This afternoon the ERLC posted an article called Seeking Unity in the Southern Baptist Convention which includes separate statements from the ERLC Executive Committee and Russell Moore.
I recommend reading the entire article here, even as I’ve tried to pull some of the more notable sections.
Notable quotes from the ERLC Executive Committee:
… It is in this difficult context that Dr. Russell Moore has exercised leadership with integrity and with boldness. We affirm Dr. Moore in his leadership of the ERLC…
… Over the last few months, Dr. Moore has engaged in numerous private conversations with many of those who had criticisms of him. As an Executive Committee, who historically have worked most closely in advising and evaluating the performance of the president, we have encouraged these conversations and received updates. We have also encouraged private efforts rather than public comments. These conversations will remain private, but we are convinced that Dr. Moore has sought to be attentive and responsive to those who have brought concerns to him. At the same time, as he has pursued these conversations and listened to others, Dr. Moore has expressed a desire to make a public comment beyond these private conversations, which we have shared with our entire Board and happily affirm…
… As committed Southern Baptists with a great appreciation for our Convention, we take our fiduciary responsibility as trustees of the ERLC as a sober and serious stewardship. As an Executive Committee, we believe that Dr. Moore has taken appropriate measures to address this situation. We realize that divisions do not heal overnight, and as needs arise our Board will be happy to address them. But in terms of leadership and support, Dr. Moore is the man to whom it has been entrusted to lead this entity—speaking prophetically both to our culture and to our Convention. He will continue doing so with the confidence of our support…
From Russell Moore:
… I attempted in December to write a reflection on how I sought to go about the task of attempting to speak to issues of conviction for me during the tumult of an election year. Some who saw things differently than I did received those words, and we’ve gladly joined arms in unity. Others didn’t receive them, not because of any deficiency of grace on their part, but due to my own fault. So I want to share my heart in trying both to foster unity and to explain what I was trying—and sometimes failing—to do…
… What I was concerned about primarily last year were three things: gospel clarity (as it applies to telling the outside world and those inside the church what we consider it means to be saved and what it means to be an evangelical), the importance of affirming sexual morality and the effect that sexual immorality has on both personal character and on society, and racial divisiveness and injustice. Those are convictions at the core of my ministry for 25 years. Not everyone saw the same challenges to those convictions that I did, and for reasonable and defensible reasons…
… As the year progressed, I felt convicted—both by my personal conscience and by my assignment by Southern Baptists—to speak out on issues of what the gospel is and is not, what sexual morality and sexual assault are and are not, and the crucial need for white Christians to listen to the concerns of our black and brown brothers and sisters in Christ. I stand by those convictions, but I did not separate out categories of people well—such that I wounded some, including close friendsSome of that was due to contextless or unhelpful posts on social media about the whirl of the news cycle. I cannot go back and change time, and I cannot apologize for my underlying convictions. But I can—and do—apologize for failing to distinguish between people who shouldn’t have been in the same category with those who put politics over the gospel and for using words, particularly in social media, that were at times overly broad or unnecessarily harsh. That is a failure on my part.
I was aware that there were many—including many very close to me—who were quite vocal in critiquing on those areas even candidates they were able to support. These people made clear what they were supporting and what they were rejecting on the basis of the biblical witness, and did not celebrate or wave away the moral problems. I did not speak much about those people because I wasn’t being asked about them, and I didn’t think they were causing the confusion that frustrated me as I was talking even to people I was seeking to win to Christ. But I didn’t clearly enough separate them out. Again, that is a failure on my part, and I apologize…
…My goal is to redouble my commitment to stand for what I believe in—on seeking first the kingdom of God, on the need for personal character and sexual holiness, on racial justice and reconciliation. I also commit to work together for our denomination’s cooperative consensus…
Jack Graham: “This is a gracious and unifying statement from @drmoore.”
https://twitter.com/jackngraham/status/843937512901005313
I was glad to see that tweet as well. I hope that signals a deescalation in tensions on this issue.
I’m glad to see some of the “private” reported publicly. When things like this rift are happening, there are always more eyes and ears than will ever be involved in the “private” reconciliation. I know somethings must remain in small groups, but that tends toward leaving someone simmering who didn’t know that agitated parties reached reconciliation.
So, here’s to a few more steps toward unity in proclaiming Jesus.
As I’ve noted here before, Dr. Moore sometimes pushes my buttons, usually when they need to be pushed to think more clearly and Biblically about issues. As I’ve also noted he and I will continue to disagree on particular policies as a result of our inclinations. But I’ve also noted here that I treasure his voice as a voice of conscience.
Today he; the ERLC Board; and others, to include Pastor Jack Graham, have pushed a button, my happy button! Thank you Dr. Moore for your clear and sincere statement. Thank you ERLC Board for standing by a man of principle even if he is a man and therefore like all of us flawed and prone to err at times. My thanks to Dr. Jack Graham for his gracious tweet. Today they all made it clear that we are followers of Christ first, Baptists second, and people who may differ third and that the first two are who ought to define us as a denomination.
Exactly what needed to be said. Thank you Dr. Moore.
Rob
Thank you Dr. Moore.
And thank you Pastor Graham.
This is exactly what was needed…for now. The crisis should be diffused. Hopefully it will lead to future discussions about eliminating the ERLC.
Dr. Moore’s portion of this was much improved over his December statement. It deserves the compliments it is getting.
I would still like to see continued involvement by the ERLC’s Trustees and whoever is on its Executive Committee. I am reminded of those “drowning doesn’t look like you expect” videos a few years back. It is all too easy for Baptists to love good leaders to death, waiting for a call for more help.
A good way to answer the contention that the “ERLC is one guy who doesn’t speak for Southern Baptists” is to involve Trustees more often.
I am not surprised at the outcome of this situation that was brought on exclusively by the actions of Dr. Moore. Is not the burden of good Christian leadership to be mindful, constrained and considered in your actions and public pronouncements before you act not after. Would not a gracious resignation really solve the problem? Why be afraid to speak truth to power if there is no penalty. The burden of leadership was on Dr. Moore not to take the road he took in a very deliberate, challenging way. Dr. Moore is a man of words trained and skilled in their use so is actions were not random, spontaneous musings. Dr. Moore is articulate and experienced in politics so he should have known the ramifications of his actions. I find his actions/explanations political in nature and his apology more of sorry you did not understand my intent in tone. Again I am an inarticulate layman who never followed SBC leadership/ERLC issues until I became aware of Dr. Moore views in the secular press and on TV appearances. Personally I believe Dr. Moore as an entity head has lost his standing as the spokesman for the SBC membership. His harsh tone and comments have been covered extensively so no need to rehash. It is much more than his anti Trump partisan stand that concerns me. Dr. Moore seems to be more concerned with being a progressive social justice warrior than representing the SBC message of the gospel. I think this is gone beyond Dr. Moore himself and the need for the ERLC needs to be reexamined. I know the majority will hail this as a moment of unity and moving on to our main mission which is missions. However with the lack of transparency and accountability at the SBC leadership level I am losing confidence in the management of SBC. No church I have never attended would operate with the trustee system that the SBC uses with no accounting to the people who with blind trust give faithfully. The majority of SBC members are unaware and unconcerned about the actions of Dr. Moore but if they were they would be surprised at his actions and the work of the ERLC. So it seems the issue is over and the ruling powers that be will not press the issue in the name of unity. However there will be a day of reckoning and an upheaval will occur such as in the mainline denominations that have had a liberal/conservative split. I will state again , would Dr. Moore have apologized or reflected on his actions if H. Clinton had won and Trump was marginalized as expected. Without the pushback of many people and the financial escrows would this have happened out of a sincere conviction of being unnecessary harsh and combative. I would say no. So I know this is a moment of “unity” and the feathers have been unruffled but there are many issues of Dr. Moore’s leadership that will bring new and ongoing conflict that does little to further the mission work of the SBC. This may settle the issue to get it off the SBC leadership table but the pot will brew over some day with the membership when they become aware of SBC lack of transparency and accountability, perhaps attitude. Dr. Moore would be far more comfortable and in tune with a leadership position with the social activist Gospel Coalition than the SBC. There are disagreements in policy, politics, style , communication and organization not on matters of faith.
Thankfully the ERLC trustees don’t agree with you and Dr. Moore has their support.
On many things Eric I agree with you wholeheartedly. The issue of entity accountability to the churches of the SBC was at the forefront of this crisis. This issue needs to be resolved or there will be other skirmishes and fissures on this issue.
There are multiple factors at play within the culture and society that have emerged as the result of the Federal Presidential election. That those in control owe their situations to a sovereign God and to those who placed them by their votes and support to their positions. This is also apropos to those in places of service in the Southern Baptist community be it Pastors in the local church (Baptist headquarters) to entity heads and their staffs and elected Trustees. They have been given a great and grave trust of being in their places of Leadership. What has been given can be taken away – and nothing should be taken for granted. The mission dollars they have been given is not their money = it is the Lord’s. Ultimately He will hold them to account for its wise use and destination. That is why they need to be accountable like the small church pastor is accountable to his flock = all salaries and all expenditures are open for inspection by any church who requests the figures. The spreadsheets including salary ranges should be published in the Book of Reports each year when entities make their reports to the Convention.
I pray for Dr. Moore and the ERLC. I pray that he would consider the views of a diverse set of churches; people of all ages and ethnicity. I pray that he would not be afraid to tackle sin = at the same consider that the one finger pointed out has three fingers pointed in. Humility has hopefully been what has been observed and absorbed. If not – we will be right back where we started. That may mean the collapse of support for the ERLC – a prospect that I would not hope or desire for.
Rob
*says, “I’m not going to rehash”*
*immediately rehashes*
So this appears to be the formula:
1) Make sure Russell Moore takes sole blame for situation
2) insist he be removed (forcibly or voluntarily)
3) repeat baseless charges of lack of transparency/accountability in SBC entities (the more times per post the better)
4) complain about partisanship while applying reactionary partisan labels (SJW, social activist) to target of complaint
Do I have it about right?
You noticed a pattern too? I told Eric the other day he ought to just copy and paste if he was going to say basically the same thing in every comment he posts. 😉 why waste the time retyping a slightly reworded version of every other?
Rob and Eric,
Certainly I support your ability and freedom to express your views.
To me, it seems, that you two, think you represent much of the SBC.
Now here is the problem. No one person can represent the diverse views of the entire convention. So either we have no voice or we have a million little noticed voices, unless of course, one is a of a mega-church, and then they might be heard. The world listens to those with money or power.
Lets look at how other entities are run. Are each of them run according to your, Rob’s and Eric’s, liking? Can these entities be run in such a way that they too please every countless SBC voice in all our diversity?
The answer of course is no.
If the answer to the inability to run a SBC entity in such a way that it pleases every last church, every last messenger, and every last member, then we might as well disband the convention, sell off the schools and properties, recall the missionaries both abroad and at home, and allow each church to go it alone.
Obviously Dr. Moore could have done a better job: hence his humility and apology.
Now let me ask you, how long has the SBC ran its affairs the way it is doing now about which you complain about? In the past has everyone liked the way the SBC was run?
Forgive me, if I am wrong, but it seems there is more than meets the eye, when it comes to some people’s complaints.
I attend a church in the SBC that seems to reflect the average makeup/demographics in our area. More members are becoming aware of the ERLC, it’s role and Russell Moore. Many are in fact unhappy. They are afraid to speak out in fear of causing disunity because we have a pastor who is a very vocal supporter of Russell Moore who is involved with the EC. Just because many of you pastors on here think you know all the thoughts of the congregations you shepherd, you may be surprised to find that members just don’t speak out. Small churches are tough places to navigate then you feel at opposition with the pastor and his wife. Speaking from a place of experience, I hope you all will consider that there is a possibility that you might be suffering the same within your congregations and not even know it.
Homeschoolfam,
Lets look at what you said:
“I attend a church in the SBC that seems to reflect the average makeup/demographics in our area”
First, You admit that you don’t know if it reflects the average makeup/demography.
It just SEEMS to.
Second, average makeup and demography doesn’t necessarily indicate just how a person sees the ELRC and Dr. Moore.
“Many are unhappy”.
Very subjective term. Many probably are unhappy. Many may also be happy.
Maybe more are unhappy, maybe not.
[Many of the unhappy] “are afraid to speak out.”
So either you are assuming they are unhappy [because you are?] or you have a pastor that doesn’t listen his people.
AND you are worried about an entity head? It seems like you have bigger problems at home my brother.
I think that your first step shouldn’t be blogging about authority figures being out of touch with you, and warning other pastors that they may be out of touch with their people, BUT FIRST get with your OWN pastor and bring your own gripes to him.
Unity is more than a surface thing. It takes hard, sometimes uncomfortable work to achieve it.
As a pastor, I always appreciate when members have honest conversations with me on issues such as this. You are exactly right in your opinion that many members will not publicly disagree with their pastor and that small churches (I would say, average sized SBC churches where the pastor relates personally to every member) are difficult places in regard to holding different public opinions than pastor and wife.
This blog would benefit from more laypeople expressing their opinion.
In a moment of contriteness and humility Mike, it seems that you continue to itch for a fight.
I only represent my self. I believe I speak for many in my church. I believe my views represent many folks in my area of the world. Now I have not gone out and done a survey, so I am kind of in the dark on the totality of my view. I would never presume to speak for anybody anyway – I am only one person on a keyboard. Of course you presume much when you assume you know there is more to it than what I have said.
The point is many were unhappy and still are. The complaints to the Executive Committee are probably the tip of the iceberg. Enough are unhappy to have made an impact and cause review and change.
Just because something has been done for a long time does not mean it is the right thing. Financial and fiduciary accountability belong to the churches; the the messengers who approve Trustees; to the Trustees to hold accountable staff. The churches should be able on request to review financial spreadsheets which include staff salary information as any church member at any church should be able to do as well. You disagree? Why do you disagree?
I personally own stock in some major corporations = not much, but enough. I have the right by law to request the salary and compensation of senior officers, as well as salary ranges of other employees. By law. The hiding or obfuscation of such financial information can lead to corruption and lack of trust between those in positions of power, and those who support them. Why do you oppose this reform? Because I and others support it?
Rob
Rob,
Start a grassroots campaign that will elect a president [of the SBC] who will institute a culture change in regard to your dissatisfactions.
From my limited understanding, that is how changes are made to the huge SBC convention.
If you wanted to change US law as to corporations, you would use the mechanism in place to do so.
Same here at the SBC
That is no answer to the question I had Mike. Do you see an issue with lack of transparency within the SBC, Yes or no? I understand the mechanisms required to make a change for good. It is deliberate on purpose to give people the opportunity to pray, reflect, and then make changes in the body after a process.
I will say though that it seems current precedent allows for another mechanism. A grassroots campaign to escrow funding in the hopes of getting a listening ear. Whatever you want to say about it, pragmatically it worked. It may again.
I don’t have to change US law on corporations. The law already reflects an ethical and honest approach to reporting financials and salary remunerations from corporate boards to shareholders. If only Southern Baptists would be as transparent and open in their dealings from the entities to the churches as the secular corporate world is toward those who invest in them.
Rob
Rob,
There should be transparency.
I think the method used was wrong to get the results SOME desired.
And I think it would be wrong to affect change in other areas. Besides, you are only guessing it would work.
Parsonmike, Think we have covered this before in other blog comments. To be clear let me assure you I do not base my opinion on Dr. Moore’s actions on anything but his actions and stated opinions. I am a powerless, naïve and faithful lay person. I have no anti Calvinist motive which I think is what you always allude to. I will state again I know more about Calvin and Hobbs than John Calvin . We do not need racial, political and doctrine division in the SBC and that is where we are headed it seems. I do think that the lack of transparency and accountability in the SBC entities needs to be addressed. Most of the lay SBC members would be shocked that the SBC IMB basically went bankrupt and had to have a fire sale to avoid collapse. I believe most of the SBC members would at least wonder why such a heavy concentration of Calvinist hold SBC leadership positions. I believe most SBC members totally would agree with you that money and power talk and that is why Dr. Moore is humble and contrite as he is now, he is astute and politically savvy. Dr. Moore is so contrite and mindful of the situation that he created that he quickly hired a fired GOP TN chairman that main claim to fame was being a Never Trumper for a newly created position, that will send a message . No , I do not want a vote of every SBC member that is why we have leadership but if the leadership is out of touch, removed and have a distain for the general membership then issues need to be addressed. Honestly I get the feeling Dr. Moore has a low opinion of the “average” SBC member who voted for Trump. Is the average SBC church inherently racist? If an SBC member voted for Trump because he agrees with Trump politically has he lost his values? Does the ERLC exist to represent SBC values and the Gospel to the secular world or to present the world view to the SBC members? Does R. Moore present SBC views to the NYT/media or R. Moore views. I grew up in the south, grew up and matured in the SBC churches , I have seen the real change in the heart and soul of SBC members that repented from their racist heritage . I have seen the change in race relations by the white SBC members who are badly characterized by many. I find Dr. Moore’s generalizations, straw man arguments and unnamed offenders not very persuasive. His quick reflective reaction to social events and complex issues are very close to a good MSNBC host viewpoints. If I lived in Nashville I could not afford to live in Brentwood, an area far removed from the racial diversity that R. Moore is such a proponent of . If the ERLC ceased to exist tomorrow what would be the lost to the advancement of the Gospel? I am sorry and know that is to be a moment of unity and coming together but the only change is an acknowledgement that Dr. Moore spoke his convictions and there was blowback. Lets really reform SBC operations and get back to what makes us one, missions/Gospel advancement support.
eric,
You said:
“We do not need racial, political and doctrine division in the SBC and that is where we are headed it seems.”
You mentioned this before, and i will tell you again: we already have those divisions in the SBC. And ONE way to help us reconcile our differences is with a biblical attitude and discussion, of which means EXPOSING our sins. To blame Dr. Moore for EXPOSING sin as if by exposing sin, he is causing it, is just plain wrong and unfounded.
Even as you should be able to voice your displeasure, you undercut any argument you have by blaming the messenger for the message, for:
There WAS ALREADY racism and political idolatry, and doctrinal division in the SBC before Dr. Moore began at the ERLC.
“I have no anti-Calvinist motive which I think is what you always allude to. I will state again I know more about Calvin and Hobbs than John Calvin.”
“I believe most of the SBC members would at least wonder why such a heavy concentration of Calvinist hold SBC leadership positions.”
Mmmm Hmmm.
“Most of the lay SBC members would be shocked that the SBC IMB basically went bankrupt and had to have a fire sale to avoid collapse.”
You have a clear bias against the SBC entities. The IMB’s difficulties were clearly communicated to member churches via letters, social media, the missionaries themselves, and I think even through Lottie Moon materials. You would have had to be living under a rock not to have heard about what was going on, the reasoning behind it, and what they were doing to address things going forward.
Jim,
I think it depends. The members in the sbc church I grew up in would have had no idea of imb’s issues. That’s no attack on anyone. The church members cared about missions but actually were more interested in missionaries they supported outside of imb.
It is good to see average SBC layman speaking “prophetically” to the the pastors who regularly post on this blog. Of course, I notice that these voices aren’t recognized as prophetic and aren’t given the compliment of “speaking truth to power” that’s regularly given to Russell Moore. It appears that maybe it is because it’s only “prophetic” if you agree with what’s being said. Otherwise, you’re just a misinformed, uneducated, squeaky wheel that needs to understand that these pastors and ERLC board members got this. Just get in line. This is my impression only. Maybe it is wrong…
Personally, i think it is good for laymen to be informing themselves and drawing their own conclusions. It would be wise for pastors to listen and consider what they are saying.
There’s a real analogy here in many of these conversations that reminds me of the reasons so many average Americans rejected the opinions of media elites, political elites, and even religious elites, and voted for Trump.
There was a disconnect between the elites and the average American revealed in the last election. And the comments on this blog seem to reveal a continued disconnect between laymen in SBC churches and many of the Pastors and leadership. The only question is how deep and pervasive is this divide? Are the comments here reflective of a wider divide between many layman and pastors within the average SBC church? Only time will tell.
From a layman (and an average American to boot!).
I think I am going to puke if I hear another “elites” complaint.
Yes, those I hear making that charge seem to use “elite” to refer to anyone who disagrees with them.
You think the “elite” complaint is unfounded? Does not exist? A figment? or perhaps closer to truth than you want to admit.
And no Adam, I do not use the term “elite” for anybody who disagrees with me (straw man alert). I use it for those who believe they know best – more educated and erudite than others. Pastors who look down upon those they are suppose to tend, love, and train. Entity presidents who live in gated communities and look down upon those often with the contempt of prose against those whom support them.
The true example of servant-hood is the Lord Jesus who looked upon the crowds and had compassion as He saw them “as sheep without a shepherd.” He washed his disciples feet, and called them “friends” even though he was far superior than they. It was the Pharisees who called his followers ignorant and unwashed and put out of the synagogue those who would merely question their myopic beliefs.
So no the term is not used for all those whom I disagree. Just those who fit the bill.
Rob
When it comes to being a layman, I consider myself very elite.
I don’t think I’ve ever posted here before, though I read many of the posts here. So thank you for the time put in to maintaining this site.
I just want to comment on the idea of the ERLC “not representing the views of the majority of SBC churches.”
The committee disagreed implicitly it seems by calling attention to the fact that Russel Moore’s views fall within the “affirmation of our Convention’s stated doctrine, resolutions, and the mission established by the Convention for the ERLC.”
So as someone not as versed in the way our convention operates outside the local context, it seems there are two distinct views on what constitutes how SBC positions are determined. Someone correct me here if I’m wrong, but the resolutions seem to be the “official” way we as a convention state how our doctrinal position reflects the way in which we interact with each other and the world is through the various statements and resolutions passed at the annual meeting. In my mind this makes since and a lot of the argument here is, in my opinion, akin to 30 people showing up for a business meeting to makes decisions only you have the other 300 members who didn’t attend complain that the decisions made don’t reflect the “majority” opinion.
Bingo.
Great analogy.
As example then, the convention has passed multiple resolutions on support of Israel. When Israel needed supported in November this past year, where was the statement from the ERLC?
You see we do not need to look far for inconsistencies. And not everybody can attend a business meeting.
Rob
Jeremy,
You said…
“n my mind this makes since and a lot of the argument here is, in my opinion, akin to 30 people showing up for a business meeting to makes decisions only you have the other 300 members who didn’t attend complain that the decisions made don’t reflect the “majority” opinion..”
Yes!
Or even better I think, is 10 complaining out of that 300 saying that it is they who represent the silent many. .
Aaaand there’s how Trump became president. #gameover
Jeremy, you bring up a point I’ve been making for over a decade now. For years we had groups styling themselves as representing the Baptist majority position. Strangely, these “majority” Baptist groups lost every election or issue on which they lobbied.
There is only one “Baptist Majority” that matters in SBC life, in the final analysis. It is the majority that shows up and votes at the annual meeting.
If Dr. Moore works within the boundaries of SBC Resolutions, he is doing as he should. Just because he doesn’t kowtow to a bunch of self-ordained majoritarian authorities.
***”If the average, rank-and-file SBC church member knew all that Brother Moore stood for and advocated (erecting Muslim mosques, belittling Trump voters and supporters) he would be out looking for a new job.”***
Why do those who continually misrepresent Russell Moore always make the arrogant assumption that the “average, rank-and-file” member DOESN’T know the things Russell Moore has written or said? Do you not see how arrogant that sounds? Maybe the lack of a massive uprising against Dr. Moore from within the SBC speaks to the fact that many laymen can:
1) Read and listen to what Moore actually has written and has said and have the intellectual capacity to assess it through a reasonably unbiased lens, and
2) Do not need to resort to unvetted, hyperbolic talking points in order to try and smear and discredit Dr. Moore, even if they do disagree with him.
Imagine how scary the prospect must be that many of us laymen in the pews can actually listen to someone and make a rational and discerning judgment about what that person is actually saying without having to resort to parroting talking points spoon fed to them by certain pastors and leaders. Perish the thought! 🙂
For what it’s worth, I didn’t know much about Dr. Moore until I read “Onward” and began reading his posts at the ERLC website. Based on what I’ve read and heard from him, way too many of the accusations hurled at him are not just gross misrepresentations but are outright lies.
I’d really like to think that many of those who we work and sit in fellowship with would be above bearing false witness in order to discredit one of their brothers. But the ungracious vitriol I see being slung at Dr. Moore lately makes me wonder to what degree it actually confirms how many outside the SBC perceives us and that we are actually sinking down to meet the low expectations they already have of us. And don’t think for a minute that this isn’t destroying our collective ability to witness to lost and dying world.
I can’t help but to think that what’s going on by a small, but vocal, minority within the SBC amounts to nothing short of a sort of theological McCarthyism and that they will not be satisfied until there is strict and rigid conformity to doctrines which we have historically allowed reasonable liberty in affirming.
Dan,
You seem to be saying that there is a great divide between laymen and pastors, is that so?
Part of that problem is of course the pastor’s.
And part of that problem is the layman.
Notice, i said lay-man not lay-mouse.
The biblical answer to such problems is to confront the the person you have a problem with, in love. And if he fails to respond, gather a few good brothers and go back to him. If he still persists in his sin [and a pastor who won’t listen to and/or explain/dialogue with his people is sinning] then you go before the congregation.
No where does the Bible tell us that you are to speak in general to other pastors and ASSUME they have the same problem. If a person won’t even discuss his problem that he has with his own pastor with his pastor, what makes anyone think he has a “prophetic” voice?
Is it because you won’t man up and speak to your own pastor?
And one reason to have a plurality of elders as opposed to a single elder [the pastor] is to have other avenues of communication open to timid members who may be somewhat intimidated by the preacher. With a group of men serving the church, a person might feel more comfortable speaking than elder [say their Sunday School teacher].
My pastor is very humble and reachable and I am thankful for that. He is also very busy and has a lot of people wanting his attention. He would be aghast if he thought one of his sheep could not seek their mind to him. But one wants to get a word to him, they can just tell an elder of their problem and be assured it will be heard by all of them, including the pastor.
I was in Dallas at that convention, Tom Jefferson. I saw lots of buses – chartered by Southern Seminary and other SBC entities to “bus people in.”
Of course, there is nothing wrong with providing rides for people to the Convention. Or are you saying there is?
The SBC is a democratic organization. History shows that many people in the SBC were not comfortable with the direction of some institutions in SBC life. They showed up and voted to make changes.
One of the areas in which they wanted change was the direction of the Christian Life Commission (now the ERLC). Foy Valentine, and for 1 year, Larry Baker, led the CLC.
The Conservative Resurgence put the CLC under the leadership of Richard Land, who was involved in the Conservative Resurgence. Dr. Land changed the direction of the CLC to make sure that it represented the views of the SBC on things such as being pro life, a biblically based sexual ethic etc.
I was 24 when I attended the Dallas convention and voted for Charles Stanley and all of the goals of the Conservatives in those days.
Dr. Moore was about 14 or so in 1985. I am not sure he was involved in any meaningful way in the hot years of the CR due to his age.
But Dr. Moore is clearly carrying on the trajectory of the ERLC that was set in those important years and would not be leading the ERLC had the CR not occurred.
Not that my SBC voice carries much influence (I pastor an average size, smaller church in my community), I would note nonetheless, that although Russell Moore’s statement was a gracious outreach at unification for the denomination, I believe the only thing he was guilty of, was expressing a thoughtful and biblically based perspective on the presidential election of last fall and that personal character and integrity matter when considering one’s vote for a candidate.
Frankly, I applauded and appreciated Dr. Moore’s stance and was disappointed by the threats of Co-op escrow and the like, by those protesting SBC churches and leaders who disagreed with Moore’s stance. If the SBC is to move on from its stereotypical image of being a mere partisan purveyor of politics, than dissenting and discerning moral voices making biblical and moral arguments, must be allowed to be heard and tolerated.
I happen to a be a biblically, social issues conservative, whose ultimate allegiance however is to God – his kingdom and the cause of Christ, above any allegiance to a particular political party. Therefore, I hope ERLC leaders and analysts like Dr. Moore may be allowed by SBC leadership to hold to and articulate that same allegiance in the future.
Bernie Diaz,
Bingo!!!
Bernie, I agree. Stop by and comment more often.
Bernie Diaz, If only R. Moore had stated his opposition to President Trump based on what his analysis of Trump’s moral and ethical behavior this would not have evolved into the issue it has become. A statement of I do not support any presidential candidate based on their moral and ethical shortcomings , would have been enough. Dr. Moore went beyond opposition to Trump into the character, faith and motives of his supporters. Go back to this site for several weeks and read the comments concerning Dr. Moore. Religious leaders he did not agree with were cartooned as “Elmer Gantry meets Yosemite Sam”. Trump supporters were concerned with “outdoing one another with outrageous statements: The ERLC mission statement does not include inviting Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and H. Clinton to speak at a major SBC event and ignoring the other political candidate (including SBC members). That is not a mission statement that is a political statement. The mission statement of the ERLC is fine and in no way would Dr. Moore ever been held accountable if not for his own actions and publicly expressed viewpoints that he projected as SBC viewpoints except for the unenlightened Trump supports sitting in the pews who believe their support of SBC operations was support of missions not support of Dr. Moore’s take on political affairs. Dr. Moore describes himself as a communitarian and he certainly is . He was zealous in his denouncing Trump and his supporters but how prophetic was he to President Obama in regards to defunding Planned Parenthood, the lack of assistance and compassion to Middle East Christians but gave full support to Syrian refugees and illegal aliens. Once I started researching Dr. Moore with his Christian radio opinion, his “survivor of the Bible belt” rhetoric , I sensed more of a social activist advocacy than fulfilling the mandate of the SBC . So this is not about hurt feelings about political issues but leadership at the SBC headquarters level. Dr. Moore’s actions made me aware of the lack of accountability and transparency at the Nashville level. I have and do support the SBC. I do believe I can question and challenge SBC leadership when they deviate from their mandate or become unresponsive to members concern. I have several friends in Bible study who left a religion because the magisterium could not be questioned. Following Dr. Moore it seems to me his advocacy is as much or more political/social concerns than Gospel messaging. Viewpoints on Dr. Moore is like beauty, it is in the eye (mind) of the beholder and I get that . That why the polite, knowledgeable challenges and feedback I get here make this a worthwhile endeavor. I really try to keep an open mind in regards to what I have surmised. Here is a good R. Moore quote that is relevant, ” It is quite possible to seem strange to the culture not for commitment to Gospel, supernaturalism or ethic of the Sermon on the Mount but because of outrageous behavior.”
This is what Dr. Moore needed to do to diffuse the situation and allow his opponents to leave the conflict without further escalation. Having bought and read his book, listened to him regularly, I agree with a great deal of what he says, but at the same time his temperament seems out of line for his position. Yet, everyone deserves a second chance and if he does not make this same mistake again then hopefully the SBC can move forward in Christ.
James: I agree with what Bernie has already said above. If leaders cannot speak out against immorality even in the Republican party, then we have a problem and I personally don’t think we can “move forward in Christ.” Frankly, I am surprised at those who thought Moore did wrong. I thought it was refreshingly needed. I still do.
I might add, I think those who have been printing lies on their websites about Moore in order to gain traction and smear him have more apologizing and repenting to do than does Moore who I see as doing nothing wrong in his words.
If he did nothing wrong, why did he apologize twice?
“If he did nothing wrong, why did he apologize twice?”
Because sometimes apologizing is necessary and prudent, even if you did nothing wrong.
Apologizing does not always mean you were wrong, it could mean that you value a relationship over being right.
Any married man or woman in this forum can attest to this…sometimes not being wrong is insufficient reason to withhold an apology.
I have a few comments.
1. We need the ERLC. If you know anything about its history, the ERLC (and its predecessor organization – the CLC) was formed out of need. If we got rid of the ERLC, we would have to turn around and re-form it. Of course, the issues around which the ERLC was formed was prohibition and alcohol consumption. Over time, more issues came around.
2. Russell Moore is an effective spokesman and a sincere and generous person. The Trustees that oversee the ERLC are in the best position to know whether Dr. Moore is leading that organization well.
3. Dr. Moore has admitted to making mistakes. He has apologized. I am hoping that everyone can move on.
4. Claiming that the Convention has “spoken” on certain things is often a dicey proposition. Pressler and Patterson knew that most in the SBC believed in inerrancy, even before they were able to get the Convention to pass a resolution stating so. And once a resolution was passed, even though there was academic and moderate howling, the overwhelming feeling of people sitting in the pew was in agreement. But consider other things on which the Convention has “spoken”. LifeWay not selling or publishing literature that cited the NIV, for example. Such a resolution was passed by the Convention at an annual meeting. But cooler heads recognized that despite that maneuvering, following that resolution was not a good idea. How about the Disney Boycott? The Convention voted on that, too. But where were the rank and file on that question? Visiting Disney World. When we claim that the “Convention has spoken”, we really need to be careful. Sure, we can present proof, but there is more common sense needed, I believe.
5. There are 2 things that can derail this Pax, in my opinion. 1 – is if Jack Graham and his cohort really want to replace Dr. Moore with a pal. If that is their intention, we will see this issue return. I am not saying that is their intention. I am just saying if what the detractors want is something else, time will reveal that. And 2 – is if the ERLC does one of two things. One is to engage in political activity that is beyond where large number of people in the SBC really are. I am not even going to identify the issues. You can come up with them yourself. If something really is biblical, the SBC will support it. If something is an opinion on what is biblical but it is presented as a biblical mandate and those who disagree will be run over, you will have disagreement. The other is to insult members of SBC churches or SBC pastors because of their voting or political convictions, or to insult faithful Christians of the past who tried to speak to the culture as best they knew how but in hindsight we don’t agree with them. This is what I mean once by “tone.” The ERLC may be correct on a policy issue, but if people again perceive the ERLC as being unnecessarily unkind or harsh, or as trying to gain acceptance with more politically progressive outlets by lampooning other Christians, we will be here again.
6. Based on what I am reading, I am very optimistic.
Tarheel:
Do you really believe that Dr. Moore has not reflected on things that he has said and apologized because he thinks an apology was due?
You seem to be saying that maybe Dr. Moore doesn’t think he did anything wrong, but is just doing this to assuage people.
I don’t see how you can read his statements and get there.
Do you have some private or additional information upon which you are relying?
Let me respectfully suggest that advancing this interpretation of things does not advance. All of us who support Dr. Moore, in my opinion, need to be straight enough to say that Dr. Moore has apologized for his words and actions, as he himself has stated.
There is nothing to be gained or salvaged by claiming our team didn’t really do anything wrong, and we just apologized to make everyone feel good.
Tarheel,
In 10 years of marriage I have never apologized for something I did not do as it would be untruthful and diminish real apologies.
As for Dr. Moore is what you say is true then the critics of him who claim that his apologies amount to “I’m sorry you feel that way” seem to be correct. I agree with Louis that his apology does not read that way to me, and if that is really the point of it then it is worse than him giving no apology.
James,
Dr Moore apologized for not being clear in his words and thus being insensitive to many.
He apologized for allowing his words and tone to reflect an arrogance that was not there.
There is telling the truth and there is telling the truth in an appropriate manner.
He isn’t apologizing for the point of his words but that he chose an inappropriate manner that miscommunicated what he was trying to communicate.
Louis and James.
I see how you could have interpreted what I said the way you did… What I meant was that he didn’t and shouldn’t apologize for what he said…he did nothing wrong in that regard. He apologized because the way he said it left too much room for misinterpretation…that he wasn’t clear enough to avoid misunderstandings. He promised to do better. I think he will.
Russell Moore has made clear that he never intended to indict anyone unfairly…and he has apologized twice now for not being clear enough to avoid that confusion…
I don’t think anyone should extrapolate from these apologies – that he is sorry for saying the things he said about the importance of character and integrity and our elected officials and that several evangelical leaders sold those values out to support Donald Trump… It is absolutely undeniable and true that some did. I don’t think he’s sorry for calling on some evangelical (and southern baptist) leaders to stop “sainting” Donald Trump. Instead, it seems he’s sorry for not being clear enough so as to avoid the appearance of his good and necessary remarks about selling out values seeming to broad-bush everyone who made a good-faith conscience decision to vote for Donald Trump.
RM ain’t the Lone Ranger here….He’s not the only one who has had to do that. Perhaps he’s the most high profile though.
I am appreciative of Dr. Moore and the Executive Committee’s post. As far as I’m concerned this puts this matter to bed. This is what should have been said in the first place, but I applaud Dr. Moore for be willing to state it now. I also applaud Dr. Graham for accepting it as well.
I do wonder how the Entity itself, as an official wing of the SBC, will fare in the future. I still think there will be dicussion at the Convention concerning its purpose and its continuation.
Parson Jim, I promise not to rehash but really never get an answer to my rehashed inquires. So answer these questions directly and I promise not to rehash, these are your points raised
#1- In the law there is always the issue of “but for” which means but for the actions of an individual the events that followed would not have occurred. In this case “but for” the actions, involvement and strident comments of Dr. Moore I personally would never been aware of Dr. Moore and his social active viewpoints “but for” his article in the WAPO. Then I started to look into the actions of Dr. Moore and SBC management. Dr. Moore brought the attention and resulting uproar up by his actions. A simple statement that he found both Presidential candidates unacceptable due to their shortcomings would have been enough. There was no “attack” on Dr. Moore politics” but for” his strong, strident , partisan never Trump position that has been hashed many times. Dr. Moore set himself up as the lightening rod and got the lightening. He took the minority position and failed to move the majority of SBC members to his political viewpoints. The reason most SBC members are unaware of the ERLC and certainly do not follow closely their opinions. Dr. Moore courageously spoke his view of the truth to the power (in numbers) of SBC members and they did not follow his leadership in this area.
2. So when an executive leader takes a bold courageous stand and speaks his truth to the power and creates an unneeded upheaval what is the usual remedy? The usual remedy is for a strong accountability including resignation, removal, demotion or a public censure. Otherwise what is the bravery of speaking truth to power if there is no ramifications? Was not Dr. Land removed from his ERLC position due to the uproar of his political, social and cultural viewpoints that created an issue? I do not know the history of the whole Dr. Land issue so this is a question not a statement.
3. Transparency is an issue that no one on this blog can answer. Why are the total benefits of SBC leadership not available for SBC member review. Where is the accountability and oversight, no better example than the IMB financial failure of the trustee system. Did R. Moore get approval or need approval to hire the never Trump fired Tn GOP chairman into a newly created ERLC position. Was that a conciliatory gesture at this time? Was this never Trump guy absolutely the best choice. So I know this board cannot answer the transparency question but it needs to be raised and explained. No local SBC church would operate this way.
#4 Partisanship – What if a SBC state convention had a 13,000 person event and invited Trump, Cruz and Huckabee to speak and did not invite Bush, Rubio, Clinton, Carson and all the rest because of whatever, could that be conceived as partisan? Was a prophetic voice given to President Obama about defunding Planned Parenthood or helping Middle East Christians. I will not rehash but it is clear Dr. Moore is certainly not neutral with political/social issues .
So I am done with rehashing . I do like your picture on your comments. It reminds me of us simple hayseed believers in the Jimmy Swaggart camp. Many of us really believed that Mayberry was reality and actually represented America instead of being a TV show made for ratings. We are still mired in our racist past and actually believe being a patriotic American equates to being a good Christian. I do appreciate the fairness and openness of this website. I know the sincerity and true sentiments expressed by those here are real and based on their foundational beliefs. I only vent, express and question here as in my local church I will not trouble the waters. I have spoken to my Pastor who has faith and confidence in the SBC leadership and I respect that. I do tithe, give and support my church and they give to the SBC (rightly so). So we can disagree on many issues but we agree on the main most important issue, Jesus is our Savior, all other things are shifting sands.
eric,
can i take you at your word?
Lets say i can, so i will.
You claim to be a simple hayseed believer in the Jimmy swagger camp that really believed Mayberry was a real place. You claim to still mired in your racist past. and also claim that being a patriotic American is as good as being a Christian.
Among other claims.
So in reply to you,
I have nothing more to say than what has already been said.
Have a blessed day sir.
Anybody who was #nevertrump gets a gold star in my book because that’s a person who puts principle above politics. Anyone who understands it’s not a binary choice and you don’t have to bargain with the devil for a meager table scrap of political advantage.
Can I have my gold star sent to my house or do I have to pick it up in person?
That’s what #neverTrump was about. Character matters.
I’ll claim your gold star, but isn’t Dr. Moore now saying you *could* faithfully come to the conclusion that the general was essentially a binary choice, and that he never intended to suggest otherwise?
At least, it was “reasonable and defensible” for believers to vote for Trump, and not wrong for fellow Baptists (including those of the Moral Majority generation) to seek to influence him by way of advisory boards?
“Anybody who was #nevertrump gets a gold star in my book because that’s a person who puts principle above politics.”
Don’t break your arm off patting yourself on the back… Then again….
Abson I will hand-deliver that puppy.
Yeah Jon it seems Dr. Moore is far more reasonable than myself 🙂 I don’t find it all that defensible because the Conservative Movement will be set back a generation because of that conspiracist loon in the White House.
Jim,
Were you also equally strong in the “NeverHillary” position? Would you argue that a vote for Hillary was just as revealing regarding one’s Christian character as you claim it is regarding a vote for Trump?
Just wondering because Dwight McKissick admitted he voted for Hillary.
Dan, I won’t speak for Jim, but the implication you’re making is a common one used against #nevertrumpers to infer, at least, tepid support or silence as to Hillary. While the accusation on its face is ridiculous – I’ll address it – at least relating to myself.
I was equally #neverHillary and I addressed that issue multiple Times, even on this forum.
I argued, along several with others here, that both Hillary and Trump were morally, ethically, and temperamentally unfit for office.
I could have been idenfied as #NeverEither.
And, yes also – I questioned Dwight, again on this forum, about his support for Hillary.
Dan, I voted for Darrell Castle because I wanted to vote for someone who had character and principles. I do not see it as a binary choice, and voting for Hillary Clinton was just as bad in my mind. I think we Americans really came to the end of respecting our electoral process, from different angles, depending on who we are. We can’t trust that the process will give us anyone decent.
Dwight had a few singular issues on which he voted Democrat, many had a few issues on which they voted Republican. I think those votes had little to do with the candidates themselves, and more with the angle of the governing. I think a vote for either was a compromise on ethics and values, one I could not make. But others don’t see it as “bigly” as I do.
When it comes to Conservatives voting for Trump, and it goes to the Primaries here, they did a disservice to the Conservative movement we are all a part of. You know, kind of like you yell at your own kids but you leave other people’s kids alone? I am profoundly irritated that folks on my side of the aisle allowed a leftist con-man, who had always been friends with the Clintons, to come in and usurp the Party to try and throw the election her way.
Trump continued to do things that you would think voters would be disgusted by, and yet they followed along like sheep! We should have been disgusted the way he mocked the disabled reporter! We should have demanded he drop out after the Access Hollywood video! Just a cursory glance at his history should have disqualified him to be a Republican, but people on our side, blinded by partisanship, voted for Trump simply because Democrats hated him, or they hated Hillary. “Well, as long as we get the Supreme Court…” and now we get to trusting a court more than God himself.
And you can see where I’m coming from at this point.
I am not a Calvinist. If anyone needs affirmation of this, ask Dave Miller. He’s seen it in my articles.
That being said, I stand with Russell Moore. The ERLC, as already stated, is a necessary entity. It has a dual purpose: to represent the SBC (as our voice) in matters of ethics and religious concerns in the public sector AND to be the voice of conscience for the SBC as well. He has done his job well. It sadly seems the voice of the prophet is rejected by his people (sounds very biblical).
On a final note, I understand the frustrations that come with the structure of the SBC and it’s entities. Like many, I have risen to the mic at the annual meeting to make a motion. I was overturned with the familiar “entities can’t be directed to action from the floor.” While slightly annoying, I’ve come to see the importance of our structure, ironically thanks to the ERLC Trustee statement. If it was easy to make changes in the leadership of entities, I doubt the SBC would still be the beacon of theological conservativeness that it is. Because the resurgence took commitment, time and strategy, it was able to change the convention. From Adrian Rogers to Morris Chapman was a decade. From Chapman to BFM 2000 was another decade. It took 20 years to oust theological liberalism, but look at the result: the most theologically conservative, Bible believing, mission focused Christian denomination IN THE WORLD!!!
If Russell Moore is truly the villain that some of you perceive him to be, then begin your journey, your struggle. If you’re right in your actions, then God will bless you with support. You’ll win the Presidency, you’ll nominate people from your own camp, and theoretically, in about 6 years, you may be able to fire him. If you can accomplish all that, then you’ll even get this insignificant preacher’s support.
Tarheel:
Thanks. I understand what you are saying. I agree. I did misunderstand what you were saying.
I wish the clock could be re-wound in a way. If Dr. Moore had said, “For me, I cannot support this candidate for these reasons. Some in the Christian community have simply ignored these issues, and that is wrong. But others in the Christian community continue to support this candidate because even though they acknowledge that this candidate has these problems, and the problems are serious, they are trying to vote for the person whom they think is the best candidate among the choices … etc.”, there would be no problem.
Al Mohler was equally strong against Trump, but had a more measured tone. I heard Dr. Mohler say what I have roughly outlined about 1 month out from the election. Dr. Mohler has faced no backlash for his comments.
I think that also perhaps among some of the #neverTrump conservatives that the feeling was so strong that there is reticence to acknowledge even some basic truths because of a fear that doing so would weaken an argument against Trump.
For example, when Dr. Moore was asked by the NTY (I think) right before the election which administration he would have more in common with, Dr. Moore said he couldn’t say.
I suspect, however, if a list of issues and policies were put on a piece of paper and a person were to put where Trump and Clinton stood on those issues, I would say that it would be very hard for most evangelical Christians to not end up seeing that they had more in common with a potential Trump administration than a potential Clinton administration. That may not be true for some, but I would say on average, that would be a true estimate.
Therefore, the answer to the NYT question would not be to ignore or deny the obvious, but to say something like, “While I would concede that on many issues, I would probably have more in common with a Trump administration, for me, the personal failings and areas of disagreement outweigh what might ordinarily cause me to vote for Mr. Trump.” Or something like that.
Saying that one can’t really distinguish is, in my opinion, an avoidance of reality.
I see that all the time with some national commentators on TV who just hate the President so much that they cannot bring themselves to rejoice even when something great happens. It’s perpetual downcast.
This, of course, was not the big thing that caused all the trouble. It was, as you have noted, the personal indictment.
This issue has application to conservatives, as well. I have plenty of Christian friends who lean toward the socialist side, and they show little concern about some of the moral issues that energizes much of the religious world in the political arena.
I think the natural instinct of all of us is to see people who disagree with us as “evil” or “morally wrong” versus simply making bad decisions and not having wisdom to choose rightly.
In one case, when we see people making what we think is essentially a moral error, we speak in moral terms. “You’re wrong” essentially means you’re not godly or your not a Christian. This happens all the time on blogs.
We all need to do a better job, in my opinion, of seeing people more as “mistaken” or uninformed, rather than morally challenged.
That helps us tone down our language.
Tarheel, I am responding here because for some reason the site won’t let me respond directly to your comment.
Here I am asking Jim the question, not you, because Jim wrote the following…
“Anybody who was #nevertrump gets a gold star in my book because that’s a person who puts principle above politics. Anyone who understands it’s not a binary choice and you don’t have to bargain with the devil for a meager table scrap of political advantage.”
So, as you’ve already stated Tarheel, you didn’t vote for either Trump or Clinton, which is fine. But, the argument being put forward by Jim and other #nevertrumpers is that those who voted for Trump “made a bargain with the devil for meager table scrap of political advantage.”
So, I’m asking him if he applies this same logic and level of condemnation to a man like Dwight McKissic who has admitted he voted for Hillary Clinton.
I want to know from Jim if he also believes that Dwight, on the opposite side of the aisle, “made a bargain with the devil for meager table scrap of political advantage.”
Isn’t this a fair question in light of Jim’s accusations consistently toward those who voted Trump?
Hey Dan, the comment nesting thing messed me up at first, too. If you find a comment you want to reply to, you have to scroll up to the last “Reply” you see and then your comment will appear at the bottom of that “stack” of comments.
I just left a reply to a previous comment, but I leave this as a further clarification.
Basically I have more to say against those in the movement who were deceived by Trump coming in as a Republican and ruined the Conservative movement, more than I am upset people voted Democrat because of Trump. Had we not had Trump, people like Dwight never would have voted for the other Party.
Without Trump we might have actually had a repeal of Obamacare instead of this Progressive-Right equally putrid BS furthering of government control.
Right you are Jim, right you are.
I can’t speak for Dwight – but based on his own words…I’m sure he would’ve voted Republican if we had not had Donald Trump as the option.
Jim, thanks for the response and for the tip on how to comment in the right place.
If I may say so, it seems to me that you are applying a double-standard with regards to your condemnation here. I understand your reasoning. I think Darrell Castle is a fine man and he was a fine candidate. You will get no argument from me there.
Here’s my issue: If truly Trump and Clinton were equally bad candidates as you’ve suggested, then I’m arguing that to be truly fair in your critiques, you ought to condemn Dwight just as vociferously.
Look at it from the other side for a moment. The exact same logic and reasoning could be used to say that Dwight should be challenging his people not “to bargain with the devil for a meager table scrap of political advantage” as he did by voting for Hillary Clinton. I just don’t see the same intensity of outrage from you and others. I think that people like Dwight get a pass from people like you.
Just as you voted for Castle, Dwight could have voted for Castle and encouraged his people to vote for Castle, right? He could have condemned Trump and Hillary in the same fashion in which you have done so.
I’ve read his reasons for voting as he voted and I understand them. And I understand your concept that “if there was no Trump then he wouldn’t have voted that way…” But, still the man had the same choice that you had and he still voted Hillary. If you are in a true #nevertrump position as you are, I’m just saying that your condemnation of those who voted Hillary ought to equal in intensity your condemnation of those who voted Trump, IMO.
Thanks for the responses above. I appreciate it.
That’s a fair assessment, Dan, but as Tarheel has pointed out, had we not had Trump, people like Dwight would not have been driven to vote for Clinton. The first and more damning issue for me is Trump taking the Republican candidacy–letting the fox in the henhouse, so to speak–not a leftist in the White House. Given Trump’s nomination, we were going to get a leftist in the WH whether Republican or Democrat. I have much to say to erstwhile conservatives who fell for his snake oil.
Jim,
And if we didn’t have Clinton, people might have not been driven to vote for Trump.
I’ve considered doing away with nesting more than once.