Dr. Russell Moore has released a thoughtful article in which he reflects on the 2016 election season and the role he played in it. He shares his heart, his convictions, and even an apology. It is an introspective Dr. Moore who looks back at the battlefield that was Election 2016.
I found myself sharing almost all of Dr. Moore’s convictions this year. I’ve been accused of being a sycophant or something, but the fact is that I arrived at my convictions independently of anything Dr. Moore said. I’ve not spoken to him in some time, though we’ve shared a Twitter like or two from time to time. My first exposure to Marco Rubio was at the SEND conference in Nashville and I was very impressed with him, even though I was not a big fan of having political candidates at that meeting.
Gradually, during the lead up to the Iowa caucuses, I became a huge fan of Marco Rubio, and I’d be thrilled if the electors were choosing him today. But alas, that is not to be. It seems that perhaps Dr. Moore also liked Marco, though I don’t know that he ever came out and endorsed him. The thing we had the most in common was that we joined the “NeverTrump” movement. Dr. Moore was one of the leaders of the movement, though I was one of the early devotees. I wrote very early, long before the caucuses, that if the GOP nominated Trump I would refuse to vote for him and would renounce my membership in the party. I’ve kept both of those promises.
The elections became a divisive thing for Southern Baptists. What is interesting is that each side feels abused by the other. The Trump supporters felt attacked by those of us who refused to vote for Trump, and can tell you that as a NeverTrumper, I was called just about everything in the book. Hillary-lover. Abortion-supporter. Closet Democrat (thems fightin’ words). Some close and lifelong friends got so mad at me some still don’t talk much to me anymore. And through it all, of course, I remained my loveable, calm, and sweet self…right?
This was a weird election. In the past, the vitriol was usually between the Democrats and the Republicans, the left and the right, liberals and conservatives. There was plenty of that this time around. But much of anger this cycle focused on conservatives who were angry with other conservatives. Right-wingers against the alt-right. Conservative pro-Trump against Conservative NeverTrump. ReluctantTrump against NeverTrump.
My birthday in 2017 will be one of those that ends in a zero, and in all that time I’ve never seen anything quite like this year’s brouhaha. American history is full of some wild elections with some harsh campaign tactics, but this one was unique. And Dr. Russell Moore played a big part.
It was a part that angered a segment of Southern Baptist life. There are people out there who view Dr. Moore negatively and tend to see everything he does as a threat to our denomination. Trump voters, both enthusiastic Trumpers and ReluctantTrumpers, resent the stands that he took. And let’s be honest, there is a segment of the SBC that would oppose Russell Moore if he took a stand for truth, justice, and the American Way. He is seen as part of something they oppose and they will oppose him because they oppose him. It is also true that Dr. Moore is more prophetic than political. You could see that at the convention when he was asked a question. In a moment of controversy, when he was being challenged, he stared down the questioner and went all in on his views. He is a man of conviction and courage. When you agree with him you find that admirable and noble. When you disagree with him I can imagine that is frustrating.
But this year, we NeverTrumpers found ourselves in a conundrum. I have not spoken to Dr. Moore about it, but I think he went through what I went through.
- I did not see how a Christian could possibly decide to support the candidacy of Donald Trump. It seemed so absolutely clear to me that this man was unfit morally, spiritually, ethically, psychologically – in every possible way – to be president of the United States. The fact that the only good thing that most people could say about him was that he wasn’t Hillary Clinton was instructive. But for me, it was black and white, clear as crystal, not even a little bit in doubt. Donald Trump was not worthy of the support of someone who honored Christ.
- On the other hand, people who loved Jesus respected him were coming to a different conclusion. It baffled me, befuddled me, and disappointed me, but I had to realize that it was true. There were people selling out and compromising, I remain convinced of that. The church will have to deal with the fallout of that. But there were others who made serious, thoughtful, prayerful analysis and came to the conclusion that when the choice was between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the choice of the lesser of two evils was the best choice.
My heart told me one thing while my head told me another. It seems, from his article, that Dr. Moore went through much of the same thing. The key differentiation I tried to make was between the Trump enthusiasts and the ReluctantTrumpers. However, we either failed to carefully make this distinction or others failed to understand it, because things I said about Trump enthusiasts caused offense among ReluctantTrumpers. This is one of the key points that Dr. Moore makes as well.
I have no desire to hash all this out again, but I do recommend the reader go to Dr. Moore’s article, “Election Year Thoughts at Christmastime.” It is well worth the read.
1. He explains himself very well. There was much misunderstanding of Dr. Moores words and intent – whether intentional or not. If you want to understand what he believed and intended, it is well to read this.
It is common Christian courtesy to allow a man to define himself rather than to define his views simply by what his critics say about him. I’ve heard several declarative statements about him that simply are not true, but they are repeated so often that they take on the aura of fact.
- He makes it clear that he spoke from his convictions and gives no apology for those convictions. He’s not backing down.
- He realizes that he was misunderstood and that perhaps he did not make himself clear on some things. For that, he does apologize. In the heat of war there is collateral damage and he is trying here to patch things up a little bit.
- He differentiates the Trump enthusiast from the RelunctantTrumper (my terms, not his) – a key distinction that often got lost in the discussion.
- He affirms those who held different views without backing down from his.
- He acknowledges that many in our denominational family are angry at him.
2. He was conciliatory and apologetic. Dr. Moore is not going to admit that was wrong. He doesn’t think I was. I don’t think he was. But what he is admitting is that in the heat of battle, in a soundbite, in an article or a news report, sometimes things are communicated in a way that does not fully represent all that you believe. Here is what he said.
But there were also pastors and friends who told me when they read my comments they thought I was criticizing anyone who voted for Donald Trump. I told them then, and I would tell anyone now: if that’s what you heard me say, that was not at all my intention, and I apologize.
I had the exact same experience. I had people angry and offended at me because of the way I worded things at times. Sometimes it was simply because of what I believed, but often it was the words I chose to express the view, or because I didn’t give the full view. The last couple of weeks, after some harsh exchanges, I started adding a caveat to almost every political discussion in which I stated that I was stating my strong views based on my understanding of God’s word and the Lordship of Christ, but I understood that other Christians would come to other views and I granted them the right to do so, whether I agreed or not. I can’t agree that the decision to vote for Trump was morally sound, but I can say that I’m not your judge and if you walked faithfully under obedience to Christ and made that choice, you don’t have to answer to me.
I think we always believed this, but we didn’t always say this and so people took offense. We meant it, but we didn’t say it. I think Dr. Moore wants everyone in the SBC to know that he thought this all along.
Some will say that he is rewriting history, trying to correct the record. I don’t think so. I think he said this all along, just not perhaps as clearly, as often, as forcefully as he could and should have. So, there were misunderstandings. He is right to make this statement because his words led to a misunderstanding. But I do believe that his current words reflect his original intent.
3. He makes 3 key points. He truly wants to be a man of peace. It is a hard role. I want to be a facilitator of peace as well, but I’m opinionated and I voice those opinions. Opinions are by their very nature divisive. So, he’s caught in the same bind I find myself in often. Wanting to be a peacemaker I find myself expressing opinions that can divide. The path to peace is not to sheath the sword of truth. He spells out three things we must do.
- We must seek to identify and understand our areas of disagreement.
- We must empathize with one another and seek to understand the other side in these arguments. Generally, we all failed in this endeavor. I saw description after description of the heart and motives of NeverTrumpers as assigned by those who were choosing Trump. They simply were not true. I would suppose that the Trump voters often felt the same about us, that we failed in empathy and understanding. We must honor one another even in disagreement.
- We must not ignore our conscience. This I was told to do over and over again this year. But we must not. No Christian should ever tell another to ignore his conscience. We should honor Romans 14 and allow other believers to follow Christ even if we do not always arrive at the same conclusions.
He ends his letter with a call we all should heed, to turn our hearts away from elections and electors to consider one born king of the Jews whose kingdom will never end.
I appreciated this letter because it was convictional and conciliatory. Dr. Moore is never going to mold to the will of anyone other that Christ and the Word, as he understands it. Because of that he will always be frustrating and even (yes) annoying to those whose convictions and stands disagree with his.
But that is why he should be honored. He is a man of conviction. He is not shaped by majority vote or popular opinion. The only prophets who were ever shaped that way were the false prophets! They asked what people wanted to hear and they said that. Even when I don’t agree with him I appreciate that he is speaking from his convictions. And I appreciate that here, Dr. Moore is seeking to lead us down the road of reconciliation and peace.
We are part of the great People of God, and because of the inner work of the Spirit, we have access to a peace that passes understanding. We do not have to let the hurts of the 2016 election color our future as a denomination. We can walk in grace, forgiveness, and spiritual power as we choose Christ over the flesh.
Let there be healing in the SBC and let it begin in me.
I agree, Dave. I thought Moore’s article struck the right notes.
Probably not going to satisfy the #NeverMoore contingent, but it seems to strike the right notes to me.
Dr. Moore’s article was long and meaty. I’m going to have to read it again. But I’m ready to move on and I hope he will too. I’m tired of the parting shots.
It is likely that if I live to be 80 we will still be discussing this election.
I suspect that your hope that we put 2016 in the past may be a pipe dream.
Man….I am so thankful for Dr. Moore.
From the Wall Street Journal… http://on.wsj.com/2gUBNru
I too thought it was a great article. He hit some really important and helpful notes. I also felt that the apology was sincere. I too have done some soul searching regarding this election and it is still a work in progress to be honest – but here are a few of my thoughts….
I too struggled with differentiating between the “#trumpenthusiasts” and the #reluctanttrumpeters – I think in my head I knew there was a difference but could not quote settle that in my heart, so to speak. To me it was so clear – my conviction was so strong – how could others not see it the way I do??? (Boy, isn’t that attitude the root of all sorts of bickering on blogs!?)
Perhaps it is because both of these groups ended up in the same place “supporting DJT” that made it so hard for me to separate these “groups”. So many of both the enthusiasts and the reluctants were saying very similar things and articulating the same defenses for Trumps numerous indefensible positions, statements, and actions (at least indefensible in my mind…)
I tried, and failed a lot, to separate these two groups, all I can do about that now is say – I am sorry to those I offended.
I was a never trumper long before he even officially got in the race. I remember telling my church secretary one morning when there were just rumors of him running as a republican – that I would never, ever vote for him. I even went as far as to say that even if it ends up him versus Clinton I would have to vote third party or not at all. I meant it. I voted third party.
As for Dr. Moore – I am constantly conflicted when it comes to him. The position in our denomination he holds almost necessitates that – does it not? Sometimes I agree with him – sometimes I disagree with him – sometimes I agree but do not like the way he say it – sometimes I disagree but dog gone it I like the way he says it. There is no doubt that he, as Miller said in his article, is a man of strong (some may say stubborn) conviction to Christ and to the Word as he sees it – I am too. Most of us who post here are.
I have decided that as long as Dr. Moore and I agree on the fundamentals of doctrine that he and I both have willingly affirmed (BFM2000) – the area’s of disagreement between us will just have to be that – disagreement and not cause for division. Of course it is easy to type that here – but hard to live out. If anyone here finds out how to perfectly balance this – let me know. Certainly there are people who are better at striking that balance than I am – There are also people who think that they are really good at striking that perfect balance but are not – either way the fact is that there are none who are perfect at it.
Let us commit to pray encouraging things for one another…and before praying that God change THEM – lets pray that WE ourselves be changed.
I don’t get why people have to be all in or all out on Trump or any candidate. Do we get that from TV? Why can’t we say: “I like this thing, but that other thing was dumb. What he did yesterday was OK but what he said this morning was stupid”. I’m so tired of seeing sycophants and it just seems like a lot of the people I know are drawn into it. Those who claimed to be reluctant Trumpers before the election are now full fledged fanboys. Who would have thought we’d ever see the day when we are defending Russia? I’ve seen more than story that the average Trump voter knows he lied his way continually throughout the campaign, and they simply didn’t care. They took him seriously but not literally. I can’t get my head around that.
“They took him seriously but not literally. I can’t get my head around that.”
That one boggles my mind, too.
Guys, let me give you an example of taking him seriously and not literally. He said many times he would build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. I never took that literally. Now it is true he could 1) himself operate the equipment and himself lay the bricks and 2) thus build a literal wall and 3) Get Mexico to cut an actual check or bring suitcases of Mexican cash to make payment.
Or, it could be that “building a wall” means an actual wall, a fence, or even a laser zapper and “making Mexico pay for it” means extracting $$ via some kind of trade/tarrif deal.
See how easy that is? You guys are so funny.
I understand that there were a lot of forgotten people who spoke out in this election, but I fear the results. I fear the currents of anti-education, anti-science, isolationism and protectionism that I see coming out into the open. I see people who are incurious about the world beyond American borders. One of the things that made America great and frankly makes other countries, especially Islamic countries hate us is that we are a pluralistic society. I honestly think that is in danger.
“anti-education, anti-science, isolationism and protectionism”
I don’y know what you mean about isolation and protectionism, but anti education and anti science?
I kinda like education choice and sending more control back to the states and I kinda like that he my just be thumbing his nose at the pseudo science known as man made global warming and man made climate change. If that is what you mean by anti education and anti science, sign me up.
I still have heard no accusation against Dr. Moore that sticks, other than (for what I consider to be moral and gospel-based reasons) he expressed his reservations on the candicacy of Trump.
Is that what all the hubbub is about? Or is there something else? Can someone who identifies with this “dump Moore” movement please tell me?
The kick against Moore is somehow somebody knows that the rank and file Southern Baptists supported Trump and Moore therefore had to support Trump. Other than constant polling, I’m not sure how Moore is supposed to know everything Southern Baptists support, especially when Trump represented practically everything Southern Baptists purported to be against for the last 50 years.
Like someone else has said, Russell Moore is the Daniel of this generation.
As someone said above, I think we are all a little tired of the election, but two things happened today that tickled me. One of the things that disgusts me is political hypocrisy. I was horrified during the election when people who argued one way during Bill Clinton’s presidency suddenly started using the same arguments the Democrats used back then.
But over recent weeks the leftists have been calling on Republican electors to abandon Trump. They’ve been telling them that they are free to vote their conscience and not vote Trump.
Today, MORE electors abandoned Hillary than Trump (by a large amount).
But the Democrats fought hard against those “faithless electors” who refused to cast their vote for Hillary. Replaced them. Threatened to fine them.
Evidently, it’s okay for GOP electors to abandon Trump, but NOT okay for Dem electors to abandon Hillary. The hypocrisy is amazing. Of course, there’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
I believe in the states (Colorado, Maine, and Minnesota) where the 3 faithless Democract electors were forced to change their vote back to Hillary or be replaced, that there are longstanding laws in place against faithless electors. If I am correct, it’s not a matter of party politics but rather the electoral laws at work.
Dr. Moore’s biggest mistake was that he gave the impression he was a Hillary supporter due to his silence about her. I think this impression is possibly not wrong as I have not heard any harsh criticism from him directed at her Christian supporters in the same way he criticized Trump supporters. And she was even worse than him. He was right to oppose Trump but he should also have opposed Hillary.
I certainly never had the impression he was a Hillary supporter. I don’t think it was reasonable to come to that conclusion.
Since there were almost NO conservative evangelicals – especially within the SBC – supporting Hillary, there was little reason to address it. He also has said little, in my hearing at least, about polygamy. That doesn’t mean he supports polygamy. There’s just not much of an issue in the SBC with polygamy.
Most of his major statements and articles took place during the primaries, not the general election.
And the focus of his articles was often not really about a candidate, pro or con, but about the danger of the church abandoning its gospel witness for politics. Agree or disagree with the conclusion, that’s what drove the argument. Dr. Moore seems genuinely concerned over the idea of civil religion and the subjugation of truth to political expedience. I think it has a lot to do with his upbringing.
“Since there were almost NO conservative evangelicals – especially within the SBC – supporting Hillary, there was little reason to address it.”
Dave Miller, Actually, there were many who did support Mrs. Clinton.
I think your rationale for Dr. Moore’s not speaking out against Mrs. Clinton is a weak defense.
I have no problem with his commentary about Mr. Trump. None. Frankly, I think to do so is part of his job. However, it is my opinion that he should have spent equal time pointing out the problems with Mrs. Clinton’s bid for the White House. Had he done so, he may not have received “some” of the criticism he did and still does.
Another thing I believe he has been lacking in is commentary about the failures of the present POTUS to lead this nation in a productive manner. Dr. Moore has not been the point of the spear his SBC position demands in calling the present administration to accountability. Therein, he was just to evidently silent as a “present day prophet.”
However, I do think that much of the criticism within the ranks of the SBC of Dr. Moore has a greater root in soteriological predispositions than in his non-support of Mr. Trump. Also, I am amazed that many of the same SBC personalities who now cry for Dr. Moore’s termination are the same people who so openly supported and protected a known charlatan like Ergun Caner.
I have come to the sad conclusion that hypocrisy in the SBC knows no boundaries and the gulf caused by soteriological polarization is growing in its proportional width to a valid comparison with the gulf between heaven and hell.
Do you know of pastors active within the SBC who publicly supported or advocated for Hillary Clinton? I don’t know of a single one.
If she got a single vote in my church, I’m not aware of it. We had a few NeverTrumpers, and I didn’t talk much about politics in the church, but as far as I know, she got nothing.
So, not knowing a single person in the SBC (I’m sure there were MEMBERS of churches) who advocated for Hillary, I never felt the need to speak much about it.
Our old buddy Jess would send me angry notes praising Hillary from time to time. He started out loving Trump, but then switched to Hillary.
He’d support anyone who ran on the Democratic ticket, I assume. But I don’t think he’s a pastor anymore.
CB writes,
“However, I do think that much of the criticism within the ranks of the SBC of Dr. Moore has a greater root in soteriological predispositions than in his non-support of Mr. Trump. Also, I am amazed that many of the same SBC personalities who now cry for Dr. Moore’s termination are the same people who so openly supported and protected a known charlatan like Ergun Caner.”
Yes and yes! The Bama man is right on target.
Yes, he is.
Dwight McKissic supported Hillary Clinton. So did Thabiti Anyabwile.
Unless I’m mistaken, Thabiti ended up supporting Mcmullen
Thabiti has come out and said he supported McMullen, but that was a last minute action. He was fully supportive of Hillary for a long time.
Dave,
Dwight McKissic advocated strongly for Hillary on this forum numerous times.
Okay, no one else else needs to mention Dwight
I have followed Moore fairly closely since his appointment to the ERLC, and to some degree, before as well. And never once has the idea ever occurred to me that perhaps he supported Hillary Clinton. I really don’t get this, unless it is a tendency to not read or listen carefully, or to read or listen through the filter of one’s own fears and prejudices.
Note that I said it was possibly true he supported Hillary not that he definitely did. He only created this impression because he was silent on Hillary. Why couldn’t he just come out and say it if he didn’t support her.In my part of the country we have plenty of Evangelicals who are also “dead dog” Democrats that need to be reminded the Democratic nominee isn’t automatically God’s choice (just as many other evangelicals need that reminder about the GOP nominee). Also, Dr. Moore worked for a Democratic Congressman as a young man thus indicating he just might support the Democratic nominee if he doesn’t tell us he is opposed.
Scott,
No it’s not “possibly true.” He was clear on multiple occasions, including the essay above, that he could not support either major party candidate. What you are believing is demonstrably false.
However, the idea that he supported Hillary was propagated, invented, by several of the people speaking against him in the WSJ article this week. Surprise. Surprise.
You and others who bring up Dr. Moore’s work for a Democrat would do well to research who that man was and what his stances are. You would be ashamed to be slandering that brother, much less Dr. Moore, if you knew the truth.
Do some research. Stop listening to just one side. And actually read what Dr. Moore writes and listen to what he says. You will be better for it.
From the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/magazine/russell-moore-cant-support-either-candidate.html
From the Christian Post:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/russell-moore-christian-vote-third-party-lesser-of-evils-158917/
He made it quite clear that he didn’t support Hillary. The reason he went disproportionately hard after Trump is b/c most “evangelicals” were never in danger of voting for HRC.
Dr. Moore on many occasions has spoken to issues, expressing divergence of opinion with the platform of the DNC and the campaign of HRC. Most notably, he has spoken frequently and very clearly regarding his opposition to the legalization of abortion.
The ERLC use to explain the SBC position and message to the world, now the message of the secular world is being explained to the SBC members. Moore should have been an honest broker of different candidates instead of being a cheerleader for Rubio and Bush. His own personal opposition to Trump should have remain personal and muted not joining the not too exclusive Never Trump fanatics that were headed by the mainstream press. Dr. Moore became their go to guy for anti Trump fodder due to his position. Dr. Moore job is not to promote his own political choice or become an advocate for or against a candidate. At least the Moral Majority were honest in their intent. Dr. Moore has represented himself not the SBC and actually has looked down with distain on the majority of SBC member who did vote for Trump. Moore may only survive because the majority of SBC members are unaware of his unrelenting involvement in regards to Trump and pursing his own agenda.
No the biblical message is being explained to the SBC by Moore. Since the SBC apparently has some people who are ok with sexual assault, xenophobia, racism, disparaging the poor, breaking up families, and pursuing political power over the Gospel, as evidenced by the behavior of some during the election.
This accusation does not apply to everyone who voted for Trumo, but it does apply to those who excused every word that came out of PE Trump’s mouth because he was the GOP candidate, and to those who continually tried to portray him as a Christian when he obviously is not. Those who enabled him failed to share the Gospel with him, which is the worst form of denying the faith, in my opinion.
Oh the careless rhetoric.
“Since the SBC apparently has some people who are ok with sexual assault, xenophobia, racism, disparaging the poor, breaking up families, and pursuing political power over the Gospel, as evidenced by the behavior of some during the election.”
Name just ONE person in the SBC who fits that. Just ONE.
“Name just ONE person in the SBC who fits that. Just ONE.”
Les Prouty. Etc, etc. Trump supporters can argue all they wish that a vote for Trump is not a vote for his behavior, but at the end of the day, you are saying his behavior is not objectionable enough to disqualify him for office. I don’t really care what all twists and turns you take to justify your position to yourself (though I think many Trump supporters don’t object as much as they claim), in the end you have sent a clear message that atrocious behavior can be excused (ie, not disqualifying) if the perpetrator can otherwise be made to serve your cause. It’s the definition of hypocrisy.
Well hello Chris. Glad to see you still lurk around these parts. Sorry though, a vote for Trump was not defacto support for those things mentioned. You’ll need to regroup and try again.
In addition, implied was/is that Trump was/is guilty of that list of things mentioned. Proof would be a great thing about now.
” His own personal opposition to Trump should have remain personal and muted not joining the not too exclusive ”
I totally disagree. As a Christian and as head of the ERLC, I think he did the right thing and is still doing the right thing by not backing down. It amazes me that as Christians so many do not think he should speak against moral evil. Something wrong with that kind of thinking.
Debbie:
You said that Dr. Moore is not backing down.
He has written an apology for his rhetoric.
What do you mean by saying he is not backing down?
Louis: I would suggest you reread his post.
A resolution that Southern Baptists passed in 1998 says:
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.
Those accusing Russell Moore should remember when this was passed.
Yep. This is what makes this so hard… High profile “SBC leaders” Being themselves some of same people who spoke so negatively about Bill Clinton went full throttle in support of Trump – even to the point of repeating the “locker room” talking point. Those guys Get a pass while Russell Moore get slammed…
The resolution you quoted has never been rescinded…
Bill Clinton’s low character, perversion and disgusting language and behavior was unacceptable – so we pass a resolution and Richard Land, our ethics and religious liberty commission president spoke out repeatedly.
Now, Russell Moore – A different ERLC president spent effort in the campaign Pointing out Donald trumps well documented perversion and disgusting language and low character – but this is somehow off limits because he was running against Hillary Clinton…
Does not compute….
Unless, party politics over rules what we heralded as biblical conviction in that resolution … Or resolutions mean absolutely nothing except the mirror opinion of the people sitting in the room at the time it is passed… I’m thinking it’s a likely a combination of the two.
No one has mentioned party platforms. In the end, though I felt a lot of frustration and inner conflict, I voted the “straight” Republican ticket. I did so because the Republican platform represents my political convictions more closely than the Democrat party platform. The Democrat party platform embraced abortion on demand and gay marriage and many other positions that are repugnant to me. I felt no enthusiasm for either major party candidate, but in the end the platform swayed me.
As to Russell Moore, it seems to me that the leader of the Ethics Commission should be a “burr under our saddle.” (Bart Barber can explain that expression.) If Dr. Moore is not provoking us to think about difficult issues and making us uncomfortable, then he is not doing his job. How could any person in his job satisfy all Southern Baptists? The only thing we can agree on is to go eat.
“Burr in our saddle”
That’s right, I don’t think we really want an ethics leader who doesn’t provoke thought and introspection.
If, as has been suggested by some, Moore’s job is to be a burr under the saddle of the administration in power regarding ethics and religious liberty, isn’t that a bit of a joke now? How can Christians in America possibly hold the position of moral conscience for Donald Trump?
I just read in Politico that more 1/3 of Republican voters approve of Vladimir Putin. Our descent into madness continues.
Bill, what does “approve” even mean? That sounds troubling. I looked for the poll and couldn’t find it. Can you please link to it? Thanks.
Never mind. Found it.
I am grateful for Dr. Moore. I heard him speak about the issues facing Christians in this election during the primary at a conference at Southern Seminary. He has been consistent and clear in his concerns about candidates on both sides of the political spectrum. I deeply appreciated his perspective in contrast to those of Dr. Jeffress and Jerry Falwell Jr. I am not unhappy about Trump’s election–in fact I’m hopeful and cautiously optimistic–but the concerns articulated by Dr. Moore were and are real and valid.
“. . . but the concerns articulated by Dr. Moore were and are real and valid.”
Steve Potts, I agree. I just wish he had been as vocal about the concerns with Mrs. Clintion’s candidacy also.
Fair point. Though he was clear when I heard him speak. In my opinion, Christian leaders who had reservations about Trump should have had equal, if not more, reservations about Clinton as far as Christian ethical priorities are concerned.
CB: That is just an excuse. I am so tired of hearing he should have been vocal about Clinton. There was no need to be and frankly I was more shocked at first that Christians were so gun ho about Trump. I thought it was a nightmare but alas it was reality. One cannot be pro-Trump and excuse his behavior then say anything against Clinton. It is hypocritical to do so.
What you are saying is tantamount to disciplining your child for doing wrong then going into a speech about how bad the other children are. It’s ridiculous. Moore was very clear that he was not pro-Hillary and a majority of Christians(it was the Christian vote that flung him into office with 80 plus percent of the vote), it still boggles my mind.
Look at who is doing the criticizing of Moore to the media, Jack Graham, Jeffress, Hankins, I mean that is very telling as to what their purposes are.
Steve Potts: We did have reservations and said so…..repeatedly Steve. Come on. If we are against Trump’s morals we are not going to be pro Clinton morals. At least be honest in your comments.
I do think Moore’s comments on Clinton got lost due to the weight of time spent in the anti-Trump comments.
I remember when the drive-in movies would throw a picture of popcorn or other snacks they were selling but do it so quickly it wasn’t noticable.
The anti-Clinton remarks were so few (in comparison) that for many they were not there at all.
Nothing personal against Moore but he brought the criticism upon himself, at best, for not being clear. At worse, for coming across as mean spirited towards fellow Believers.
Just my perspective.
I appreciate Dr. Moore, and I appreciate your article here, Dave.
It bothers me to see people who are so convicted that they are right in their solution to a moral dilemma that they are all-or-nothing in their condemnation of anyone who conscientiously comes to a different solution when their base principles are essentially the same.
In this case, Hillary and Trump were both unfit to run for president, albeit no less fit than our current president. I daresay Trump is far more fit than Hillary. So we had some options in going to the polls to cast our votes for our respective electorates. If we are agreed up to this point, whichever option we choose, we are still essentially in agreement in our motives. So the dilemma was between an unfit man for president, preventing an even more unfit woman being president, and the searing of our conscience if we voted for Trump in order to prevent Hillary from being president.
As for myself, I went the ReluctantTrump route. I stayed out of the pro-Trump crowd and didn’t promote him. I also stayed out of the Never-Trump crowd in promoting against him. The few times I expressed my reluctant position I would generally get pushed by people from one side or the other to get out of the middle. Yet I respect the general impulse of both sides to have a good president that will represent our interests well. I don’t know how Trump will perform in the oval office. He might make me regret my decision. We’ll see. Did my conscience get seared? No. It was a difficult decision, but I did the best I could. If I did wrongly, it’s not unforgivable. My heart is in the right place as I know the hearts of many of my brothers and sisters who are NeverTrumpers and ProTrumpers are. I’ll not begrudge any of you your conscientious position in this election. God bless you all.
Debbie, some “never Trumpers” did seem to me to be much more vocal in their opposition to Trump than in their opposition to Clinton. Not everyone. I wrote above that Dr. Moore was clear when I heard him speak of his concerns about both. I fully support Dr. Moore and appreciate his stand. It’s not very nice to throw around an accusation of dishonesty (especially to someone who is basically on your side in this matter.)
Steve Potts: This is what you wrote word for word. I stand by my comment.
“Fair point. Though he was clear when I heard him speak. In my opinion, Christian leaders who had reservations about Trump should have had equal, if not more, reservations about Clinton as far as Christian ethical priorities are concerned.” That is what I was addressing. My comment was pretty clear, yet you rewrote what I said, so it’s not exactly my side you are on.
I’ve said something similar in this thread already, but I think it bears repeating. Christians can be partisan when it comes to politics. We clearly prefer one party, and usually one candidate over another. But we can’t become (or have to stop being) those guys. The ones you hear on talk radio and see in the discussion panels on CNN. Trump is going to be president. But pro-Trump people should not simply spin his every word or action into something positive and those who don’t like Trump shouldn’t spin everything he does into something negative. I know people, Christians, many of whom I consider friends, who would not say something positive about Obama or Clinton if a gun was to their head. They revel in the talk show host mockery of Michele Obama. They have already begun spinning for Trump.
Why can’t we ever agree with someone in the other party? Why can’t we ever be critical of our own? I’m speaking to myself here too. I was very critical of GWB but he looks like an angel from heaven compared to the person we just elected. I’m not disposed to cut PE Trump any slack, but I have to. He’s bound to do something right and we ought to celebrate when he does. But we as Christians ought to hold his feet to the fire when he does something wrong. But I fear that as a whole, we don’t have the will to do so, and even if we did, I think we’ve damaged our moral authority to do so.
Debbie: I agreed with C. B. that it was fair for him to express the desire for more clear opposition to Clinton. I pointed out Dr. Moore was clear in his opposition to both. Then I said that some people against Trump didn’t seem to be as vocal in their opposition to Clinton. I stand by that. Some Christian leaders did seem to me to be less critical of Clinton than they were of Trump: for example, Max Lucado, Andy Crouch, Beth Moore, and a number of others. I don’t doubt that these good people had strong disagreements with Clinton (many said so), but most of what they said (or wrote) was directed against Trump. And I agreed with much of what they said! I don’t see where I’m being dishonest in this observation.
Did they say anything pro Clinton anywhere Steve Potts? I think it’s an excuse to criticize. Even if the criticism is not true.
This on Facebook shows the character of Dr. Moore. He wrote:
“Appreciate all the kind words, y’all. If we’re going to hashtag, let’s #standwithSBC together. Our gospel mission is too important.”
I should have written a before note in my last comment: Getting off the subject a little bit…….
I was doing some Christmas shopping today. At lunch at Arby’s a hour ago I was reading my Wall St. Journal as usual. WSJ is running an article about Dr. Moore in today’s [Tuesday – Dec 20] paper — Page A3 in the Central USA edition.
I have to ponder this before making any comments. I don’t know if it is appropriate or not for Dr. Moore to weigh in on the choice of a presidential candidate — at least not in his role as the leader of the ERLC.
I remember years ago — well decades ago — when I was the song leader at an SBC church. In my youthful exuberance, I announced that I was supporting JFK. That was an anathema in those days because anyone who was a Catholic was NOT well received as presidential material by most in the SBC in that era. My pastor at that time publicly endorsed Nixon — the only president in my lifetime who later had to resign from office due to a scandal.
I’ve learned the hard way that people have to keep a low profile when endorsing political candidates from a position of leadership in the SBC — pastor, leader of a SBC entity, etc. I made a mistake by not keeping my own counsel in the past. I think people have to tread lightly so they don’t have to “dial back” their comments later.
P.S. I ended up voting for Clinton. Readers will judge for themselves the wisdom of such a choice.
In four (or eight?) years — when we have more data points — we might be able to more clearly see the 2016 Clinton vs. Trump situation. We will be using the valuable tool of 20/20 hindsight. Voting for Trump might end up look like a prophetic move. Or alternatively, it might be shown to be a mistake. Only time will tell.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City.
Debbie: if someone says that are against 2 candidates and then spends a much larger amount of time and passion in expressing their opposition to one, it is a fair point to observe that one could wish for a little more balance in their perspective. I was simply acknowledging that C.B. could fairly make this point. But I wanted to clarify that I thought Dr. Moore was clear on this. It isn’t a lack of honesty to say that it seems some Christian leaders didn’t seem as strongly opposed to one candidate over another based on what they said or wrote. I might be mistaken or missed some relevant fact, but it wasn’t a desire to intentionally deceive or to be unfair. Call me wrong or stupid and I’ll accept your perspective. But how was I dishonest in expressing these opinions? I want to be clear: I agree with Dr. Moore. I think some people (not everyone) who were against Trump and Clinton said or wrote more about their opposition to Trump than their opposition to Clinton.
Roger:
That is a wise comment.
Of course since Clinton will not be serving in an alternative universe at the same time as Trump, it will be impossible to know how one would have done vs. the other.
If this administration goes as others, there will be plenty for supporters and detractors to claim or take credit for – for a long time.
That Russell Moore is a Democrat, supports Hillary, and/or didn’t criticize Hillary during the campaign is a lie—a deliberate lie told by people who know that it is a lie and told for the express purpose of harming someone else. It is a clear bearing of false witness against someone else.
In other words, it’s just the sort of thing Donald Trump would do.
One clarification: There are those who told the lie and then those who repeated it. Those who repeated it may not have bothered to research the matter at all and may not have done so deliberately. They may merely be gossips rather than bearers of false witness.
In other words, if they’ve disseminated information just by repeating what was handed to them without any attempt at finding the truth, they’ve done just the sort of thing that the mainstream media would do.
I think Moore should have kept quiet. I think he is doing what all politicians do after suffering a loss. He is trying to say he really is for the Trump supporters (he was just against their views). This is just pure political commentary to say now he really didn’t mean to offend people. Of course he did! He meant to be very provocative and to pointedly say those who were supporting Trump were “questionable”.
At the end of the day, Moore had every right to vehemently be a Never Trump guy. If he really wants to mend fences and if he really wants a conversation with Southern Baptists that supported Trump he should ask them what he needed to hear from them during the campaign that he completely shut his ears to. He should ask them how they think he could have an impact in Washington since he has ostracized himself to the new President-elect. He should be looking to find a way to see benefits that can come from this administration for evangelicals, and then perhaps, he might gain a conversation from President Trump in the future.
Nate, you are so correct in your observation. Dr. Moore put himself in a very bad position doing something that he should have stayed out. Questioning the Christian values of the vast majority of the SBC lay members who voted for Trump shows the contempt and disregard he has for the SBC members who support his platform. This was a personal political decision that should have stayed out of the SBC arena. When the liberal media trout you out to expound against Trump you should know you are being used. You are correct Moore is going into political mode to smooth rough waters he churned. I firmly believe Dr. Moore did a disservice to the SBC. Either announce you are into the political arena 100 percent or stay out. Dr. Moore is in survival mode.
Sorry, I didn’t realize others had posted Dwight’s name – It was only after I responded to your comment that I noticed another had already posted it.
Thabiti & I grew up on a different side of the track than most persons who comment on this blog. Therefore we look at the world, Donald Trump & Russel Moore through a different set of lenses though the Scripture is the base & the boundary by which we ultimately frame & form our beliefs on.
It appears that one has to now kiss the Republican ring in order to serve as an SBC entity head. And that is idolatry and bowing to the kingdoms of this world.
Since DT got less than 10% of the Hispanic, African American & Asian American votes(not sure ’bout % of Asian American voting for Trump but know the majority voted for Hillary), we know for sure that a large percentage of Hispanic, African American & Asian American pastors in the SBC voted for Hillary. They would never publicly admit so, because that’s suicide within an SBC context. Thabiti & I are simply naive or careless enough to admit it, but I know I will never be accepted in the SBC, because they simply don’t have the capacity to understand or attempt to understand why the vast majority of minority SBC pastors & laypeople voted Hillary, even though 99% would oppose abortion & gay marriage.
if the SBC really seriously attempted to understand this & respect the differences without judging & penalizing, we’d be on our way to true racial healing & reconciliation. But, observing how RM is being treated, I know for sure, they wouldn’t accept or allow most minorities to lead in the SBC unless they remain silent regarding their voting habits & why. And that is tragic & explains why we remain polarized, yet under one tent.
What we really need is a Kingdom Party that doesn’t carry the baggage of the RP or DP, & then there may be a basis for genuine unity.
I think the ties with the GOP are being broken.
Do you think so? NeverTrumpers were bombarded for months with posts that suggested voting outside the two party system was tantamount to treason and/or heresy. They think Republicans own our vote.
Dwight, You should check out the American Solidarity Party. I think you might be pleasantly surprised.
http://www.solidarity-party.org/
David Rogers,
That is awesome. Have you supported any of their candidates at any time?
John Wylie, The ASP is a very new option in American politics. The only candidates so far have been Mike Maturen for Pres. and Juan Muñoz for VP in this last election. Though I did somewhat “support” them and did my best—within reason—to get the word out about their candidacy, I did not actually vote for them as they were unable to gain ballot access—even as bona fide write-ins—in Tennessee. I have participated some in the ASP FB group bulletin board. They are currently working to get candidates on ballots for other elections and to have more of a significant role in years to come.
Though, of all the present political options, I presently consider the ASP the best one out there, of the various options of how I can best spend my time and efforts, I am not yet convinced that political activism is the best answer. My future with the ASP hinges on how I sense God leading me in the days ahead.
If people want to start supporting a different party, one way to know whether or not said party really wants to grow is to see if they start at the Presidency. The notion that people will simply follow another party at the Presidential level has no reality in history. Even those who attempted to claim the Republicans began this way with the election of Abraham Lincoln refuse to realize the Republican party began almost a decade prior to Lincoln being elected and that they were a split from the Whigs. However, they didn’t merely run for the Presidency. They became a power by running at lower levels and by the time of Lincoln’s election they controlled the House of Representatives.
This notion, that a new party should start at the Presidency, is ridiculous and will never transpire. The Libertarians and the Greens have tried this for decades. They refuse to start gaining seats at the local and state level, but they somehow continue to believe they should have a voice at the National Level. This was the problem with Evan McMullin. He was never going to be a factor, no matter how much the people that liked him chatted him up. My goodness, he didn’t even beat Hillary in Utah where he “supposedly” was leading Trump.
I don’t know anything about the American Solidarity Party, but if their strategy is that of the Libertarians, the Greens, or McMullin they will never amount to anything.
I’m all for a new party. I thought the Tea Party Republicans might split from the Republicans and become something, but until and unless another Party is willing to do the hard work of local and state politics, they will fail.
Nate, Perhaps you are correct on this. I am not that informed on, nor do I give a great bit of attention to, political strategy. With the ASP I finally found a group I could vote for without having to hold my nose too tight. I think they are working to little by little gain a foothold and more relevance. It is definitely an uphill climb. I do think there are a lot of people—people like Dwight, for instance—who are presently unaware of the ASP, but who, like me, may find it a better option than the other parties out there. But my loyalty is not ultimately to any party—ASP included.
I agree David. It just seems that every 4 or 8 years there is talk about folks not becoming beholding to one particular party or another, but like many other things in our lives, once the urgency of the situation is over, we go back to business as usual. If the ASP really wants a presence it would seem they have 2 years to get a foothold in local, city, and state politics before the mid-term elections of 2018. Perhaps they will be a different model than the ones I have already mentioned.
David Rogers,
Name recognition is one of the big problems. Also, in my opinion, where third parties really miss the boat is that they immediately go for the gold ring, by fielding a presidential candidate. What they should be focusing on to start with are state legislature seats and possibly US House of Representative seats. Over time they will receive name recognition, and legitimacy.
John Wylie, I don’t think the Committee of the ASP would ultimately disagree with you. If I understand correctly, the thinking was to prime the punp, so to speak, with the interest in third parties in this last presidential campaign, and then transition to more of a grassroots, localized approach. No grand illusiions for the immediate future, but this approach did at least attract the attention of people like me. Admittedly, though, my approach to politics is not all that typical, even among conservative Christians.
For what it is worth….I considered the ASP but decided I was more in line with the principles of the constitution party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
The ASP will not be for everyone here. Its third-way economic model is neither socialist nor laissez-faire capitalist, and may be a hard pill to swallow for those used to binary solutions. But I think it is common ground that many, especially, for instance, in the Bible-believing African-American world, may find compelling.
Just to name two reasons I Can’t do the ASP – they advocate for “single payer” govt. healthcare – also they are against entitlement any kind of meaningful entitlement reform.
I agree that Moore might have made mistakes in his opposition to Trump, but it was refreshing to see at least one high profile Christian who wasn’t falling all over himself and lining up Fox News appearances to be endearing to a nominee who represented practically everything we say we are against. It was bad all through the campaign, but when we heard Christians parroting the term “locker room talk” to soften Trump’s confession of assault, it went way over the edge.
Yesterday I wondered aloud some reasons why I felt it might be possible that Moore might have supported Clinton. Today, Mike Bergman gave two thoughtful quotes that I wasn’t aware of proving Dr Moore didn’t support Hillary. This was acceptable and perfectly reasonable in a discussion forum and I’m glad to learn my concerns were not merited in this area. I still think he should have shown more balance in his criticisms but I’m glad to learn he didn’t support Hillary.
I started off as anti-Trump, but ultimately decided that he wasn’t necessarily a bad fit for US President. So far I am right. He hasn’t even assumed office and the economic situation of our country has improved. I don’t know what kind of President he will be, but he’ll be a sight better than the current one.
That being said, I never once defended Trump as an evangelical or born again Christian. While I’m sure Dr. Moore had his reasons for voting for another candidate, his many blogs and articles were critical not of voting Trump, but painting him as something he was not, and still has yet to prove himself to be, an evangelical Christian.
People like Jerry Falwell Jr, Jack Graham and other SBC names did themselves a great disservice by painting Mr. Trump as the hope of America. That title belongs to Jesus and Jesus alone!
Dr. Moore has and continues to be a voice that calls us to be the best we can be for the Kngdom of Christ. We may have voted for different people, but I stand with Dr. Moore and a united SBC!
Interesting article…. Dr. Moore is a good man and a good representative for the SBC; and is still learning about politics. His take on this particular election simply moved him into a bad position, as he hoped for a different conclusion,….since his editorials were never going to please all of his SBC constituents, but only yield a sense of confusion. Trump is the master of the rodomontade, Dr. Moore is not (that is a good thing).
I was sparring with another guy back in mid-June on a blog about this subject and stated…. “Trump is obviously still negotiating with the GOP establishment. It will be interesting once that has been completed and we discover what Trump is really going to run on. He’s been around these circles for a long, long time….so, we will see if this is a true rodomontade or the voice of a crazy man! One thing is clear….he will need to make some sense soon, or the Clinton/Obama Socialist movement will continue to tread grapes in America and devolve society and the naive further into submission.
I’m going to weigh this in about the mid-August timeframe. He, Trump, is running a great risk for the GOP. I’m curious to see if he bankrupts the GOP establishment at the risk of the American ideal of Capitalistic fundamentals. I think I should have my answer by mid August.”
As I’ve stated before in this arena, Trump is not too much different than Marco (the guy I was supporting). And, as it seems, the cabinet is running more into a Rubio line than I even predicted. You watch…even on “the wall”, there will be a wall (a smallish one, but big to Trump), with a form of immigration “self-identification” that will occur (some call it amnesty).
Dr. Moore probably learned more this cycle than he dealt back out to his followers; and that is a good thing for the SBC, because he will not make the same mistakes again. He is a smart man!
Well, I have to admit that I am not a fan of Dr. Moore. But, after reading the incredibly weak arguments against him on another blog today, I have to say that I am looking at him more favorably. What’s funny is that an article that was trying to build a case about why Moore should step down actually convinced me that he should stay.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/speak-english-you-re-america-woman-tells-latina-shoppers-rant-n698776
Terrible that someone would be so hateful.
Remember back in November when the black church in Mississippi was torched and the perp spray painted “Vote Trump” on the building? The may said at that time,
“Calling the burning of Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church in Greenville a “hateful and cowardly act,” Mayor Errick Simmons said this was “an attack on the black community.”
“It appears to be a race crime,” Simmons said. “It happened in the ’50s. It happened in the ’60s. It shouldn’t happen in 2016.””
Also hateful. Uncalled for.
But wait. Turns out it wasn’t quite who they thought it was. http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/21/black-man-burned-african-american-church-painted-vote-trump-on-the-walls/
“The case appears to be yet another hoax targeting Trump supporters. Several Muslim women who have claimed since the election that they were targeted by Trump fans because they wore hijabs have been charged with making false reports.”
In hope those making false police reports are appropriately punished according to law.
This election has certainly shown that the left can be just as despicable as those they denigrate. Obama laid the foundation of a race war, Trump may be the one who lights the fuse. Sorry for mixing metaphors.
Sorry Bill Mac, that won’t work. The foundation was indeed laid and subversily lit by the biggest racist this country has ever seen, Barack Obama. Oh to be sure, limbs will blame Trump. But he didn’t cause all this. BHO and his lap dog media boys did. And of course the professional race gaiters.
I think I kinda said that. Race relations suffered greatly under Obama. But Trump, whether he intended it or not, has emboldened the racists among us. Maybe Trump doesn’t want to be their messiah, but that’s what they think he is. I don’t know how many there are, but they’re coming out of the woodwork.
We often bemoan the culture of victimhood, but we always assign it to the left. Black people are the victims of whites, the poor are the victims of the rich, gays are the victims of the homophobes. But the culture of victimhood is just as prevalent on the right. We are the victims of illegal immigrants, the victims of China, the victims of the elite, the scientists, the government, etc.
I don’t think Obama hurt race relations. I think it was more of a conversation because he was the first black President, but I do not think he hurt race relations. He did give the black community a goal to reach, that they too could become President, even a black female. But squawking is going to occur when one hits close to the mark.
Obama treated people respectfully. Listen to his speeches. Listen to Michelle’s speeches. I think it’s false to say he hurt race relations. Black people felt more empowered as they should have.
The Obama’s opened the White House to people who would otherwise not be invited to the White House. That too was important. They opened it up to the average person to meet the President. I do not agree with Obama on so many things, but in relation to the people in this country, they were very open no matter the color or religion.
Debbie Kaufman,
He even invited me to the White House and I certainly do not agree with him on many things, actually hardly anything. However, I did go and did the meet and greet.
I think even you would have been proud of me. I said not one negative to the POTUS. He was very cordial as well.
I am proud of you CB and impressed. That you got to see the White House, the greatest of history in that House is fantastic!
Regarding party affiliation, Trump’s election was really very close to the election of a third party candidate.
The Republican Party apparatus hated Trump. He had to fight as hard as anyone ever has to get that nomination.
Many Republican stalwarts came out against Trump and maintained that stance all the way through the election. George Will famously said that the most important thing to do in the November election was to defeat Trump. That was more important to them than defeating Clinton, which illustrates one of the problems voters have had with the Republican Party.
Trump’s election was as close to the election of a third party candidate as we are going to see in our lifetime.
In fact, if one of the many schemes to deny Trump the nomination had succeeded (e.g. convincing the delegates to vote for Kasich or some other more moderate person who was supposed to be more electable), millions of voters who showed up for Trump stayed home.
This election shows that evangelicals are not marching in lock step with Republicans.
“This election shows that evangelicals are not marching in lock step with Republicans.”
That’s some impressive spin right there…
Do you think if DT had run as a reform party candidate (again) or as a Democrat or Independent he would have won?
Do you really think Jerry falwell, jr. and Jeffress and Graham (Jack and Franklin) and Dobson and others would have jumped on board the Trump train if he had not run as a Republican?
If Trump had secured the Democratic nomination with the immigration plan, the promise to appoint originalists to the courts, the plan to repeal Obamacare, the plan to emphasize economic growth and reduce regulation, for preserving religious freedom, and for a more robust military, and the Republicans would have nominated someone who did not hold these positions, Southern Baptists would have still voted for Trump.
I see Southern Baptist voters as being very convictional on some issues as they relate to government. Southern Baptists are not blindly brand loyal.
Do you believe Southern Baptists are loyal to the Republican brand regardless, or do you believe they are issue oriented.
so you’re arguing that if John Kasich had won the Republican nomination and Donald Trump ran against him saying all of those things as an independent or a reform party candidate or something like that – that Southern Baptist when I voted for him over the Republican?
I don’t think I’m in agreement with that –
But even if you’re right….the argument that you’re making for Evangelical vote for Trump – actually demonstrates not issue oriented voters but those who follow personality – because most – if not all- of those positions you articulated Are new positions for him – and I truly do not think he would’ve ran on those positions had he not run as a Republican…it wouldn’t have worked – because we all know One of the largest and most consistently voting “voting blocks” are evangelicals and they always vote Republican.
He quickly “became in a “Republican” and a “conservative” Just time for the Republican primaries.
And to answer your question I used to think that Southern Baptist were convictionaly issue oriented – but many of the interactions I had during the 2016 election have seriously made me question that.
*Southern Baptist would have voted for him over the Republican?
Louis,
I cannot agree. As I said earlier, NeverTrumpers were basically told that the Republicans owned our vote, that voting third party was a sin. We were told to vote for the party and platform, not the man. If anything, this election was the ultimate proof that Evangelicals will vote in lockstep with the party no matter who the nominee is. All they have to say is that they are pro-life, even despite a lifetime of proof to the contrary.
Bill Mac:
That shows that SBCvoters are issue oriented.
If Democrats advanced issues about which Southern Baptists care, they would be more willing to vote for Democrats.
I believe the recent concerns about the Republican Party among Southern Baptists is due to the suspicion that the party has not been advancing the interests Southern Baptists care about, but only giving lip service to them.
By any objective measure, RM “supported” HRC. The election was always a choice between DT and HRC. That’s just reality that most SB’s understood. Not voting for DT would benefit HRC. You can’t argue otherwise. So regardless of what some of you may want to believe was RM’s personal, subjective position, he supported HRC, because everything he tried to do, if successful, would have resulted in her being elected. By putting all his energy and position and influence into trying to get SB’s to note vote for DT he supported HRC. To close one’s eyes to that and convince oneself that his personal, internal position was not support for HRC, because he made a stray comment here and there about not supporting her, is simply delusional.
I wonder if anyone will attempt to make a case against Dr. Moore based on the ERLC’s Ministry Statement. We will always have disagreements over some issues and even how to address various issues. Maybe I’ve missed it, but I’ve yet to see a logical case laid out against Moore based on ERLC’s purpose and how he is going against it. Someone should show their work making the case that Moore is in violation of SBC positions, etc.
I understand the concern that Moore did not provide the same level of opposition to Hillary Clinton as he did toward Donald Trump. Though Clinton did not get a pass, Moore’s opposition was not as loud, if you will. Of course, this makes sense since Clinton was not a serious option for most SBCers. However, the SBC is the largest, leading, most vocal Evangelical group so it would make sense to equally speak out against Clinton with as much emphasis as with Trump.
Tarheel:
You may be the first person I have ever met who would say that Southern Baptists do not vote based on the issues.
I agree that there were and are questions about Trump’s political past and whether he will do what he said. Those matters, however, go to Trump’s ability to persuade.
Trump ran a very issues oriented campaign.
Trump’s position on issues won over Evangelicals – so much so that they were willing to vote for him despite his past.
Oh, Tarheel, I almost forgot to mention the SBC’s not so recent past.
In 1976, most people in the SBC voted for the Democrats, and specifically for Jimmy Carter over Ford.
In 1980, in large numbers, Southern Baptists voted for Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter.
Carter was a lifelong Southern Baptist.
Reagan professed to be religious but did not attend church that much and had been divorced and remarried.
It was argued that because of his divorce and associations with Hollywood, Reagan had moral problems.
But Southern Baptists chose Reagan over Carter by large margins due to the issues.
I think that most people would agree that Southern Baptists chose Reagan over Carter because of the issues.
And similar to our current situation, the leaders of the SBC agencies, the Christian Life Commission and the Baptist Joint Committee on Piblic Affairs, which were the predecessors to the ERLC, both were strongly in favor of Carter. But I will note that neither of them came anywhere close to being as partisan and provocative as Dr. Moore in this last season.
I voted for Reagan and remember that campaign well.
I have always believed that Southern Baptists voted on issues.
I reject the argument that Donald Trump is “the new Ronald Reagan”
They were for Carter because he was a Southern Baptist… I would call that the definition of “identity politics”.
Also with Ronald Reagan people looked passed a single divorce after which he married a woman and had been married for many years at the time of the election and remain married and deeply in love with her for the rest of his life…Do you really want to put the “immorality” of Reagan up against the “immorality” of Donald Trump?
I ask you again do you really think that Jeffress, Falwell and the like would have jumped on the Trump train and defended his immoralities and attempted to browbeat those of us who could not vote for him if he were running as a Democrat? If you think that – I mean really think that – I have oceanfront property in Montana I would like you to take a look at…
Tarheel:
As you should know, I have not said or claimed that Trump is the new Ronald Reagan.
Your point is weakened by claiming I said that.
There are many things that distinguish Trump and Reagan.
There are similarities, however. I pointed to those to support my belief that Southern Baptists vote on the issues.
You claim that Southern Baptists do not vote on issues.
It is fine if you want to continue to claim that, but it puts you in an exclusive club of 1.
To answer your question, I will state again that because I believe most Southern Baptists vote on issues, I believe they (Falwell and Jeffres included) vote conservatively, and that they would cross party lines to vote for a candidate that had conservative positions over someone who did not.
It’s only in an alternate universe that Trump would run in the Dem primary with the positions he holds. But for the sake of discussion, assuming he did and he won the nomination, and he ended up running against a Republican who was not conservative, it would not be a stretch at all to see Southern Baptists vote for him.
You know I just realized something.
As a #neverTrump, you are opposed to Trump regardless of party or the positions he or his opponents take.
Do you think that affects your analysis in how you think others vote, and your belief that Southern Baptists do not vote issues but are wedded permanently to party affiliation?
Would be interested in your thoughts.
You wouldn’t vote Jimmy Carter and Ronald Ragan – specifically mentioning Reagan’s divorce – that is a very common argument made by Trumpsters.
I would also argue that perhaps the people who voted for Carter over ford did so in part because he was Southern Baptist Temple they were playing identity politics and in part because ford pardoned Nixon which resoundly hacked off the majority of the country… and ford was viewed as connected with Nixon. In some ways it might be similar to what happened here in this election – Southern Baptist/event Jellicle/Christians were sick of the immorality of the Clintons and would have voted for anyone who wasn’t her –. Not unlike the country was ready to get rid of Nixon and Ford was viewed as part of that.
I am opposed to trump because we really don’t know what his positions are because he is such a liar and he flip-flops and waffles back-and-forth on everything that it’s hard to know –
Take abortion for example he took no less than five different positions on abortion in a 24 hour period during the campaign… But that was almost universally ignored by those on the trump train and ecspecially by those that we’ve been talking about who defended his every word and his every action and even went as far as to excuse his “locker room talk”
therefore it makes it hard to state unequivocally that Southern Baptist or anyone else voted for him because of issues – because we don’t know what they are truly.
It would be a much easier pill for me to swallow for a bible believing Christian – to say – I voted for Donald Trump because however bad he might be he is not as bad as Hillary Clinton – I’m not sure I completely agree with that because I view them as equal evils – though perhaps for different reasons…
But to hear/read a Bible believing Christian say “I voted for him because of what he argues for and believes.” When so much of it is clearly against what we claim to believe is a much harder pill.
Lol.
*I would also argue that perhaps the people who voted for Carter over ford did so in part because he was Southern Baptist {and} they were playing identity politics and in part because Ford pardoned Nixon which resoundly hacked off the majority of the country… and ford was viewed as connected with Nixon. In some ways it might be similar to what happened here in this election – Southern Baptist/event {evangelicals}/Christians were sick….
And I firmly believe that Donald Trump could have canpsigned himself as Democrat, with all the accompanying leftist progressive agenda, just as easily as he presented himself as a Republican had he decided that he could have won that nomination…he’s a showman, remember?
Trump, once he decided he wanted to be president, made a Strategic calculated decision when Obama won reelection in 2012 and decided that he would “become a Republican” and argue against not only the positions but the person of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for a winning strategy…
He did this because he felt this was the best way to advance his narcissistic endeavor.
David French has an excellent article out today about how Donald Trump looks out for Donald Trump and therefore will only “keep the promises” that he made if he truly believes them and feels that they will advance himself.
Just look at how he Is draining the swamp by appointing his extremely wealthy fellow swamp dwellers to positions at state, commerce and treasury – all positions that certainly could be advantageous to his brand and business.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/passenger-kicked-off-jetblue-flight-for-questioning-why-ivanka-trump-was-on-it-173906713.html
Two things about this:
1. Anti Trumpers can be some really rude and mean people.
2. Ivanka was in coach on a JetBlue flight.
Right. The Trumps are some really awful people. Smh.
I fly Jet Blue a couple of times every year. I don’t think they have anything but coach. You can buy a little legroom, but I think that’s it. I could be wrong.
Bill Mac, I thought about the coach part after I hit send on the comment. You may be right. I’ve never flown that airline. But still, I’m quite amazed that she and her fam were on JetBlue and not a private jet. And, I would have thought she would have Secret Service protection or at least private security. Anyway, I’m impressed she got in the cattle call flight line like everyone else.
Tarheel, you guys really need to get over it. People, including lots of SBCers, voted for issues that Trump campaigned on in addition to voting to stop the Hillary (Obama legacy) trainwreck. It really isn’t all that complicated.
Tarheel:
I think I catch your drift.
Because of Trump’s Johnny Come Lately Republican conversion and his varying statements, you believe Trump has no positions.
But your argument is that because you have determined that Trump has no positions, all of Trump’s Southern Baptist supported must have concluded similarly. Thus, those supporters could not have cast their votes for Trump based on the issues.
Unfortunately, in trying to determine what causes others to vote in a certain way, it’s not fair to start by projecting your own analysis and determinations into the heads of those voters.
What counts is the feelings of those voters. Not what you and I think their feelings must be.
That’s why when you listen to Southern Baptist supporters of Trump they give substantive reasons for why they voted for him. Usually it’s along the lines of them liking his positions much more than Clinton’s.
And the campaign pros echo this. There are all kinds of analyses as to why Southern Baptists and other evangelicals voted for Trump. They, too, cite approval of things he says he will or won’t do. I know you don’t believe that, but the seminal observation is that those voters do.
Maybe you have a future as a campaign consultant.
You can advertise to candidates the simple observation that Southern Baptists don’t vote on the issues. So don’t bother appealing to them. They always vote Republican!
They tend to either vote republican or stay home if they’re not pleased with the Republican… Ask Mitt Romney and John McCain.
The aversion to Hillary runs so white-hot Among Southern Baptist – surely you don’t deny that.
In fact, others have brought up Jerry falwell Sr. in these discussions – I remember something that I heard him say one time:
“there’s no better way to unite the evangelicals then to have Hillary Clinton get the Democrat nomination – most of us would consider voting for Lucifer over her.”
“They tend to either vote republican or stay home if they’re not pleased with the Republican… Ask Mitt Romney and John McCain.”
Yeah, most didn’t see a whole lot of difference in Romney/McCain and whatever Dem was running. There is a difference, but we all know their campaign messaging was serious yawn worthy. Like him or not, Trump tapped into what those guys and most everyone else was missing. And we all see what happened.
Agreed. But is what he tapped into something we should be proud of? Certainly not all.
Bill:
“is what he tapped into something we should be proud of?”
This is the crux of the whole issue and it falls square on a tension in the nature of God. Namely, it’s the difference between common grace and saving grace. The tension is in the means by which the grace comes. In both cases God often uses sinful people to give grace to sinful people. So the question is whether our loyalty lies with God in participating in saving grace by proclaiming the Gospel by all means necessary or by participating in common grace by treating people well and trying to make this world a better place even for people who refuse Christ. It’s a tension because we tend to lose balance between the two and because both require sinners, namely us, to accomplish.
Trump is a sinner but so are we. Are we just not as bad sinners than Trump? Perhaps. There are practical degrees to sin – some sins are worse than others. Some really-bad sinners are better at acting like saints in public than some not-very-bad sinners. That’s not a case for Trump, but a general observation. I have no idea where Trump falls on either spectrum. He could be a terrible sinner and is only able to act like a nice guy to the extent that he does. He might actually be a generally decent fellow and simply doesn’t hide his baser indiscretions. I don’t know.
The point is that we may be looking to judge his ability to be an instrument for common grace in this world and we are rubbing up against our own inability to do so in our desires for this world over the next. Should the president be righteous? Sure. I don’t know that we’ve had a righteous president since Washington for all that. Is God going to use a sinful man to bless the world? Sure. He does it all the time. He uses us. For that matter, he used us to elect Trump – for better or for worse.
Jim: I’m not sure you got my point. My comment wasn’t about Trump’s sinfulness relative my own or anyone else’s. As you point out, we are all sinners. When people say Trump tapped into something, supporters think it is dissatisfaction with the political establishment, concern about illegal immigration, concerns about loss of jobs overseas, etc. Trump opponents suggest he tapped into latent racism, white nationalism, xenophobia, misogyny, etc, and brought them into the mainstream.
I think it is irrefutable that both are correct. Neither side wants to concede that there were both good and bad reasons for supporting Trump.
Bill Mac,
“Trump opponents suggest he tapped into latent racism, white nationalism, xenophobia, misogyny, etc, and brought them into the mainstream.”
No doubt there is a tiny minority of people who exhibit these things. Now proving that Trump sought such is impossible, from what we at a distance can know. There is zero indication that he is in fact any of these or that he sought to foment such. These Trump opponents suggesting this are just themselves nuts and sore losers.
And, these things are not nor will they ever be in the “mainstream.” That’s just ridiculous to even consider.
Les: Come on. Tiny minority, perhaps. Minority, certainly. But this: There is zero indication that he is in fact any of these or that he sought to foment such.
There is every indication that he sought to foment this. I’m more than willing to concede that Trump may not be a racist or xenophobe. But I’m willing to acknowledge that Trump is more than smart enough to exploit these people to be elected. I think it’s clear that he did so.
I’ll concede mainstream is an exaggeration, but I think it’s clear that Trump’s victory has brought them forward.
Bill, thanks. I understood you but took the opportunity to speak more broadly on it.
“Neither side wants to concede that there were both good and bad reasons for supporting Trump.”
Exactly. I’m with you 100% on that. I’ll add that there are both good and bad reasons for opposing Trump. I’ll also add that most of us each have both good and bad reasons for whatever decision we made regarding him because none of us have just one reason. My position in all this is that we should temper our criticism of each other as well as our vilification and/or commendation of Trump.
Oh, and Tarheel, I consider you a fair representative of #neverTrump.
I would really like to hear your thoughts in response to these questions.
1. Will you always remain #neverTrump, such that even if Trump does a good job in 4 years, you will still oppose him? And stated another way, what would Trump need to do to get your support?
2. Do you think Trump’s cabinet selections have been any different than Clinton’s would have been? Are there any that you like? If there are, who and why?
3. Do you anticipate that Trump’s Supreme Court pick will be any different than the type of person Clinton would pick? If not, does that mean that you believe Trump’s pick will be as liberal as Clinton’s? Do you have a standard you will be using to determine that, and if so, what standard?
Louis,
Not speaking for Tarheel, but I think Trump will break any promise he has made if he thinks it is to his advantage. I don’t think he has any internal moral compunction to keep his promises. We have already seen it with the abandoned Clinton prosecution and the promise to sue the women he is accused of sexually assaulting. I don’t think there is any advantage for him to break his promise about the Supreme Court, so I think he will follow through on that one.
Bill Mac:
Well, that’s a really good thing, right?
Do you like Pence?
Do you like any of his cabinet picks?
I like Pence OK. I’m hearing good things about the 2 generals other than Flynn. Flynn seems to be a conspiracy theory guy so I’m not charged up about him. Railing against Goldman Sachs and then picking 3 (is it 3?) Goldman Sachs guys seem hypocritical in the extreme. I think Carson and Perry are duds. It’s a mixed bag, same as I would expect from any president. Because I’m a neverTrumper do I think Trump is incapable of doing good things as president? No, of course not. I am extremely worried about his love affair with Vladimir Putin. I think it’s insidious and baffling.
Louis,
I’m not sure that other #NeverTrumpers would consider me there spokesman… In fact I know some of them wouldn’t! Lol
But I’ll stab at what you’ve queried…
1. Will you always remain #neverTrump, such that even if Trump does a good job in 4 years, you will still oppose him? And stated another way, what would Trump need to do to get your support?
I’m hoping that I’m wrong in my thinking that we all are getting bigly played by the showman the “train” is following.
2020? Goodness, who knows? Honestly though he has a yuge abyss to bridge to get my vote in 2020. I’ll have to see some serious improvements on his demeanor and demonstratively conservative goverence.
( maybe he’ll get saved…)
2. Do you think Trump’s cabinet selections have been any different than Clinton’s would have been? Are there any that you like? If there are, who and why?
I like Pence, a lot. I like the HHS pick (congressman Price) I’m favorable to the education secretary (she’s bid on competition in education and lowering of federal government involvement in it). I like the pic of Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. And the leader of the EPA – which I don’t think is a cabinet position – is also a good pick.
Some of the others concern me – for example his treasury, commerce, and state secretaries are all lobbyist and wealthy swamp dwellers so to speak… like him they have all been involved in buying and paying for the government that we have – but now are railing against it… Seems a little disingenuous to me – given his promises to drain the swamp… specifically the arguments that I’ve heard from the Trump campaign for his selection of Secretary of State seem to me to be arguments of globalism – another thing that he argued against… And now seems to be cozying up to.
I’m also not sure how I feel about the multiplicity of generals who surrounding himself with… I just don’t know How I feel about that yet…
I also like that he has not given spots to Christie, Gingrich, or Giuliani.
3. Do you anticipate that Trump’s Supreme Court pick will be any different than the type of person Clinton would pick? If not, does that mean that you believe Trump’s pick will be as liberal as Clinton’s? Do you have a standard you will be using to determine that, and if so, what standard?
I think that he will keep his promise at least for the first Supreme Court Justice pic…It will likely be someone off of the second list that he came up with after he started equivocating on the first list today put it out…
Now for future pics… We shall see.
I also can envision a scenario where he nominates from the list and there are problems getting the Senate to affirm and he doesn’t fight strongly for him/her because there are other things that he cares more about that he wants from the Senate.
Remember he brags about being the great deal maker…
and it’s clear he sees any deals benefiting Donald Trump or else he will not fight for them.
Tarheel:
Those are solid insights, I think.
I share many of them.
Given how Presidencies go, I am sure that we will see somethings to be pleased about and some things to be disappointed in.
His first Court pick would only return things to where they were. National Review had a great article about a female member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Wisconsin is an unbelievable story. Since Walker’s election and the numerous attacks against him, he has fought back successfully. He has changed the financial trajectory through good management, he has revised the law through good Supreme Court picks (I am not sure how the picking goes in WI), and he has drained the strength of his opponents.
I am hoping for some systemic changes in D.C., but D.C. is so big, that is not likely to happen. I would not mind the abolition of the Department of Energy, Department of Education, and possibly EPA. I don’t think that Congress will allow any of that.
I am really optimistic about the court. Trump’s sister is a judge, so he will have family knowledge as well as a good guy like Sessions at Justice.
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts.
Hope you have a great Christmas.