I wasn’t raised Southern Baptist, but I became one when I was seventeen years old. I pastored my first Southern Baptist Church when I was twenty, and have since had the privilege of pastoring in the denomination for thirteen years. I also have the honor of serving on both the Southern Baptists of Texas Executive Board (SBTC), as well as the Southern Baptists Executive Committee. I am a deeply invested Southern Baptist, and deliberately so. I relate to the man in the Parable of the Hidden Treasure, and feel the Cooperative Program is like a treasure buried in a field we call the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). I joyfully sold the traditions of my denominational upbringing to buy the field so I could own the treasure. It’s a brilliant treasure that has been used to see countless people come to know Christ.
It is for this reason I entreat those who are considering altering their CP giving over their ERLC concerns. It is my conviction that such a move would not merely devalue the treasure, but destroy the field.
A diagnosis is first in order. Many of the articles I’ve read on the subject acknowledge the symptoms of the division, but few consider the malady, which is a philosophical difference of opinion over the purpose of the ERLC. That is, whether the ERLC echoes the SBC’s ethics, or helps the SBC fashion its ethics.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), for example, emphasizes several SBC individual’s concerns over Moore’s representation of them. William F. Harrell’s comment is perhaps the clearest on how several understand the ERLC’s purpose, in which he says, “the ERLC should continue under Mr. Moore’s leadership only if ‘he will start doing what the ERLC was meant to do, and that’s simply represent the Southern Baptist people in Washington.’” In an NPR article Harrell is quoted saying, “Since Dr. Moore has taken over, there are a lot of things that are being said on various issues that the Southern Baptist people at large don’t agree with.”
This summarizes how several understand the ERLC’s purpose. It isn’t to set the ethical tone for the SBC, so much as it is to parrot what the SBC by and large asserts, in this case the support of Donald J. Trump. This is an important distinction, because it demarcates how the entire ERLC operates.
Insofar as his commentary shows, Moore would agree that his job is to represent the SBC, but he also believes it is to help the SBC think ethically through complex issues, in this case a Southern Baptist’s support for Trump. Moore has clarified his intention was not to disrespect anyone who voted for Trump, but to exposit the ethics of the dilemma many faced. “There’s a massive difference between someone who enthusiastically excused immorality and someone who felt conflicted, weighed the options based on biblical convictions, and voted their conscience … If [criticism of anyone who voted for Trump is] what you heard me say,” Moore says, “that was not at all my intention, and I apologize.”
Nonetheless, Moore has incensed several SBC members, who are now threatening to withhold or designate their CP funding unless something changes. This, however, would be a nuclear option to the SBC, and this brings up the impetus for this particular article: Withholding or designating CP funds away from the ERLC volcanically undermines the spirit and functionality of the Convention.
It reburies the treasure, and lights a match to the field.
For one, this would be a catastrophic hit to some state conventions, like the one in Texas on which I serve as an executive board member. Under our governing documents, any designated gift to the CP goes into a reserve fund, which cannot be used for operations. Joe Davis, the SBTC’s CFO, outlines the logistics in saying, “when funds intended to be CP are designated, they are no longer CP funds, and can therefore no longer fund the budget of operations. Cooperative Program funds are necessarily undesignated. So, under strict terminology there is no such thing as ‘designated’ CP funds”. Thus, the SBTC’s budget of operations would plummet, and I imagine the same might be true for other state conventions.
State Conventions play a key role in our national Convention, and designating CP funding would be like breaking our Convention’s kneecaps.
Cutting CP funding also sets a dangerous precedent for churches who might want to “designate” their gifts away from other SBC agencies, like the IMB or NAMB. This is worse than breaking our own kneecaps; we’d be cutting off our own legs.
Rather than withholding or designating CP funding, Southern Baptists should contact the trustees and boards of the respective entity to express concerns and enact changes. Moreover, Southern Baptists who are opposed to the ERLC because of Russell Moore should consider employing the same cooperative spirit they espoused for the election of Trump. The nature of Moore’s latest articles and tweets shows his desire to work alongside the SBC, and it would behoove us to take advantage of that.
The field is too good, and the treasure too precious to cast before the swine of division.
Cited:
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/20/506248119/anti-trump-evangelical-faces-backlash
Jared — Thank you. This is a thoughtful reflection on the ERLC issue. What you said kindly I will say a bit more blunt — it seems that Dr. Moore is expected to be a puppet leader rather than one who leads by biblical conviction when gauging the issues and culture at hand.
I’m speculating that over 95% of the opposition to Dr. Moore is coming from churches led by white pastors over 60 years old. While I am not disregarding their biblical convictions, it does bring to mind yesteryear Christianity that was wrapped in the American flag with an ancillary nod to the Kingdom of God.
I hope that Dr. Moore’s heart and intentions are prayerfully considered and discussed. Time marches on and culture changes. Biblical truth does not change. Dr. Moore has balanced these things well.
Question: Is there are particular charter for what the ERLC is suppose to be doing? If so, I would like to read it. This is all I can find on the website. “Through its Washington D.C. office, the ERLC secures a Southern Baptist presence on Capitol Hill and represents the views and concerns of the over 16 million members of the Southern Baptist Convention.” To that extent Dr. Moore did not represent the views and concerns of all Southern Baptists during the election, he only represented some.
I think it is unfair to say disagreement and/or restructuring would have Moore “to parrot what the SBC by and large asserts, in this case the support of Donald J. Trump.” I don’t think those who supported Trump (and I am one) believed it was necessary for Moore to support him during the campaign. The issue was (and perhaps still is) did Moore so disassociate himself from and denigrate those he politically disagreed with that they can no longer support his leadership? This remains to be seen. Furthermore, one has to wonder whether he has ruined any chance to have a presence on Capitol Hill because of his anti-Trump stance and rhetoric.
As for the “apology” there are questions and concerns about the “politics” of it, at least with me. His editorials against Trump and his supporters were not subtle, vague, or hidden. They were loud and clear. I for one do not believe Moore understands that those of us who stood for Trump did so because we believed his administration would deal with first ammendment issues, second amendment issues, border security, illegal immigration, Obamacare, and the Republican Establishment (draining the swamp), etc., far better than anyone else.
We did not support him without regard to his character, nature, or history. Was Trump the perfect candidate without flaws? Of course not. Was he far better than Clinton? Those of us who stood for him believe that irrefutably. Could anyone else had won the Presidency other than Clinton or Trump. Again, those of us who stood with Trump didn’t believe so.
Moore never seemed to grasp this thought process or realize people could stand behind Trump as the “lesser of two evils.” In fact, he castigated those who chose this option. His apology didn’t address this, it merely says, “If I offended you, that wasn’t my intention, I’m sorry.” What parent allows their child to apologize in this manner?
I for one think the more you and others continue to blog about this the more spark it will cause. Moore and others should let this die down. As I said on a another post, if Moore really wants the support of those he offended he should listen to them and ask them what they saw in President-elect Trump that caused them to give the President-elect their support.
I’m sure there is a document that outlines the ERLC’s purpose. I would contact the ERLC or the SBC office to attain it. Also, I would argue that your interpretation of his apology is misguided. It’s true Moore’s commentary can bite, but he has been clear on what he meant concerning criticism over voting for Trump. I quoted one of the statements in the blog, and I don’t think it was political. The ERLC President is called to be prophetic, and anyone in that position would have had a hard time navigating his way through what was the 2016 Presidential election.
Also, I strongly disagree with your final sentiment which encourages me and others to ignore the issue. Several key SBC pastors spoke to several key publishing organizations, like the WSJ and NPR, threatening to withhold their CP funds until something is done. I don’t think it’s fair that one side can go this public while others should remain silent. Moreover, my article wasn’t one-sided, but designed to encourage our cooperation. I don’t see how that sparks controversy.
The only way this will die down is if we cooperate together, not hold the CP hostage.
“I don’t think it’s fair that one side can go this public while others should remain silent.” One side has been public for the last year plus. That would be Moore’s biting articles against those that supported Trump.
Why has it taken his election for this so-called apology to come forth? I seriously doubt had Trump not been elected as President that Moore would have apologized for his remarks. If you want to encourage cooperation, you might want to be a little more reflective of what Moore actually said over the last year about Trump supporters and what he supposedly apologized for.
Nate, I think both “sides” have been public throughout the entire course of the election, and to deny this would be to ignore your own advice of being “reflective.” I could cite several comments from pastors like Robert Jeffress, for example, who said that anyone who didn’t vote for Trump was guilty of the sin of pride.
I was merely responding to your comment which suggested that articles like this aren’t helpful. I think they can be. The goal isn’t to ignore one side over the other, but to remind everyone we are on the same side.
Moore apologized when he did because people were expressing that they were offended, not because Trump won the election.
Prior to the election, Moore explicitly stated that his critiques were not directed at Christians who were choosing Trump as the lesser of two evils.
“I understand why some, including some devout religious conservatives, argue that they recognize the moral and temperamental unfitness of a man such as Trump for the nation’s highest office, but feel they must cast their ballots for him in an effort to forestall the very real perils of a Supreme Court increasingly hostile to the most basic of religious freedoms and constitutional restraints. While I disagree with my religious conservative friends who think this way, that is a respectable and defensible view. They are not provoking the crisis we face today.”
That was from a lecture given before the election. You can read the full text here: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/01/can-the-religious-right-be-saved.
Now, it would have been good for him to have clearly stated that more often, but he did say it.
Steven, here is a direct quote from Have Evangelicals Who Support Trump lost their Values. Quote: “To back Mr. Trump, these voters must repudiate everything they believe.”
In what world does his apology of I didn’t mean anyone specifically work?
This is a screen shot of the ERLC Ministry Statement in the 1995 SBC Annual.
https://twitter.com/PastorAdamGBC/status/811242472408043520
I think the biblical metaphors here as applied to the cooperative program are ill used, the tone is far too shrill, and I’m a bit puzzled by the statement that the current business would set a precedent. There are abundant precedents for designating or lowering CP giving in response to objections to spending. Check the CR to find them.
And I don’t know how often SBCT receives CP money with a note not to spend on X, or Y, or Z. Churches are fairly sophisticated and can merely lower their CP by the amount that ERLC would receive.
That said, I don’t favor any punitive action against the ERLC.
William, Reducing CP giving by the amt the ERLC would receive accomplishes nothing, except punish the State convention and every other entity receiving CP funds…and the ERLC would still get something. The only was a church can eliminate fin support for the ERLC is to quit giving through the CP altogether and instead give DIRECTLY to the State Convention and SBC entities they wish to support.
An excellent article, Jared.
I would only add this: The Southern Baptist Convention is not a hodgepodge of millions of people polled by Rasmussen; it is a convention of churches who gather annually at a meeting. Entity heads “represent” the Southern Baptist Convention by acting in accordance with the official actions of the convention.
Has Russell Moore acted within the BF&M adopted by the Convention? Yes.
Has Russell Moore acted within the mission assigned to the ERLC by the SBC’s Ministry Assignment? Yes.
Has Russell Moore acted in fulfillment of past resolutions adopted by the Convention? Yes.
Has Russell Moore acted within the governing documents of the ERLC? Yes.
Those things, and those things alone, are what it means to represent the Southern Baptist Convention.
Exactly, Bart!
Yes; NO; Maybe, but they were not directly aimed at the ERLC; Not sure. All Moore did was vent. He did/said nothing helpful to pastors or churches. He did/’said nothing to help deal with the issue in the present or the future. These things do not mean he should be fired. They may mean he needs to reconsider his approach. BUT it definitely demonstrates the irrelevance of the ERLC.
Thanks Bart. Appreciate you rightly dividing the nuances of the definition of “Southern Baptist Convention.” Incredibly helpful.
this
I also question the wisdom of these pastors speaking to the press about these internal matters. Why air our dirty laundry to a watching world? It seems to violate the spirit of 1 Corinthians 6.
But Moore had no problem airing his rants against Trump supporters in the press at the NY Times and the Washington Post among other places. Did he violate the spirit of 1 Corinthians 6?
Russell Moore didn’t air internal squabble by announcing to the world that he’s planning to extort the CP unto
his own end….these pastors did.
Disagree with him as one might (and I do from time to time) but to go as far as going to secular media to call for his firing and to Make announcements regarding their plan to extort the Southern Baptist convention over secondary and tertiary disagreements (like his opposing Trump) is a bridge too far… In my opinion.
Fair enough Tarheel. That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. From my standpoint Moore thinks he can say whatever he wants about other Southern Baptists and it won’t come back to haunt him. We shall see. His predecessor had a similar mindset and he was shown the door.
Sadly, Nate, he is right. Moore is very insulated. Trustees only do what they are asked to do….they provide no accountability. Doesn’t the ERLC pay for the Trustees to meet? Do you think they would pay for a Trustee meeting to reprimand Moore? I doubt it. Unless Moore has a moral failure the trustees would NEVER vote to remove or reprimand him.
Nate: I agree with David C(Tarheel). Russell Moore did what he is paid to do and that is speak Biblical truth. His convictions. I am so glad that he did. And once again his critics now helped to pass this resolution in 1998 when Bill Clinton was having his own set of problems in the morality department. Look at the high profile leaders who are not speaking against Moore, in fact he has gotten lots of support. There are more not speaking or standing by him than those who are speaking against him. Count them.
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we, the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting June 9-11, 1998, in Salt Lake City, Utah, affirm that moral character matters to God and should matter to all citizens, especially God’s people, when choosing public leaders; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we implore our government leaders to live by the highest standards of morality both in their private actions and in their public duties, and thereby serve as models of moral excellence and character; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we urge all citizens, including those who serve in public office, to submit themselves respectfully to governing authorities and to the rule of law; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists and other Christians to fulfill their spiritual duty to pray regularly for the leaders of our nation (1 Timothy 2:1-4); and
Be it finally RESOLVED, That we urge all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office, and to elect those officials and candidates who, although imperfect, demonstrate consistent honesty, moral purity and the highest character.
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/773/resolution-on-moral-character-of-public-officials
If I may say these pastors sound like some church members I have had in the past. I I don’t get my way I am going to quit giving and the church will vote you out. These pastors are being very immature.
Playing ‘The Immature Card’ is kind of like playing “The Race Card.”….a smoke screen, irrelevant to the topic of discussion designed to shut down dissent and shut critics up.
Honest question for the Moore critics. If Moore had been extremely critical of Clinton, and not Trump, throughout the campaign, would you still be critical of Moore’s imbalanced criticism and do you think people would be threatening to withhold funding?
Bill, the real issue was, and is, that Moore was critical of Southern Baptists who were supporting Trump. Now, while it is true that Moore didn’t write too many hit pieces on Clinton, I don’t think that is the real issue. If he had been balanced on speaking to the flaws of all the candidates (including his favorites) without denigrating Southern Baptists, there wouldn’t be an issue at the moment.
I would not have liked him opposing Hillary personally. But I would have appreciated him critiquing the platform of the Democrats and the moral demise of the last eight years. The ERLC has no business supporting or opposing specific candidates.
Another honest question. In the eyes of the unbelieving country, do you think the ministry of Southern Baptists in sharing the Gospel is more harmed by tension between the Trump administration and the ERLC or by the full throated Trump support by prominent Southern Baptists. For example by Falwell’s assertion that it didn’t even matter if Trump was guilty of sexual assault, that wouldn’t sway his vote.
To those of us who supported Trump, we believe the country will get to continue to have 1st Amendment freedoms (and 2nd) because of who we supported. We also believe the gospel would have been more harmed had Clinton been elected and, perhaps, the CP damaged had she become President through potential taxing of churches, etc.
So perhaps a question to you (and others). What would an unbelieving country think if Southern Baptists had stayed away in droves and allowed Clinton to be elected? Would unbelievers see that as “good news”?
Nate: I agree that SBCers had a far greater dilemma once Trump was the nominee. I think we could collectively have done the most good in preventing Trump from being nominated. Let’s face it, nothing we learned about Trump’s moral character after the nomination was a surprise, only our continued support in the face of the revelations.
I don’t like Clinton one little bit, but I think the things she was proactively accused of supporting, like eliminating the first and second amendments, where simply republican bogeymen.
What about churches withholding their Cooperative Program money because they are upset with Russell Moore? Actually, the Ethics Commission gets a small part of the Cooperative Program budget. The International Mission Boards gets 51%; the North American Mission Board gets 23%, and the seminaries get 21%. So, you can see that our mission boards and seminaries get 95% of CP money. If you are dissatisfied with Russell Moore’s performance, don’t call the Wall Street Journal, contact one or more trustees of the Ethics Commission. They supervise Dr. Moore. That is the way our SBC system works. Our institutions are governed by trustees elected by the SBC in its annual meeting.
I believe Russell Moore made a mistake by criticizing Donald Trump by name. When I was a pastor, I never endorsed a candidate by name or espoused a particular party. I did encourage our members to vote, and I did try to provide some ethical guidance. My thinking was that I wanted to be fair, and I knew I had members who supported both of the main parties. I did not want to provide “equal time” for someone to refute what I had said from the pulpit. I did tell my members that I would be glad to name names in private.
I believe the President of the Ethics Commission should serve a prophetic role in the SBC. We need to be informed about complex issues, like immigration, and we need to be challenged. William Thornton and I are old enough to remember when Southern Baptists needed to be challenged about racial discrimination.
“If you are dissatisfied with Russell Moore’s performance, don’t call the Wall Street Journal, contact one or more trustees of the Ethics Commission. They supervise Dr. Moore. That is the way our SBC system works. Our institutions are governed by trustees elected by the SBC in its annual meeting.”
Bingo.
They DO NOT respond!
The fact that they do not respond in the way that you want them to does not mean that you have not been heard. You are but one voice. Cooperation means we don’t kick and scream every time we don’t get our way.
The REASON CP reductions have been adopted by some churches are now being considered by more is NOT because of MOORE’S MORONIC BASHING of those who either reluctantly or enthusiastically voted for Trump. This is just the tip of the iceberg OR perhaps the TIPPING POINT for more SBC Pastors and lay people in the know. THE SBC is ignoring its churches. It is doing its own thing. Today’s SBC leaders are intentionally seeking to Calvinize the convention even though a small fraction of our churches and pastors are Calvinists. SBC leaders are doing everything they can to urbanize our denomination, not for the sake of reaching the lost but rather to make our Convention more socially acceptable to our modern society and to hopefully leave behind the ‘knuckle dragging’ rural and small town pastors and churches. If you do not have mega-church potential NAMB is no longer interested in anything but your money and your keys. There are no SBC entities designing programs for rural churches. No SBC entity, with exception of a couple of our seminaries, are holding conferences designed to help pastors stimulate rural churches, meet the unique needs of rural communities or plant churches in rural areas underserved by evangelical churches. The SBC of today DEMANDS more support and fewer questions. It is being guided by a report created in secret that the rest of us are NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO SEE!!! Its leaders have become arrogant and considere themselves to be untouchable, which to a large part they sadly are. The Trustee system is very broken. SBC National Conventions are a joke. There is no time for dissent or questions, no open forums, no opinions being asked of messengers, It is like a giant SBC Entity infomercial!! The only card the lowly average SBC church has left to play is the CP support card. SO that is where you will see more and more churches go…either that or banding together for another decade long takeover. SO, UNLESS the SBC wants to blow up the CP or go through another PAINFUL ‘takeover’ to reverse this repulsive trend it had better do more than scold those of us who feel VERY disaffected. IT HAD BETTER LISTEN!!
OK. Name some churches that have reduced their CP as a result of what’s happening at the ERLC. Harrell and Graham have threatened.
Your comment is a collection of vitriolic nonsense.
Wait and see…
You said they “have been adopted by some churches”. I’m just asking to see if you know what you’re talking about.
If you’re just venting, fine. Have a merry Christmas and try to hold all the ‘bah humbug’ stuff until next week.
Merry Christmas to you too. I wished Dr. Moore a Merry Christmas too on his Fb page.
Wow….Breathe, Allen – breathe.
Mark Terry and I are old enough to remember when Jimmy Draper and other SBC pastors threatened to with hold Cooperative Program funds not just from one agency but from the entire SBC if their candidate was not elected president of the SBC. This is an old custom for many in our denomination.
I agree with Mark that a pastor should not use his pulpit to endorse political candidates but Russell Moore was acting not as pastor but as leader of our denominational entity tasked with speaking out on ethical and moral issues. Of course by speaking out on issues, as pastors should, you can usually tell which candidate supports or opposes those issues.
Mark Terry and I are also both old enough to remember when W.A. Criswell stood on the steps of his church and endorsed Gerald Ford for president. Many other SBC pastors have made similar endorsements, sometimes in the hope they will get invited to be on an advisory board or have other privileges if their candidate is elected.
Charles Colson used to say when he was working for Richard Nixon that pastors were the easiest to influence when they were invited to meet the president and taken for a ride on the presidential yacht. They were like putty in the hands of the politicians. I am glad Russell Moore has the courage to speak truth without regard to political considerations.
Sorry if I have given away your age Mark.
Although I read SBC Voices quite often, I rarely comment because I have come to see that in most cases comments usually end up in arguments instead of illumination (or in discussions of football). I am going to make an exception now because I would like to give a view from the pews, so to speak.
I am not pastorally ordained (I teach Sunday School, am an inactive deacon since I was divorced by my wife, minister to our seniors, and for 30 years worked with RAs before the convention abandoned the program) and have been a Southern Baptist for almost 50 years. I came over from the Episcopal Church which ought to tell you something. I did so because everyone not only carried Bibles but knew what was it and I saw people trying to work out their salvation well. I stayed throughout all of the tumult in the denomination (I was forced to leave a church that turned toward the CBF and spiritually split my wife and me) and culture because of two things I saw firmly grounded in the SBC: the inerrant truth of the Word and the Cooperative Program. I was wounded, am scarred, and church as a community of believers (and the only real hope to present Jesus to the world) still matters to me.
Having said that, I will now tell you that the only thing keeping me a Southern Baptist after this election cycle is Russell Moore’s words during this difficult time. Since I am among “the heathen”, so to speak, during my time out of church, I know what others say about Southern Baptists. I heard too many of our so-called leaders make outrageous statements (e.g. Dr. Jeffress labeling his idea of those who were truly conflicted about both candidates “namby-pamby, panty-waisted weak-kneed Christians.”) both for or in support of Trump.
At some point we are actually going to have to sound and act Christ-like as we deal with each other and the world. The world does pay attention to the way we speak to each other and to the world and the vehemence which we seem to be afflicted with against the world. The timbre, tenor, and energy of our words resonate and matter. All we seem to be to the world is the religious arm of the Republican Party – come hell or high water (and no, I am not a Democrat; I am becoming a merely nominal Republican). Our witness now, in the main, seems to just push people away, especially the young, and deadens our real message of Love, Hope, and Truth.
In church I know what is said in small groups, in casual conversations, and in committee meetings when talk turns toward the world. It is not nice, it is not enlightening, it is sometimes harsh and cruel (and yes, racist in so many ways), and it never seems to be led by the Spirit.
We have no local or national leaders who inspire us. I have yet to hear a sermon on anything going on in the world now other than it is wrong and we need more Gospel. How were we to respond this year’s presidential election? What about registering Muslims? How high should the wall be? I was in a spiritual and moral slough of despair and I heard nothing, absolutely nothing, from my pulpit and state and national leadership that helped me. I heard a lot of arguments like Jeffress’ and a few voices crying out in the wilderness-Dave Miller among them- including the one who spoke to the best in us (and because the world was listening – for us): Russell Moore.
Moore sounded like a Christian. He spoke words in a way Christians (and a lot of young people do, by the way, because I do pay attention) should. He was thoughtful, spiritual, and discerning. He pointed us back to God in ways that made me reflect on what God might want of me and helped me through my anger and despair.
I know that there are Godly men and women in the SBC. I call them the invisible church. We need more of them to be visible and to me, Russell Moore, met the challenge.
Until we actually act and speak publicly as if we know what Grace and Jesus might be, Moore keeps me within this body of believers I have come to love but in whom I am fast losing hope. If Moore leaves because of what he said, I do not know if I can stay. There is much I love about Southern Baptists but I need to see more of what I love and less of what we seem to be becoming: angry; bitter at the world turning its back on us; fighting for a place at the table for respect, power, or (now lost) influence; and telling ourselves that we are going to heaven and that we get it (mostly) right although we can do just a little bit better.
I am 69 years old and have given much to Southern Baptists. I don’t want to die in an angry, failing church. There is still too much to do and, for me, too little time to do it. Jesus matters. Truth matters. God is Love.
Jim Lockhart
Jim, you should comment more often. That was excellent. Thank you.
+1
Thanks for your words. They are needed. I pray they are heeded.
Wow. Thanks for that “commentary from the pews”.
Such a powerful comment Jim Lockhart, that I kept shaking my head yes, yes as I read each word.
As on 69 year old to another, well said.
Ron West will always be older than me (by two years). Yes, I can remember that during the Conservative Resurgence some withheld CP funds, or threatened to. I thought it was wrong then, and I still do.
There were four areas where I think Russell Moore erred in his efforts to convince Evangelicals, and specifically Southern Baptists, to not vote for Donald Trump in this past election:
1. He confused personal conviction with universal Biblical truths/principals which actually are the prevue of what the ERLC is chartered to address.
2. He made many disparaging comments about fellow believers who disagreed with him.
3. He stated that the younger generation of Evangelicals has a “stronger theology” than the older “Religious Right” of the Jerry Falwell/Charles Stanley generation.
4. He focused so much on Donald Trump’s personal foibles that he rarely if ever mentioned specifically differences between the two candidates. Specifically, I can’t remember him calling attention to the significant change in policy where the Democratic Party Platform called for repeal of the Hyde Amendment and instead have Federal funding for all abortions. In other words, the rally cry of “Free abortion on demand without apology!” was now becoming public policy of Hillary Clinton.
Here are the specifics:
1. While I understand that Russell Moore felt convicted to not vote for Trump, his role at ERLC is not to promote everything that he feels a person conviction about – There are many things that believers can feel the Holy Spirit leading them not to do. Consumption of alcohol, shopping on Sunday, or how affluent a lifestyle one chooses to live (for example I heard Francis Chan say that after a mission trip, he felt convicted to move to a much smaller house), or a last example, Dave Ramsey who has an opposition to credit cards, My belief about personal convictions, is that we have to have faith and confidence that the same Holy Spirit who convicted us to not drink, spend money, etc. can convict others and it is not our place to do what I call “evangelize our convictions” about matters which are not clearly stated in scripture.
2. The most egregious example of making disparaging comments was the Washington Post article where he called Paula White, “a charlatan”. I am no fan of Paula White, but once you get started on classifying individuals on Christian tv, where do you stop? Why not take the high road of Billy Graham? I was also bothered by his other Washington Post article where he said that when people in political circles in Washington hear the term “Evangelical” think of “some old white precinct captain in Iowa.” Moore argued instead that Evangelicals are ethnic minorities. Is the “old white precinct captain in Iowa” to be any less valued than the Asian, Hispanic or black evangelical? I realize that in our PC culture, diversity is the greater value.
4. Moore’s comments in the Bloomberg article were particularly troubling where he pits the theology of one generation against the other. Here is the link: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-09/the-evangelical-civil-war-an-interview-with-russell-moore In this article, Moore argues that the younger generation is more theologically oriented than their predecessors when he says, “The engagement of the old-guard religious-right establishment is very different from that of the younger, more theologically oriented, multi-ethnic, religious conservatives of the next generation.” He can have his opinion, however the previous generation saw greater numbers of baptisms and we are seeing a significant growth in the “nones” who claim to have no religious beliefs. The bigger picture is what is to be gained by comparing one generation against the other? As Evangelicals, we are a minority in an increasingly secular culture, why do we need a circular firing squad?
4. Finally, out of the all the articles which Moore penned for the Washington Post, where did he specifically call attention to the significant policy change of the Democratic Party Platform to repeal the Hyde Amendment and advocate for Federal funding of abortion?
In conclusion, after all of Russell Moore’s efforts and all of the other Never Trump movement they had very little influence as Trump received 81% of the Evangelical vote – more than Mitt Romney. Perhaps, all of these Never Trumpers need to recognize that Evangelical voters looked more closely at the specific policy proposals and decided that Trump would be a far better choice than having Hillary Clinton making Supreme Court appointments even if Trump had personal foibles. Also, I feel a lot better knowing that Mike Pence will have a great influence .than anyone in the Clinton team. Bottom line is we had a binary choice this year and Trump was the better of the two. After the election, Moore saw that 81% of Evangelicals disagreed with him and how little influence he had and so now he is trying to make amends.
Well said!
In a way Moore is under the same pressure that our civil representatives are under. We are a deeply divided nation and it’s impossible to represent everyone’s interests. The SBC is pretty diverse as well. In this case that diversity plays out in the way we approach the civil arena. There’s obviously a lot of disagreement in the SBC over it. There’s no way Moore is going to do anything that’s not going to make one faction or another angry. Additionally, he is constrained to orthodox theology. He just can’t make up his own rules in an attempt to appease everyone. If you look at the SBC as a singular entity and a microcosm of the US population, then you have at agree that we are like that person you know who simply cannot be pleased no matter what you do. Some leaders would take the opportunity to foster corruption. Many of our government officials do just that. Moore does not. Whoever doesn’t agree with him should give him the benefit of the doubt as a brother in Christ, and withholding CP monies just because you are mad at Moore because you don’t agree with him is simply childish.
As someone who has been active in SBC churches since the 70’s (and a loyal supporter of the CR, FWIW), my first question is “When did championing clean CP giving become a thing for conservative pastors in the SBC?” I could name names here but we all know prominent SBC churches that have never valued direct CP giving, preferring to designate funds to preferred agencies and not to others. This was sorta the point of the GCR, right? To allow for a cooperative giving measurement that was not strictly CP?
The overall trend line for CP giving is down, as is nearly every SBC giving measurement. When you factor maintaining pace with mission needs, cost increases in developing nations, etc…, we will soon be facing some critical funding decisions that could make the recent IMB front line layoffs seem small by comparison.
it would wonderful if the #StandWithMoore movement resulted in a widespread renewal of support of the CP by pastors (that would result in increased support the laity who actually pull the cart).
I’m skeptical because the laity, who have already been living under financial pressure for almost 10-20 years without a significant light at the end of the tunnel, have been on the edge of having had enough with arrogant leadership in the SBC and elsewhere. Moore insulted the faith of those who voted for Trump (his recent attempt at walking it back notwithstanding. But SBC leaders acting badly didn’t begin with the 2016 election cycle (and FWIW, Moore’s flame thrower shtick started long before 2016).
For decades, we’ve heard that “everything rises and falls on leadership”. Sooner or later, the SBC leadership culture is going to have to start taking responsibility and then providing real sacrificial, servant style leadership. Non-apology apologies don’t cut it in the private sector (where nearly all of your church members live and work, BTW). To think that it will work in the SBC is naive.
Bottom line: give us something (and someone) meaningful to follow and there’s a chance that we will. But continue down the road of protecting leader merely for the sake of protecting a leadership culture and prepare yourselves for difficult times ahead.