rep for all evangelicals, count me out. His blanket grouping of all of us together makes me want to forsake the term evangelical altogether.
I resist anyone being the spokesperson for all evangelicals. If someone were a spokesperson for me they would be one complicated dude, because I learned a long time ago not to buy the whole load of any political or theological party.
Given some of my past posts, even without this one there should be no doubt: Jeffress doesn’t even come close to speaking for me.
I guess ultimately :WE ALL SPEAK FOR OUR SELF.
Yes thank you! He does not speak for me either!
He does not speak for me. It was God’s grace that I was saved prior to this past election cycle. If I had been a lost man looking for Truth these past couple of years, I would not have taken a second glance at conservative Christianity because of this rank hypocrisy. I’ve never had any respect for Jeffress, but I did once have respect for James Dobson and Franklin Graham. Those days are gone. I wish every major news organization would link to this post from their articles about supposed evangelicals.
“Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the Name of the LORD our God.”
Psalm 20:7
Robert Jeffress most definitely does not speak for me.
Dr. Jeffries says [in effect] Trump’s activities don’t matter.
Winestein’s Board of Directors says [in effect] morality matters; Winestein has to go.
Conclusion: Even Hollywood has a modicum of decency and morality that is lacking in some quarters of the Southern Baptist Convention. And Hollywood has a pretty low bar.
Jeffries is definitely NOT speaking for me.
Roger
Robert Jeffress does NOT speak for me.
He most certainly does not speak for me.
He does not speak for me. He also does not speak for Jesus.
He doesn’t speak for me.
It seems ridiculous that one person should have the title of being the voice of all evangelicals. I felt uneasy back in the 1990’s when Focus on the Family spoke as if any candidate who was for smaller government and lower taxes was “Pro Family”, even though I was for smaller government, too, I also realized that there were plenty of secular libertarians who were also for small government and lower taxes, as well, and Christianity had nothing to do with it.
The perception that one person or group of people speaks for evangelicals began interestingly enough with the CR in the SBC which in many ways coincided with the birth of The Moral Majority (founded by two SBC pastors Dr. Charles Stanley and Dr. Jerry Falwell) and Focus on the Family being on the radio. Charles Colson’s Break Point radio program soon followed and the Religious Right became a visible force in America’s politics. However, through all of the elections since the rise of the religious right, black evangelicals have probably not felt that the leaders of the religious right were speaking for them as they were the most loyal constituency for the Democratic Party (Obama received over 95% of their vote) in their voting patterns.
Therefore it seems a little ironic that now some are saying certain individuals are not speaking for evangelicals as a whole group when this has been the case for almost 40 years.
As far as the present discussion of Trump’s reported affair with the porn star – what difference does it make if she was a porn star or a Sunday School teacher? Adultery is adultery! Her being a porn star doesn’t make it a worse sin, it just makes it sound more salacious.
Robert Jeffress does not speak for me and since you brought up the Alan’s article in the beginning of this post, Alan Cross does not speak for me either.
I need to correct myself and apologize. Alan Cross did not write the article you referenced. He posted it on his FB page. The article was written by Campbell Robertson. Therefore, I should have stated: Campbell Robertson does not speak for me.
Alan Cross, I apologize for crediting you with something you did not do. At the same time, you don’t speak for me either. None of us should allow another person to speak for us. Nor should any of us be afraid to speak for ourselves. I think fear to speak has done great harm in Southern Baptist life.
I don’t speak for CB Scott.
Alan Cross,
😉 🙂 😉 and one more to make Dave Miller mad at me for using emojis on Voices 😉
Alan Cross: Hahaha.
Needless to say Jeffress does not speak for me. (Notice I did not use the word But at the beginning of either sentence. )
Good post.
Debbie Kaufman speaks for and to everybody and they better listen when she does or she will speak longer. 😉
😉
CB: Isn’t that supposed to read ‘more longer’? 🙂
Dwight McKissic,
😉 😉
I speak for C B Scott.?
Robert Jeffress does NOT speak for me.
Mr. Jeffress doesn’t speak for me.
And, as they say, all generalizations are false. Including this one.
#Jeffress does not speak for me
It literally disgusts me….makes me gag…that people lump all evangelicals with this man.
Robert Jeffress does NOT represent me.
Robert Jeffress does NOT speak for me
In answering your question, allow me to answer, using the ancient Hebrew term, “Heck no!”
Isn’t that a guttural? Czheck no.
Nor me!
When Jeffrees wakes up he will gladly say he is not speaking for himself, either.
Until the, he is NOT speaking for me and my household.
Uhh, no he doesn’t speak for me.
So what he is saying, quite literally, is that there is no moral line that Trump can cross that will make evangelicals drop their support. Fair enough, as long as we stop pretending we care about such things.
So anyway, jeffress most definitely does not speak for me. Almost the opposite in fact. His words sicken me.
To be fair to Jeffress, in the interview he indicates that if President Trump was in an adulterous relationship while in office many would no longer support him. There still a moral line.
Maybe it is best to say he does not speak for me in all things.
Someone needs to consult W. A. Criswell on this! 🙂
My own pastor does not speak for me in political matters. I respect him always but don’t always agree with him. Why would some guy a thousand miles away be able to articulate what I support and don’t.
I speak for myself.
Jeffrees was obviously hand-picked by Fox News because of his position on Trump. A more prominent Southern Baptist should have been chosen. Why not our current SBC President? Odd.
Umm. No! Not him either
I was just making the point that Jeffrees is an odd choice. Gaines wouldn’t speak for me either.
Jeffress does not speak for me. At this point, I would rather he never even speak to me.
Dr. Jeffress does not speak for me and neither does SBC Voices. So glad to know he doesn’t speak for all you people. I’m not here to defend Dr. Jeffress. He can do that himself. This is political whether you think it is or not. You are trying to make political statements. I’m not here to defend President Trump either. Some of what Dr. Jeffress said has been misconstrued on this site. What a surprise!
I never purported to speak for anyone but myself. I don’t even speak for “SBC Voices.” Each writer here speaks for himself (or, in rare cases, herself). We don’t really have an editorial viewpoint. So, SBC Voices would never speak for you because SBC Voices doesn’t speak. It is a place where individual writers are given an opportunity to speak.
It is not unusual for me to post articles with which I disagree.
It is not unusual.
https://youtu.be/BQLdUDEb8E0
Haha Louis. Although I thought the link was going to show this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=30&v=L80T-lrEMRc
Robert Jeffress does NOT speak for me!
#JeffressNotMyVoice
#JeffressNotMyKindOfEvangelical
#SBCVoicesLetsMeSpeakForMyself
#Hashtag
#EmojiForever O:-)
🙂
Someone block Scott Gordon
I’m a little disappointed that no one, to this point, has made reference to my “upside-down” comment. “Stranger things” have happened, I guess.
The Mind Flayer does not speak for me.
Jeffress has only 47,500 Twitter followers.
By contrast, John Piper has 976,000 Twitter followers. Matt Chandler has 418,000. Rick Warren has 2,320,000. Russell Moore has 143,000. Al Mohler has 153,000.
Before she left the SBC for Judaism, Britney Spears had 57,000,000 Twitter followers. Twitter followers don’t mean that much.
My point is that if Robert Jeffress was really a major spokesman who represented a lot of evangelicals, we would expect him to have more Twitter followers.
Not only does Jeffress not speak for me. I cannot recall anyone, ever using Jeffress as a reference as in “John Piper said….” or “Charles Stanley said…” He is a controversialist without meaningful influence.
JohnR,
Obviously, he has enough influence to be the subject of this post, generate several Facebook postings, be a television talking head, and serve as pastor of one of the most well known local churches in America and the SBC.
His influence must be “meaningful ” to somebody, a lot of “somebodys.”
Of course, his influence may be a commentary on how easily people, including Christians, can be influenced these days.
I do hear church members say, “Robert Jeffress said,” but mostly older people.
Jeff,
Do you have a point you are trying to make? Or, is that just your bigotry toward “older people” manifesting itself?
If I hear church members quoting anyone, it is usually Hannity or Limbaugh.
Can’t help but laugh at this one. . . somewhat sadly though.
“If I hear church members quoting anyone, it is usually Hannity or Limbaugh.”
Bill Mac,
That reality is worthy of a post all of its own, ya think? I think a lot of Southern Baptists would vote either one of those guys in as their pastor if given the opportunity. Amazingly strange times we live in, Brother.
Judging influence by # of Twitter followers or any of that is unworthy.
For me, the problem is not that Jeffress has no influence – would that it were so. The problem is that his is a prominent voice on a prominent network purporting to speak on my behalf.
If you’re making your assessment of the value of some pastors (or talk radio personality) based on how often you hear them quoted, Joel Osteen has them all beat – He has sold more books than any pastor and he and Victoria have their own channel on Sirius XM Satellite Radio so that you can receive their encouragement 24 hours a day (Who needs Prozac when you can hear Victoria Osteen!). I don’t consider Joel (or Victoria) to be great expositors of theology or wisdom, but I recognize that millions in churches (even SBC churches, too) listen to what he has to say.
In all seriousness, it is ridiculous for any one person or group to be the “spokesmen” for Evangelicals or any other group. I would imagine that there were many blacks who weren’t thrilled that the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton were the official spokesmen for blacks in America for a number of years.
Just because you and your circle of millennials like Piper and other reformed teachers doesn’t mean that the majority of the evangelical population is too – Joyce Myer has written over 100 books and is on numerous T.V. stations, so obviously a lot of folks are reading, listening and “quoting Joyce” but you probably never encounter anyone who watches her.
Just because folks you know aren’t quoting Robert Jeffress doesn’t make his opinion or his ministry less valuable. I myself think that Jeffress doesn’t make his case well on T.V. Why can’t there be several commentators speaking for evangelicals? And there’s nothing wrong with quoting Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity – would you rather they be quoting Rachael Maddow?
Joyce Meyer has 5,900,000 Twitter followers. Joel Osteen has 8,170,000. While I would not say that they spoke for all evangelicals, if they did speak about politics, I would acknowledge that they represent a substantial constituency. Since Robert Jeffress has only 47,500 Twitter followers, it is probably likely that he represents a much smaller group of followers. It might be argued that Twitter skews young. If that is the case, then it means that Robert Jeffress’ following is older, which means that a lot of it will be dead in 10-20 years. It seems like Jeffress’ prominence is due to his tendency to speak in a way that Fox News hosts like. Also, while FBC Dallas is still a big and influential church, people can overestimate its prominence, based on what it was 30 years ago.
My sermon text this am, 2 Timothy 4:1-5 – including the passage about people gathering around themselves teachers who tell them what their itching ears want to hear – seems to explain some of that.
Random query: How many of those books do you think Joel, Joyce, and other prosperity gospel pimps actually write themselves? I met someone in college once who was a ghost writer for a prominent “preacher” and she was so talented that her work made it sound as if it was written in the male “preachers” voice. Sentence structure and everything was exactly how this “preacher” would speak naturally. I just wonder how they have that much time on their hands to churn out a new self help book every quarter. On the flip side of that my friend Owen, who teaches at MBTS, is an exceptional writer and can churn out a book fairly quickly, but still in a reasonable time frame. Much like Piper who can finish a book in a span of a few months.
I was similarly appalled by Robert Jeffress’ comments. He doesn’t speak for me (a Reformed Baptist pastor in New Hampshire).
CB Scott and Bill Mac, just because someone listens to a political commentary by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity doesn’t mean that they think they should be a pastor or in any ministry role or that they take them as an expositor of Christianity. There are all kinds of folks who have political insights in both conservative and liberal camps. You don’t have to agree with their political ideology, but they can have insights on strategy and conducting campaigns that others may not see. Why watch any of the cable news shows where there is a panel if you don’t want to hear them? Rush Limbaugh offers his opinions and strategy just like the folks on Meet The Press, Fox News Sunday, etc. However, Rush Limbaugh doesn’t put himself out there as any sort of a Christian leader so I don’t know why the subject of him being a pastor would even come up – he said he wouldn’t even consider being the President because he couldn’t handle the salary cut.
David,
Don’t be the victim of “wasted time and ink” due to a lack of reading what someone is actually writing.
Notice my statement again and reflect:
“I think a lot of Southern Baptists would vote either one of those guys in as their pastor if given the opportunity.”
Now, notice that your entire comment does not reflect even one small iota of understanding my statement whatsoever.
David: I won’t speak to CBs comment since he has done that himself, but I’m happy to unpack my comment.
In my experience the Christian comrades in my life are far more likely to be avid followers or fans of Hannity or Rush than they are of some prominent Christian. I myself am at the right side of the political spectrum, so I don’t have much objection per se to most conservative positions. My problem is the conflation of Christianity and right wing politics. I unapologetically believe it is this conflation that has dragged evangelical Christians into this unholy alliance with Donald Trump. I’m not much of a fan of Rush and even less of a fan of Hannity, but my comment was not meant as a denigration of these men, but merely to demonstrate the prominent place (too prominent in my opinion) men like them have in the American Christian consciousness.
I suppose that since it is reported that 80% of evangelicals voted for Trump, the news folks tried to find an evangelical pastor representative of that segment of believers.
Jeffress fits that bill.
I didn’t see any claim, by Jeffress or anyone else, that Jeffress was speaking for all evangelicals.
So why are we pounding the table to rebut a point that has not been made?
As for the NYT article, what a load.
The article was clearly written to harm the Prez, and to stir up trouble in the church using some anecdotal stories etc.
I don’t personally know any African American believers who would leave a church and people they love unless the church took certain political positions.
Also, we need to remember that calling a the Republican candidate or President a racist is just the usual. I think it was poor W who got tarred and feathered over the death of Mr. Byrd in his state. Romney of course was also a racist, as was John McCain, as was Ronald Reagan et al.
Folks, this is how votes are rounded up.
The new wrinkle here is that the usual accusers are trying to drag the church into it.
Maybe it will work and foment unrest in the body.
I sure hope not.
The world will know we are Christians by our love for one another, political opinions aside.
If we turn on one another because some of us think others of us have less virtuous political views, that will be tragic.
“Evangelicals know they’re not compromising their beliefs in order to support this great president,” Jeffress says.
Sure sounds like he thinks he’s speaking for evangelicals. That comment also turns my stomach.
Watch the video Louis. Listen to Jeffress himself.
Jeffress continually purports to speak for evangelicals.
He does not speak for me.
Honestly, Louis, I think your political leanings here may make it difficult for you to see the point we are trying to make.
Yes, I disagree with Jeffress.
But I spoke because he repeatedly (here and at other times) spoke as if he were articulating the views of evangelicals as a whole. If he does, then I need to come up with a term other than evangelical.
It matters to me if the president had sex with a porn star and is unrepentant. Yeah, it matters. Just like Clinton’s foibles mattered to me. I don’t think I’ve changed since the 90s. I still believe that private behavior cannot be separated from public performance. A man who will (repeatedly) cheat on his wife cannot be counted on to faithfully run the country.
Louis, could I ask you two questions?
1. Did you support Bill Clinton during the impeachment or did you say that his private character flaws revealed a character that made him unworthy of being president?
2. Is the standard you are applying to Donald Trump the same?
James Dobson applied two different standards – I have the statements. Bill Clinton was condemned for private behavior but Trump got a pass. I find that hypocritical.
All that aside, my point is simple. Jeffress does NOT speak for me. He is welcome to speak for himself. You are welcome to speak for yourself. People are trying to answer me by saying, “Dave Miller doesn’t speak for me.” I never put myself forward as a spokesman for the SBC or for evangelicalism. Or even for SBC Voices. I speak for Dave Miller. Some folks evidently agree with me.
Would I like RJ to stop talking? Frankly, yes.
But I would be satisfied if he would simply express his opinions and stop acting as if he spoke for evangelical Christianity.
What Dave said… 🙂
When Clinton got up to no good with Monica Lewinsky, someone (rightly) said that if a person would break their marriage vows they would betray their oath of office. Why doesn’t that apply to Trump? The hypocrisy of evangelicals in this matter is monumental, and the world sees it clearly. It’s one thing if they hate us because we are faithful in following Christ, it’s quite another if they hate us because we appear to be betraying what we say we believe. That’s what they hear when Jeffress (and Falwell, and Graham, etc) speaks. That’s why a lot of Christians are working hard on spreading the minority report regarding this president. It’s important that unbelievers see that not everyone is on the Trump wagon.
Dave,
Robert Jeffress does not speak for me. Southern Baptists should have someone who can speak Biblical truth to our society objectively without having an extrabiblical ideological slant. Hopefully that day will come and those like Jeffress will not inadvertently fill the void.
Woody
Jeffress has always seemed like he wanted to be the next leader of the Christian Right, after leaders like Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson have faded. He wanted to be seen as a kingmaker, so he endorsed Rick Perry for President back in 2011. After Perry fizzled, Jeffress jumped on the Trump bandwagon. I guess that Jeffress thinks that if he keeps talking as if he represents evangelicals, then eventually he will.
The media is often ignorant about the fragmented nature of evangelicalism and thinks that one man could represent all evangelicals the way the pope represents Roman Catholics. It would certainly be more convenient for the media if one man could represent all evangelicals. And the media is mostly interested only in the political engagement of evangelicals. The Gospel Coalition annual meeting had like 3-4 times as many people attending as the Value Voters Summit, but the Value Voters Summit got wall-to-wall media coverage, and the TGC annual meeting got none.
But evangelicalism is more fragmented than it was in the past. The old Christian Right of the 1980s is aging and declining. Also, the most influential evangelicals have usually been those who are less involved in partisan politics and are known primarily for their evangelism, preaching, biblical teaching, or ministry. As we saw in the recent eulogies of R. C. Sproul, a Christian leader can have a deeper and more enduring influence without ever meeting with presidents or ever appearing on cable news.
Jeffress said “even if it’s proven true, it doesn’t matter.”
“I’m asked the question, ‘What would it take for evangelicals to walk away from President Trump?’” Jeffress said. “I’m his friend. I’ll never walk away, but I think if his policy changes or if he were found to be in an adulterous relationship now, that would cause many people a problem.”
Jeffress, one of the first evangelical leaders to align with Trump’s presidential campaign, is one of six Southern Baptists named to his 25-member Evangelical Executive Advisory Board in June 2016.
Others include Ronnie Floyd, pastor of Cross Church in Springdale, Ark., and Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas?, both past presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Richard Land, former head of the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and now president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, has advised the president, along with David Jeremiah, pastor of Shadow Mountain Community Church in San Diego, Calif.; and evangelist Jay Strack, president and founder of Student Leadership University.
https://baptistnews.com/article/robert-jeffress-alleged-affair-porn-star-totally-irrelevant-trumps-evangelical-base/#.WqVruejwa1s
David R. Brumbelow
“Jeffress said “even if it’s proven true, it doesn’t matter.”
David B: Watch the video. The words above come from Jeffress actual mouth. The video wasn’t doctored. Jeffress can actually be heard saying more than once, those words. He is a wordsmith, he knows what he said.
And let me say, as much as I disagree with him, he has every right to express his opinion. If his church permits, he can speak for them.
But he does not speak for all Evangelicals. Even though most Evangelicals voted Trump, I am not sure they did so with the robust and unquestioning enthusiasm of Robert Jeffress.
He is not the voice of Evangelicalism and should stop speaking as if he speaks for all of us.
David,
What’s the point of listing these men again? We all know who’s on the Trump bandwagon, quite frankly it’s disappointing to see men that I deeply respect like Dr. Floyd and Dr. Graham continue to offer support to Trump. Men who stand for biblical marriage, fidelity to Scripture, and having compassion for the billions of lost people not within our countries borders; in my mind would compel them to resign from the advisory board. We know that Trump does not stand for true biblical marriage because if he did he would only have ever had one wife and would not have cheated on his many relationships. We know that Trump does not see Scripture as authoritative because if he did he would never have said that he doesn’t need to repent of his sins and he would confess Jesus as the Son of God, and not just a source of “security and confidence”. Finally, Trump’s comments during the campaign trail and post-election concerning immigrants, non-Anglo Americans, and the mentally disabled show that he has no compassion for people to hear the Gospel, respond to the Gospel, and follow Jesus as their Lord and Savior. If he did have compassion his first thoughts would have been to figure out ways to help refugees flee terroristic regimes, figure out how to keep families together after DACA ended, and work on strengthening policies and procedures on helping and equipping the mentally disabled/physically disabled population in America. All of those would have been excellent vehicles for the compassion of Christ to shine through and the Gospel to bear witness to his presidency.
As he has continued to show no remorse for his actions and has continued to display zero evidence of his conversion I count him as an unbeliever and sincerely hope he repents and trusts in Christ soon and not his own power and fame for salvation. I wish our SBC brethren who serve on his advisory board would hammer the Gospel hard with him because that would be the best “advice” they could ever give him, in fact, it should be the only “advice” they give him till he does repent and trust in Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the world. Till then their work and words are in vain. Trump will do what brings him the most glory and not Christ.
James Forbis,
I do not agree with President Trump on all issues. He has, however, accomplished a number of things I applaud.
Ending USA funding of abortion in other countries, and supporting the pro-life cause.
An excellent Vice-President, Mike Pence.
Lowering taxes
Strong economy
Strong Stock Market.
Business friendly, which results in more jobs.
More military spending.
Supportive of Second Amendment.
Ending ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
Ending numerous excess regulations.
Actually saying and writing the word Christmas.
Christian friendly; some good Christian advisors.
Nominating conservative Supreme Court justice, and numerous other conservative judges.
Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and supporting Israel.
Opposing the Iran deal, and supporting freedom protestors in Iran.
Record low unemployment for Blacks and Hispanics, as well as everyone in general.
Cuts to United Nations.
Opposing Paris accord on Global Warming.
Getting tough with North Korea.
Trump administration arguing in Supreme Court in favor of a Christian baker’s right to not design a wedding cake for same-sex wedding.
As Cal Thomas says, “Character matters, but so do results.”
So Robert Jeffress supporting Donald Trump may not be so bad after all.
David R. Brumbelow
This is the problems that many AMERICAN Christians have. We are AMERICANS first and Christian second. If the Devil, for self-serving reasons, got rid of abortion, we would vote for him. I would recommend people who favor Trump, falling all over themselves to commend his “accomplishments,” read Samuel Stillman, Good News from a Far Country, (1766).
David,
I do applaud the significant political accomplishments that Trump has made. A few of the ones you listed though I don’t necessarily see as accomplishments. For example more military spending. I’m for less government spending and being better stewards of what we do have and using money more wisely. We have the largest military in the world and the most technologically advanced already. Do we really need to increase funding every single year? Probably not. The whole Christmas thing is a non-issue for me. I say Happy Holidays to my Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddist friends. It doesn’t bother me when people don’t say “Merry Christmas” even when I do say it. The commercialization of Christmas is more pagan than biblical anyway. I don’t see that moving the American embassy to Israel is a good thing in the long run for peace in the Middle East and with Palestinians. I’ve heard pretty terrible stories from friends who are Palestinian Christians whose families are being persecuted for living in Jerusalem all because they are Christians. By the way, these are Jewish Israelis persecuting these Palestinian Christians, not Islamic Palestinians.
To me, character matters more than results because the results are marred by the persons poor and immoral character. You can be the most successful man or woman in the world, but if you have zero personal integrity or good morals then you’re kind of worthless to me. You could be the least successful person according to the world, but have incredible Christ-like integrity and morality and in my eyes and Jesus’ eyes you’ll be worth more than all the money and power and fame in the world.
David R. Brumbelow,
I see that your comment has already been hit pretty hard by Jeff Straub. Nevertheless, you are right. The POTUS has done things past presidents did not although some gave lip service to the things you have listed.
I agree that he is an immoral man. However, many before him have been immoral men. The recently past POTUS was and is an immoral man. I think we would do well to applaud him in his watch care of the nation and challenge his sinful conduct at the same time.
His statements are already linked, David. What do you think of them?
I haven’t seen any of the others on the “advisory” council react.
I think Jeffress and other Trump defenders are playing a game here. By focusing on the affair with the porn star, they can pull the forgiveness card they always do with Trump (and never seemed to do with Clinton). So what if he’s had affairs, he’s had affairs his whole life and his Christians supporters don’t seem to mind. It is supposed to have happened years ago before he “became a baby Christian”. The issue is that he purportedly paid her hush money just before the election so this wouldn’t come out. Egregiously unethical, quite possibly criminal. I’d like our “evangelical spokespeople” to tell us that doesn’t matter either. I know it doesn’t matter to them, but I’d like to hear them say it.
CB: Big difference here. Jeffress is claiming to be speaking for all evangelicals. Dr. Moore has never claimed to be speaking for all evangelicals. Speaking TO Evangelicals? Yes. For all of them? No.
OK, I think there is an elephant on the table here and I’m not talking about Alabama’s mascot, Big AL.
Here it is, in my opinion. I think Dr. Robert Jeffress and Dr. Russell Moore have more in common than some here are willing to admit.
Dr. Jeffress is a Southern Baptist who does preach the biblical gospel and does so very well.
Dr. Moore is a Southern Baptist who does preach the biblical gospel and does so very well.
Dr. Jeffress makes political statements that do not represent the majority of Southern Baptists.
Dr. Moore makes political statements that do not represent the majority of Southern Baptists.
Dr. Jeffress would do well to sometimes just shut his mouth about politics and preach the gospel which he does well.
Dr. Moore would do well to sometimes just shut his mouth about politics and preach the gospel which he does so well.
CB: Big difference here. Jeffress is claiming to be speaking for all evangelicals. Dr. Moore has never claimed to be speaking for all evangelicals. Speaking TO Evangelicals? Yes. For all of them? No.
Dr. Moore is doing his job. The job we hired him to do in my opinion. He is speaking truth. Huge, huge difference from Jeffress.
Debbie,
My point is that both say things of which the majority of Southern Baptist do not agree. Both of them need to shut up at times. And no, not everything Dr. Moore has stated publicly is not the fulfillment of his “job.”
CNN runs to Dr. Moore to gain insight as to what Baptists think. FOX NEWS runs to Dr. Jeffress to gain insight as to what Baptists think. Neither of them actually represent what the majority of Baptists think.
When they fill the role of “talking heads” for the media, both of them give the general public a false conception of what Baptists think.
The truth is, Debbie, only God knows what the majority of Baptists think and I sometimes fear that He does not agree with what the majority of Baptists think.
Debbie,
I messed up my comment. Sorry.
That should have been: And no, not everything Dr. Moore has stated publicly is “within” the fulfillment of his “job.”
“Anyone as old as I am might feel as if he were caught in the “upside-down” from the late 90s. Then, when President Clinton’s sexual escapades were being discussed, evangelicals spoke with one voice that character mattered, that personal behavior could not be separated from professional performance. I have a letter in my files from James Dobson written during that time saying that Christians simply could not support a president, regardless of his policies, who was guilty of such ungodly behavior.
Now, it is a Republican president who is guilty (he’s admitted adultery in his own books) and is accused of heinous moral behavior and evangelical leaders are saying exactly what the liberals said in the 90s. “It doesn’t matter.” Trump’s personal character doesn’t matter as long as his policies are good and he leads us well. That is exactly what the Democrats said about Clinton and we were horrified.”
I think this is the “upside- down” part of the article Dave mentioned in comments earlier, which I think the most important part of this post. When I read it, I found my head nodding up and down in agreement.
Debbie, While it is true that the evangelical leaders did say that “Character matters”. The effort to impeach President Clinton wasn’t because he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky (as well as other women), it was because he lied under oath to a Grand Jury about the sexual relationship he had with Monica Lewinsky. As a result of the lie, Impeachment charges were presented before Congress and the Federal Judge revoked Clinton’s license to practice law in the State of Arkansas and had to pay pretty hefty fine.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the impression that you (and others) are saying that for evangelical leaders to be consistent that they should be calling for Trump’s Impeachment (or resignation) because of the affair with Stormy Daniels (and too many other women to count). If it turns out that Trump has lied before a Jury under oath, then yes, I agree, he should deserve the same fate as Bill Clinton.
However, a lot of our Presidents have been known to have had affairs – Franklin Roosevelt (with Lucy Mercer), Eisenhower (was rumored during WWII), Kennedy (too many women to list including Marilyn Monroe), Lyndon Johnson, and of course Bill Clinton. There have been recent allegations about inappropriate behavior by George H.W. Bush and some rumors that he had an affair, too.
What I am getting at is that a lot of posters are commenting as if the President of the United States must be a Godly man beyond reproach and if he is not, then evangelical leaders should call for him to resign. Ideally, it would be great if the President were such, however, in an increasingly secular nation and given the past Presidents behavior I have referenced, I think this is unrealistic.
What I and many others consider in deciding how to vote is the platform that the candidate is running on. I am sure that many of the other candidates who ran in the 2016 Republican Primary were of far better character than Trump, however, (I didn’t support Trump in the Primaries), I don’t believe that they could have won because they would not have appealed to the ultimate swing voters – working class whites in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Those voters determined the outcome of the election and Trump for what ever reason appealed to them whereas a Mitt Romney or George W. Bush could not.
The problem is not only the affair, the problem is the 130K bribe. That is extremely unethical.
C. B. Scott and Louis,
While I may not agree completely on every detail – good comments.
David R. Brumbelow
Dave:
I have watched Jeffers statements a couple of times now. He does not say or imply that he speaks for all evangelicals.
We, Jeffers, Juan Williams, and the staff at Fox News are well aware that there are prominent and run of the mill evangelicals that don’t agree with Jeffers in his support for President Trump.
The entire interview was based on the question of whether evangelicals who support Trump are being hypocritical. Jeffers appears to give the perspective of those evangelicals who support Trump, and he is trying to make the case as to why he does not believe they are hypocritical.
The interview would not make any sense without this basic understanding.
I understand that the 20% of evangelicals who did not support Trump don’t want to be confused with the 80% who did. That is the point you guys are trying to make.
And I sympathize with you and others who are embarrassed to be associated with a group who voted for Trump by and 80% margin. I really do understand your desire to maintain that separation and distinction.
The public has a general perception, which is accurate, that 80% of evangelicals voted for Trump, so the public would just assume that most evangelicals are Trump supports. That would be a fair assumption.
The evangelicals who did not support Trump are quite vocal and anxious to battle that perception.
So, yes. I get your point.
As an aside – as a matter of image strategy, the Christians who don’t like Trump, in my opinion, don’t really develop much currency with the Press or the general public out of their denunciations of Jeffers or Trump, or whomever. Respectfully, the Press and general anti-Trump public give NeverTrumping evangelicals zero credit for these denunciations. They dislike all evangelicals. If they can write a ridiculous story like the NYT story, and get evangelicals denouncing Trump, they are thrilled. They still get to say 80% of evangelicals support Trump. So the “stink” still stays on the rest of you 20%. Plus, they have got you denouncing other people in your own tribe. They think that is great. They give you no credit for your political position.
Plus, any time they can make a group of Christians sound angry, that’s also a win.
I know it is irresistible to not try and separate yourself from the stupid evangelical herd. It always works. Always. I just suspect it’s wasted effort for the most part. I know my suggestion on this point will be ignored, but I had to write it.
But my bigger point is that somewhere in this process, I have a bigger concern about the body of Christ.
I can remember a similar dynamic back in the 80s.
Lots of evangelicals were really embarrassed by Jerry Falwell Sr. and the Moral Majority. They did not want to be identified with Falwell, and would go out of their way to try and make that point.
They were so anxious to make that point, they often made it clumsily and sometimes with anger.
We have seen this movie before. No one now remembers who said what in the 80s or who was the most like or the most different from Jerry Falwell.
But when the story was told then, as now, every evangelical was in lock step with Jerry Falwell.
That is the media.
I am not in the least concerned that there are differences in the Body of Christ about politics. Jesus and the NT did not give us much of a road map. Therefore, there are going to be differences.
And am not that concerned about people associating me with the majority viewpoints of other Christians about a variety of issues.
I understand how politics works. I understand that people like to categorize, put people and movements in boxes, for the sake of general understanding, and for the sake of mobilizing opposition and support.
What concerns me most is how we speak about and relate to people in the Body of Christ who have different political positions than we have. All of us think our views are morally superior to other views, or we would not hold them.
Things break down, in my opinion, when we think our morally superior views give us certain rights when speaking to or about our brothers and sisters in Christ – to question their Christian conviction, to call them hypocrites, or sell-outs.
Franklin Graham, Ronnie Floyd, Jack Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr., Robert Jeffress et al are our brothers in Christ. According to Christ, Himself, we owe a higher duty to these brothers than we do the public at large, the NYT or other Press organs, or even to our own political convictions.
We will be known as Christ’s disciples by how we treat and love each other.
We will not be known by our political positions.
Dave:
You also asked me 2 questions.
1. I did support the impeachment of President Clinton for the reasons outlined in the Articles of Impeachment. I believe that the proof was that President Clinton attempted to subvert the Court process by lying to the Court under oath, and by obstructing justice in coordinating (through subordinates, lawyers etc.) lying to the Court and trying to cover up the truth.
He was not removed from office because the Senate made a political call not to do that. But the facts were not really contested. President Clinton had to surrender his law license and pay $750,000, as I recall.
2. I would apply the same standard to President Trump that I applied to President Clinton.
I do not believe, based on what I have seen, that there is anything to the “collusion” thing (btw, there is no criminal statute on “collusion”). And I believe it is legally impossible for a President to commit obstruction of justice by doing things that he is authorized to do. (e.g. Fire the FBI Director). Beyond that, I will wait and see.
If the Special Counsel discovers really strong, incontrovertible proof that the President committed a crime with regard to the election in committing a conspiracy (not “collusion”) with the Russians or any other foreign power, then I may support Impeachment. That was something that came out in the Clinton investigation. They had Clinton dead to rights. There was no “he said” “she said” thing. If there is a “he said, she said”, I will probably favor the incumbent President because I believe Impeachment should be use sparingly and only in clear cases.
I can say in advance if this investigation looking for conspiracy relating to the election doesn’t turn that up, but shows that Trump did some unrelated financial misdeed from a decade ago (like most of what has been shown so far) I will probably not be impressed.
And I also must add that it is abundantly clear at this point that the Clinton campaign and the DNC did “collude” with Russians in the compilation of a false report that was used to harm an opposing candidate, and possibly falsely obtain FISA warrants. I hope a second Special Counsel will be appointed.
But as to what I think your real question is – I do not subscribe to the view that it is morally or ethically wrong to vote for a candidate who has lived a immoral lifestyle sexually.
I know that gets repeated in the Christian community a lot. I know that it was used in the Clinton days.
But to be frank, I cannot find that injunction in the Bible.
It is a principle that some Christians have come to believe that the Bible teaches. I do not find adequate support for that.
I believe that the NT does not give us a clear road map for the exercise of the voting franchise.
There are many factors to weigh in exercising that franchise.
I realize that there absolutists on that question that blog here. I simply do not share that perspective.
And I did not share it with President Clinton either.
The fact that some of you may have is something to resolve I suppose.
Louis,
Thank you for your posts. You made more sense than anything else I have read on these posts. You also did it in a Christian, loving manner. That is a lot more than I can say for most of the posts that obviously just wanted to slam Jeffress and Trump. If all that wanted to be said was, “Jeffress doesn’t speak for me,” that could have been said in one sentence. Obviously that is NOT what wanted to be said. Most of the writers on here just wanted to slam Jeffress and Trump like they always do and slam others who don’t think like they do. This is one of the most HATEFUL sites that calls itself a Christian site I’ve seen. And SBC Voices doesn’t speak for me or the SBC. And yes, I know “Voices” doesn’t speak for anyone. It is a place for many voices. Blah, blah, blah!
Ray Blantnon,
I appreciate Louis’s March 12, 2018 at 10:39 P.M. also. I think it makes a lot of sense and is worthy of reflection. However, the rest of your comment is asinine, irrational, and completely without merit.
cb scott,
I agree to disagree with you. I think many of the comments on here are asinine, irrational and without merit. We’ll just disagree. I have read things on this post that are hateful. You have every right to disagree with that.
Ray Blantnon,
I am not necessarily arguing with you as to whether some of the comments are “hateful” or not hateful. My argument with you is your statement regarding the motive of some of the the individuals who have commented on this post.
You stated, “Most of the writers on here just wanted to slam Jeffress and Trump like they always do and slam others who don’t think like they do.”
You do not know the motives of “most of the writers on here.” Certainly some of them would never give Trump or Jeffress any credit for doing or saying anything right in a public forum even though they know full well that both of them do and say some things that are right and truthful. However, that is not true of all of them, or even most of them.
Now, let me ask you a question or two. Do you think that everything that Jeffress says is correct regarding the POTUS? Do you think everything the President does or says is right or true? If you do, you are no different than those you accuse of always wanting to slam Trump or Jeffress.
CB,
I understand your comments here. You are correct. I should’ve said “some” of the writers instead of “most.” However, I do believe that some of the speech toward Jeffress in particular was hateful. To me, that is a bad motive.
To answer your questions: NO. I don’t think every thing Jeffress or the President says is correct. I didn’t agree with Billy Graham on everything and he is one of my heroes, as was Adrian Rogers, W.A. Criswell, Jerry Falwell, etc. I didn’t agree with them on everything. But, I didn’t have to “slam” them if I didn’t agree with them. You may not agree, but I see a lot of that on this site.
If I offended you, I apologize. I appreciate your comments.
Ray Blantnon,
Please take my word for it that you don’t offend me. I engaged you because, in my opinion, you painted with a broad brush in your comment about the motives of those who commented on Dr. Jeffress and the POTUS.
I rarely get offended here or on any other social medium. Guys like me who make the kind of comments such as I do cannot be very sensitive. In other words, if I dish it out, I better be able to take it when it comes back at me, else I need to keep my opinions to myself and stay off Baptist blogs and Facebook pages such as John 316.
What does offend me here is when guys try to brag on the ACC and other Lesser Football Conferences as if they are equal to or better than the SEC. Or, if they cheer for the New York Yankees in baseball. That offends me as it would any other intelligent person.
Ray and CB:
Thanks for the compliments!
But I reserve the right to make comments that are asinine, irrational, and completely without merit. Not because I want to, but because I am certainly capable.
I will go on record here as saying that each person I have interacted on this site with is a good person, and is wanting to make what they believe to be a helpful contribution toward the public discourse. We all, including me, can get ahead of ourselves and can become angry and accusatory. But the more you get to know a person, the more leeway and understanding you give them.
The internet format is given toward misunderstandings and saying things to a screen that we might not say in person.
To me, that makes it even more important that we do our best to show love to one another of social media when these questions come up.
It would be a real testimony, I believe, if we could have vigorous debate without rancor. That would be an incredible testimony to the world. But I fear that we often come across as bad as other groups – but without the bad language.
Here’s to charting toward that course!
Thank you Louis and I agree with you. I think we can have these debates in a Christ-like manner. I think we can show love toward those with whom we disagree. I just don’t see much love toward Dr. Jeffress, who I believe is a brother in Christ. Thanks again for you comments.
Louis,
In response to your expressing that you “reserve the right to make comments that are asinine, irrational, and completely without merit.” I declare that I will reserve the right to state what I believe to be “asinine, irrational, completely without merit.”
I’ll be happy to weigh in on hateful language since I’m sure at least part of that accusation is directed at me. There are some things that I certainly hate.
1. I don’t hate Donald Trump. There are some people that I think are more immoral than Trump, and I don’t want to spend time and energy hating them, notwithstanding the fact that hating individuals is morally wrong (and by the way that includes Democrats, CNN personalities, illegal immigrants, and Muslims).
2. I absolutely and unapologetically hate that Trump is president. However we can’t do anything about that. What can’t be changed must be endured.
3. But what I hate the most is what (I think) the Trump presidency is doing to American Christianity and its witness to the world. I hate that Christians have and are defending (or at least dismissing as unimportant) some of the most egregious things Trump says and does. I am convinced that the Trump presidency is a stain on evangelicalism. This is something that can be changed and I won’t stop using my voice to try to change it, as unlikely as that seems. I don’t have the same influence as the celebrity Christian Trumpers, but I’ll do what I can.
Bill, I don’t know if your previous posts are hateful to be honest with you. I do not consider this post to be. I understand your hate of Trump being President. I felt the same way with Obama and would feel that way if Hillary was President. I don’t think I will change your mind on that as you won’t change my mine. My concern is that I feel Dr. Jeffress is getting a bad rap here and I do feel some of the remarks about him have been, if not hateful, very unnecessary . I appreciate your comments. I do disagree with you on Trump hurting evangelicals but we can disagree. Thanks for your comments.
Ray,
I appreciate your comments. I did not like the presidency of Obama and certainly would not have liked the presidency of Clinton, on the political issues that are important to me. The candidacy and presidency of Trump bothers me far more because he is getting a pass on things that would have had Christians blowing their collective gaskets if they were done by either Obama or Clinton. Yes, there are some giving lip service to Trump’s moral failings, but they are hardly the thundering denunciations we heard against the Democrats. Trump has done and will do some things that make the political right, and some Christians, happy. And that seems to make it all OK. And every time Trump does something new that is vile and offensive, or it is revealed that he has done something vile, offensive, or even criminal in the past, people like Jeffress, Graham, Huckabee, etc, will get in front of a camera and say it doesn’t matter. If the whole Trump presidency isn’t the end justifying the means, I don’t know what is.
Shucks Bill that is fairly sanctimonious of you assuming what Jeffress, Graham and Huckabee will do if it is found that Trump is what you say he is. Wow. I imagine that if all goes by your playbook, then those men (I consider them flawed but otherwise men of good will) will get in front of those cameras and tell the gosh darn truth, your casting aspersions aside. Your snide attitude is not just against Trump now – it is against brothers and sisters that support Trump and his policies, for somehow they have become tainted because they have a contrary view than you. How sad!
Rob