At times, Baptists from Texas have been known to cause a ruckus in SBC life. It was about 40 years ago that Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler were forming plans for a revolution in the Southern Baptist Convention. Yesterday, news dropped that a Texas megachurch pastor aims to make serious waves in the SBC – but with a wholly different approach than Pressler and Patterson.
Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist, through one of their staff, announced that the church would be withholding their Cooperative Program giving, one million dollars annually, until they’re more satisfied with the leadership and direction of the SBC. We’re tempted to be shocked by this action because of the number of zeros that accompanies the financial figure. But the real story here is that a former SBC President has chosen such a destructive tactic to strong-arm change in our cooperative ministries. That’s a serious charge. And I plan in this article to explain why the charge is not overstated.
This Tactic Is Destructive to SBC Cooperative Work
Pressler and Patterson showed the way to affect change in SBC life. They worked through the bylaws and convention processes to win a majority of committee and trustee spots in order to affect change.
It’s a good thing for all of us their tactic wasn’t to withhold or redirect Cooperative Program giving. Had they chosen that path during the 70’s and 80’s, who can doubt it would have led to a splintering or fracturing of the SBC rather than the unprecedented resurgence God allowed us to see?
The reason Jack Graham’s tactics are destructive to the SBC is not because the budget will take a hit, as sorry as I am to see our missions work and seminaries have less resources to use. His tactics are destructive because as soon as this philosophy is adopted, as soon as Graham’s behavior is emulated, the entire endeavor of cooperative ministry collapses. Envision this: Faction is quickly pitted against faction in SBC life in ways far more dramatic than anything we’ve seen before. Each group states their demands and holds hostage their missions giving until those demands are met. Some factions give up and splinter off. The ones with the big money buy their influence and no one cares what the vast majority of SBC churches think—because their budget isn’t big enough for their threats to matter. This doesn’t even take into account how many churches and pastors check out of cooperative ministry because it’s become as politicized as secular politics.
If Jack Graham believes dramatic change is needed in SBC life (and I’ll disagree with him all day about that, but that’s another conversation), he should emulate those that have gone before us, continue to cooperate in good faith, and seek to influence by advocating, electing, and convincing rather than threatening to defund cooperative ministry. Pressler and Patterson chose the way of courage. It was costly and took time, but the fruit is evident now. What we’re seeing today is not courage. It’s destructive and should be widely condemned.
Withholding Funds to Seek Influence Should Be Rejected
Yesterday’s press release indicated Prestonwood was withholding funding because of their concerns and that it likely would be restored if those concerns were satisfied. This is seeking to influence through financial pressure and I see no way around that interpretation. It sounds from the press release that Graham and Prestonwood wouldn’t even dispute that’s the purpose, even if they don’t like the wording of my description.
Graham’s views on the direction of the SBC have been clear for anyone who cared to listen. They’ve been promoted by some of the more tabloid-style state Baptist papers. I’ve known for some time now that Graham isn’t happy with Russell Moore. The article indicates there are additional unnamed concerns.
Now, I’m actually a pretty big advocate of churches being able to give to cooperative missions as they feel led and not guilted into a certain percentage. So this would seem like an issue where I’d normally say, sure, Prestonwood, if that’s how you feel led to steward your money, then have at it. What makes me see this as more than just a local church stewardship issue?
Local church stewardship issues—when a church’s leadership feels stewardship demands missions dollars be redirected—can be handled wisely and quietly. I’ve handled some in the past. Never have I thought it would be productive to publicize reasons we decided to end support for a ministry. There’s a way to redirect missions giving as a church leader that doesn’t end up at a press conference or in a newspaper headline. This is not about an autonomous SBC church choosing to give (or not give) in a different pattern than they used to. This is about taking that decision and using it to pressure and cause people to take your threats and your position more seriously than your voice alone warrants.
Please don’t miss the fact that Prestonwood could have quietly (or, less desirably, vocally) withheld funding from just the ERLC, which receives a small percentage of total CP giving while continuing to fund IMB, NAMB, our SBC seminaries. Why withhold all CP money and why the press release? Those are only a few of the questions that make this situation so disturbing.
We don’t have a convention where big money buys a big voice. But that’s exactly how we’re being treated right now. Those who have a lot of money are in the newspaper reminding us—in dollar figure form no less—that their voice needs to be heeded, or else…
A Few More Questions
Is this the way we want the SBC to operate in the future—Churches threatening to withhold money until their demands are met? Churches with big budgets calling the shots while thousands of average-sized churches watch and hope our vision for the convention aligns with the self-appointed convention benefactors? Do we really want IMB personnel on the field waiting to hear if churches are withholding funds because we can’t get along about secular politics?
I reject this future for the SBC, and because I do, I can’t be silent now. This path is destructive to our cooperative work and I pray we don’t choose it. Jack Graham and Prestonwood, leadership here looks like reversing this decision. Other SBC leaders, if they won’t, please call this for what it is.
Article in the news reported that FBC Orlando withheld almost $1 million 2-3 years ago and directed resources as they desired.
My two year old wasn’t the first kid to throw tantrums. That fact didn’t stop me from correcting the problem.
I am a 70 yr old southern Baptist pastor from texas……so I am well aware of the arguing and bickering among southern Baptist…the ejecting of professors and missionaries and the fighting over funds. Somewhere some how out convention continues to be more of a disgrace to the glory of God over out public bickering and refusal to co operate. If our people would get back in the word and stay on their knees before God humbling themselves the kingdom work would be far more affective in the usa. Study Galatians again.
Alas I found something about the FBC Orlando situation. Since it was brought up 9 minutes after this went live, and then twice again early in the comment stream, I thought it worth sharing.
“First Orlando pastor explains decision to reduce CP giving” at the Florida Baptist Witness
http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/display_article.php?id=1665909&view=202206
The implication has been in each case has been that Prestonwood’s decision can’t be that big of a deal because others have done similar things in the past. Read the article for the context of FBC Orlando’s decision—not to withhold cooperative missions funding, but to redirect it so that more went to our IMB. That’s a far different scenario than what is described in the article about Prestonwood.
1. FBC Orlando did not withhold/escrow mission funding.
2. They placed no demands on convention direction or leadership.
3. There was no attempt to manipulate a desired outcome (other than getting more money to international missions).
4. They weren’t at odds or upset with with anyone and using their money as a bargaining tool.
This scenario is completely different and I consider it dishonest for people to continue mentioning this as comparable to the Prestonwood situation.
Same thing. Directed giving.
Directed giving is the same thing as not giving anything? Are we from the same planet?
I can only speak for me. I am an earthling.
Here is a tweet from Jack Graham yesterday at 6:39 AM—”Prestonwood will increasingly support S Baptist missionaries through the International Mission Board.”
Apparently, Prestonwood will be giving to missions in a more directed manner than in the past. “Not giving anything” is inaccurate.
Furthermore, the ESCROWING of CP funds is not at all the same as the REMOVAL of CP funds. Once the SBC addresses the concerns of Prestonwood (and other SBC churches), all escrowed funds may certainly, at that time, be donated in total.
If when a GCR church “exercises Christian stewardship as they feel led by God,” we consider their actions to be morally justified, then it is hypocritical for us, when another church “exercises Christian stewardship as they feel led by God,” to consider their actions a “manipulation through money” of the SBC.
Make no mistake. When people give in certain ways, they ARE making a statement to the convention about their concerns, their priorities, what they have a problem with, and what they would like to see changed.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. At least, that’s the way it works here on planet earth.
I’ll give credit where credit is due. With the initial announcement through the Message, they said they’d escrow about $1,000,000. From past giving, that’s divided about 50/50 CP/LMCO.
THAT made it sound like they were going to at least temporarily pull direct to missionary funding b/c they didn’t like actions by the ERLC/Moore.
I still stand by my post on the overall tenor/reasoning behind what they’re doing, BUT: I’m glad to see they’re committed to the international missions work of the IMB still, and possibly even in a greater amount than what they were.
This mirrors tactics taken by the left in response to the Trump election. I am terrified that civil discourse has become a thing of the past and we not boycott, picket, riot, pull funds or simply abandon the cause. Lord help us.
Excellent article, Brent! Great questions too!
It saddens me to see this strategy.
I have a question too ….will this not limit or eliminate their ability to send messengers to conventions or will the Exec Board count “escrow” money toward that? (goodness I hope not)
Seems to me this might be cutting nose off despite thier face as now they have NO “voting” influence to effect change….or did they give just enough to get messengers? If so, that would be even more dastardly and cowardly, IMO.
As they’ve given during part of this year, it probably won’t affect the 2017 Annual Meeting, but if they do continue and indeed stop all CP giving, then they would not be allowed any messengers at the 2018 convention. More timely might be the question of whether church members who are trustees of SBC entities should resign. If I’m not mistaken I remember Prestonwood showing up in several places in nominating committee reports.
Also, I am sure Prestonwood has numerous members on various trustee boards and such….if they are no longer cooperating by withholding CP funds – do these trustees/committee people need to resign?
Not impugning or saying they should – I am really not sure.
I was going to ask about the same question in that would they still be considered Southern Baptist? I hope this tactic is not given in to. It’s tantamount to the Martin Luther era selling of indulgences or blackmail. It’s just not something that should be paid attention to in the face of right or wrong.
Apparently this 7 month old article is already out of date. I guess Prestonwood and Jack Graham “lost the vision”
https://conventionalfutures.com/2016/06/03/vision-funds-mission-the-great-commission-and-the-cooperative-program/
Wow.
“I believe that with all my heart. It’s why I continue to participate in the Southern Baptist Convention. Do we have our issues? Sure. (Come to the summer business meeting and you’ll see some of them!) But what brings us together and keeps us united is much stronger than what could ever divide us: our passion to see the gospel go to the ends of the earth. This has been our rallying cry from the beginning, and if we are to have a future as a convention, we must continue to rally around the task Jesus left us. Everything else much come second.
“So how do we keep the Great Commission primary? And how can we make people see the importance of funding that mission? In a word, vision. As my pastor, Dr. Jack Graham, often says, ‘Vision funds mission.‘”
yep. if control can be gained through money, then its not by definition, “cooperative.” It is Oligarchical? is that the right word?
This whole discussion saddens me apparently politics, differances, and control with the SBC is more important than the souls of the lost. Broken over this!
This is not an isolated situation. I know of a large church in Georgia that did this a few years ago, and for the same reason. Another large church in South Carolina reduced their giving from 8% to 3% recently as a form of protest. Prestonwood is certainly not the first, nor will they be the last to use their dollars as a way of expressing their priorities and their desired vision for the future of the SBC. I love Prestonwood. I was saved and baptized there back in 1982.
I realize some may view this as something of a “nuclear” option, but frankly, when the concerns of our churches are ignored by leaders who simply say, “Show unity, be sweet, there are no problems here, don’t make trouble, just keep sending us your money and we’ll take care of the rest,” at some point, you feel like the organization is not even really yours any more, but is going off in directions of which you do not approve, and there’s simply nothing you can do about it, because no one is listening. Sometimes, money is the only language anyone understands.
My church is certainly not at this place yet. We give 9% through CP and 2% through our local association. Do I have concerns about the SBC? You know that I do.
One item worth mentioning again is that a few years ago, FBC Jacksonville, Florida, under the leadership of David Uth, COMPLETELY WITHHELD their Cooperative Program donations and REDIRECTED them into other missions channels. By way of contrast, Prestonwood is merely ESCROWING the funds. Thus, I believe they will still remain available for the support of the Great Commission, and possibly even through the Cooperative Program itself, but the impact of their action is merely a DELAY and not a REMOVAL of funds from the CP pipeline.
By the way, for those of you concerned that Prestonwood will no longer have representation at the SBC, consider the following provision for satisfying SBC membership found in the SBC Constitution: “(3) Has made undesignated, financial contribution(s) through the Cooperative Program, and/or through the Convention’s Executive Committee for Convention causes, and/or to any Convention entity during the fiscal year preceding.”
If you read further, you discover that Prestonwood can preserve her full contingent of TWELVE messengers merely by paying $60,000 TO ANY CONVENTION ENTITY during the fiscal year preceding. Presumably, they could give that amount to Guidestone’s Mission Dignity Fund or to Southwestern’s new Preaching School or directly to some other entity.
CORRECTION
I wrote: “Presumably, they could give that amount to Guidestone’s Mission Dignity Fund or to Southwestern’s new Preaching School or directly to some other entity.” Upon review, while the donations CAN be made directly to an entity, they CANNOT be DESIGNATED to any specific fund.
“at some point, you feel like the organization is not even really yours any more, but is going off in directions of which you do not approve, and there’s simply nothing you can do about it, because no one is listening.”
this is how small churches without money feel all the time….but they trust the process that is agreed upon by all, the democratic process, a.k.a. cooperative.
So turn your scrutiny to the leadership and say, “Why will you only pay attention when your funding is threatened? Why won’t you listen to godly small church members and pastors who disagree with you? Why won’t you break the cycle of appointing trustee boards to all of the agencies that are only there to rubber stamp the central planners’ agenda?” The pastors who are withholding funds are doing so because the leadership to whom they are addressing their protest have built a culture in the convention in which this is the only effective means, then they turn and call it ungodly and destructive. It is hypocrisy. It is tyrannical.
John S, that’s nonsense. Change is affected through the trustees, who are appointed by the committee on nominations, who are appointed by the committee on committees, who are appointed by the SBC President. The process is open and available to anyone who cares to get involved.
The fact is (as demonstrated at last year’s convention during the resolution against the CF and the ERLC Q&A time, for example) that Moore and SBC leadership actually are in sync with the majority of SBC messengers.
Yes, there are godly small church pastors and members who disagree with some decisions of SBC leadership, but there are plenty of us who agree with those same decisions. The idea that its the big wigs against all us little guys doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
And…this right here is what is going to put us on the road to a split. Maybe it’s necessary. The loose bonds of cooperation for the sake of gospel mission for which the convention was created have mutated into a bloated central hierarchy and bureaucracy that does more to promote the kind of politics you are decrying than it does to support mission anyway.
And to be honest, you come across like you’re just building your own profile and vying for your place in the empire. And if the side of power and establishment prevails, you’ll probably get it eventually. Someone will notice your loyalty. Then you can have a real bully pulpit of your very own.
John S. do you actually go to the Convention or know how the process works? Your remarks make broad assumptions that are groundless. Brent is absolutely right that Moore is in step with the overwhelming majority opinion of the Convention. As for your ad hominem against Brent, you are again completely off the mark.
Todd – yes I understand the process. And, no ad hominem, just an observation.
Forgot to add– “overwhelming majority of opinions” of the members versus the messengers at a given annual meeting are totally different things. Convention locations GREATLY affect attendance, among other things. But if this heats up there is a good chance it will pick up in order to demonstrate that the “majority opinion” is actually not with Moore.
Rick said, “I realize some may view this as something of a “nuclear” option, but frankly, when the concerns of our churches are ignored by leaders who simply say, “Show unity, be sweet, there are no problems here, don’t make trouble, just keep sending us your money and we’ll take care of the rest,” at some point, you feel like the organization is not even really yours any more, but is going off in directions of which you do not approve, and there’s simply nothing you can do about it, because no one is listening. Sometimes, money is the only language anyone understands.”
Brent: Yes, it is viewed as a nuclear option—precisely because money was never intended as an influence mechanism. There are ways and channels to get the organization to change direction. They involve a lot of people agreeing with you and making your issue a priority—and that over a period of years. Some have a hard time getting a large group of people either agreeing or caring enough about their particular concerns to make changes through the nominations and trustee system. If someone chooses to work around the system through the shortcut of funding threats, they shouldn’t be surprised when people criticize those decisions as out of bounds.
Thank you, Brent. That’s just what this reeks of and it is so very disheartening. That some resort to shortcuts and ad hominems. It’s arrogance, that dreadful heart condition that plagues every one of us. After failing to gain traction with argument and dialogue, they double down and resort to powerplays rather than consider the possibility that they are wrong. If “influential” members of their congregations used these tactics they would never justify such means.
“Brent: Yes, it is viewed as a nuclear option—precisely because money was never intended as an influence mechanism. There are ways and channels to get the organization to change direction. They involve a lot of people agreeing with you and making your issue a priority—and that over a period of years. Some have a hard time getting a large group of people either agreeing or caring enough about their particular concerns to make changes through the nominations and trustee system. If someone chooses to work around the system through the shortcut of funding threats, they shouldn’t be surprised when people criticize those decisions as out of bounds.”
Jon: For years many large SBC churches gave very little pecentage of their undesignated receipts while the SBC pulpit was begging for a minimum of 10% from each church. Many pastors of these same churches were convention leaders. Now I agree with A Rogers when he said dollars pay bills, percentages don’t but I also believe that the issue is not and never should be bills but the GC. Wasn’t it the GC arguement that was used to open different channels of giving not through the CP and those dollars counted in SBC support. I disagreed with the argument, inthat, the real reason (IMPO) was to be able to say these non percenage CP supporters were just as much SBC as those small churches struggling are who continue to give 10%.
The dismantling of the CP began with that decision (IMPO).
I do not think Moore is supported as much as those who discuss it want to make us believe.
Should PW escrow their funds? It is not for me to say. Will we support them if they use those funds to do the GC a different way and give to the SBC causes a minimum amount to still retain a voice? Or will the powers to be work to remove any PW influence in the SBC.
I remember serving on the ConC and was specifilly instructed to select only inerrantists to be brought before he convention for the ConN. Though I agreed we needed and wanted only inerrantists – there was a principle of play the game our way or don’t ever think about being recognized as someone worthy of SBC importance.
A point of clarification: the church Bro Patrick references as where David Uth is pastor is FBC, Orlando, FL, not FBC, Jacksonville, FL.
So sorry, Dr. Vines. I have been too quick on the keyboard today. Thank you for that needed and helpful correction.
I dont see this as a threat to thee CP. Pre-CR, CR, post-CR churches have done this. Let’s see what happens.
Too many heads exploding too soon here.
So because they disagree with a legal brief supporting religious liberty and some comments by Dr. Moore about the wisdom of supporting Donald Trump; Prestonwood (and others) are going to withhold hundreds of thousands of dollars that go to support missions, seminaries, and a host of dedicated employees at SBC entities? What a sad, shameful, and hurtful thing to do. My respect for Dr. Graham and his church (and those like them) is shattered. I expected better of them.
Should be David Uth. Auto spell, I guess. Excuse.
Thanks for your comment, Dr. Vines. I updated the original comment with the correction.
I’ve seen the “others have done it too” defense several times now. It’s beginning to seem like this is a coordinated response. And the fact that no one has posted any details or links to the FBC Orlando situation (a quick internet search yielded no results) leads me to the initial inference that the situation is not comparable. EVEN IF IT IS, just because someone else made a bad decision in the past doesn’t mitigate the damage this one does.
Back in the day, Paul Pressler wrote a book entitled A Hill on Which to Die, which made a point that convinced many back then, and that continues to convince many of us today, that there are certain issues—such as biblical inerrancy—which, in spite of the risk and potential hurt involved, are truly hills on which to die when it comes to continued denominational cooperation vs. division/non-support. For many of us, the BF&M marks the parameters for Southern Baptist hills on which to die (though on the specific issue of closed communion as enunciated in the BF&M, it is doubtful that a majority would consider it to be such a hill). But I digress.
Hills on which to die, following the underlying logic implied in the title of Pressler’s book, should be few and far between. It seems to me a new “hill on which to die” is being proposed here: Can Baptists who disagree on the approach of Russell Moore’s ERLC continue to wholeheartedly cooperate on the specific projects that join us together as Southern Baptists? It appears that among those who affirm the BF&M, and the core values of the Conservative Resurgence, there is quite a diversity of opinion with respect to this new “hill.” It appears to me that those who favor the approach of the ERLC taken under Richard Land have already had their turn. Moore, though sharing many—indeed a large majority—of the views of Land on key issues of interest to Southern Baptists, takes a different tack on several other issues. It would appear that on these issues a major portion of today’s Southern Baptists favor the perspective of Moore, another portion favor the perspective of Land, and still another portion favor doing away with the ERLC altogether.
The big question here, as I see it, is, what is the basis of our cooperation? Some of us were willing to cooperate with an SBC that supported the ERLC of Land, though not thrilled about it, and are even more happy to cooperate with an SBC that supports the ERLC of Moore. Apparently some are only willing to cooperate with an SBC that supports the ERLC of Land. If that is the case, so be it. No one is forcing anyone to cooperate. But it should also be clear that it is patently unfair to expect those who cooperated with the ERLC of Land but prefer something more along the line of the ERLC of Moore to give in to the demands of those who will only accept the ERLC of Land. And all of us need to seriously think and pray in the meantime about whether this issue is truly “a hill on which to die,” and if so, what is the biblical basis for believing that it is.
David, excellent comment. Thank you. Again, I agree. It appears that the hill on which to die for some is politics and whether or not one affirms your support of Trump for president. That is a very sad situation, if so.
David – I am going to go off subject for a moment and I hope what I share isn’t offensive. Though no names are mentioned in what I posted on my FB page a few days ago, it deals with your father.
What do you get when???
You take a deceased Tennessee Preacher‘s sermon illustration…
Shared by a Liberty University Instructional Mentor / Professor living in Wyoming…
Posted to his team of adjunct Instructors, through Virginia to around the globe…
Where one of the team who Pastors in Dubai shares that deceased Pastor’s illustration on his FB page…
Where a member of this Pastor’s church reads it and is broken…
Who Skypes her nephew in the Philippines to share the gospel…
What do you get?
Another name added to the book of life.
You never know.
I hope you appreciate this as the intent is to be thankful to your dad for impacting lives he never knew he would, this long after he went home.
Thanks, Jon. I never ceased to be blessed hearing accounts of how God used my dad and his ministry in the lives of others.
David, perhaps you know the answer to this and I would really be interested in knowing. I don’t remember, although it certainly could have happened, that Land actually castigated Southern Baptists for a particular viewpoint with the same vitriol that Moore has on those who supported Trump. Perhaps, Land wasn’t as connected to social media as Moore is, but the reality is, at least in my opinion, that this is the big difference between Land and Moore.
I have never seen Russell Moore castigate anyone with vitriol.
Well, that’s probably why you and others can’t understand why this is still coming up. While I disagree with Graham on the stance he’s taking, until people realize Moore initiated much of this it probably won’t go away.
One man’s castigating with vitriol is another man’s speaking the truth in love. I guess it all depends on whose toes are getting stepped on.
David,
I agree.
But I do think all sides in this one can get along if the heat were turned down just a bit.
Well, this fire storm will be a blessing to my weekend and certainly no distraction whatsoever.
Brent, thanks for this needed response to the news reported from Louisiana out of Texas. (Couldn’t anyone from Texas reported this?).
The bottom line here…& in many other discussions here and on Facebook regarding this issue seems to be the valuation of political access versus prophetic influence.
I’ll choose the latter every day and twice on Sunday.
Okay, I’m going out with my wife in a bit. Ya’ll play nice. Someone make sure Tarheel behaves.
“We don’t have a convention where big money buys a big voice. But that’s exactly how we’re being treated right now.”
Actually, we do. And that’s part of the problem.
The trustee strategy that took the convention away from moderates has been used to build a bureaucracy of yes-men and insulate the central planners. It was only a matter of time before churches who have been increasingly disenfranchised pushed back.
Money talks. Perhaps this is not the ideal way to make your point, but I don’t blame them for doing it, because I think it is a bigger issue is this: they knew it was the only way they would be heard. Just look at the way Moore responds to his critics. If you want to start pointing the fingers of who is being destructive and divisive, it starts with Moore.
Tons of small church members and pastors have been screaming about these same issues for months or even years and have been ignored, because the leadership thinks they are all so over-sold on CP giving that its not very risky to totally ignore and insult them. Fortunately the ignoring and insulting reached someone with enough of a presence to get noticed.
You’re right that it is all about money, but you’re wrong about who made it that way.
John S,
What are small church pastors so upset about? I pastored a medium sized church in the South. In Alabama. Most people and pastors I know are not upset with Dr. Moore or the ERLC.
Maybe the pastors you know aren’t upset, but many pastors I know are, and the number is growing.
John S, Again your comment shows an ignorance of the trustee system or the history of how trustees have operated. Your comments are unfounded.
John, serving as a trustee in the past at NOBTS and NAMB, I understand how the trustee system works and the history of the trustee system. Prior to the Conservative Resurgence, the trustees were “fans” and “rubber stamps” for the leadership of the entities. From what I have read and heard, it appears that’s what the trustees are at the ERLC.
Jesse – Of course they are.
Tons John S. I hardly call SBCToday tons of voices. And blackmail is not the way to get your voice heard in a good way.
I should use the word extortion instead of blackmail. Both are unsavory ways to get your “voice heard.”
Debbie I don’t even read SBC Today so yeah….
Moor responds to his critics by pointing them to the scriptural principles he bases his decision making on. His critics are frustrated because they have no Biblical ground to stand on so they have to turn to criticizing “how” he says things rather than what he says. Basically attempting to marginalize the message by attacking the man.
The problem of course is that the critics of Russell Moore have been just as, or more, vicious in their critiques. Not to mention more naked in their ambitions. Robert Jeffress calls those who would not vote for the President on moral grounds “namby pamby, panty waists.” Jack Graham bemoans More because his criticisms will deny him “access” to the White House. Well it seems to me that Graham and Jeffress along with Floyd and Falwell and the rest aren’t having any influence on the President. He still doesn’t think he has anything to repent of. He still tells out and out lies and claims they are true. He is still attacking people who he doesn’t like. And now the President’s “spiritual advisors” are behaving the same way.
Who exactly is influencing whom?
“Do not be misled, Bad company corrupts good character…” 1 Corinthians 15:33
“Who exactly is influencing whom?
“Do not be misled, Bad company corrupts good character…” 1 Corinthians 15:33”
Great, great question and scripture reference!
I think the answer is obvious…..see Randall’s comment above.
Randall’s comment is Below actually… lol
absonjourney, could you please supply the Scriptural justification? I have been asking for one and sadly must have missed it. I would greatly appreciate a Scriptural justification for the brief, the election statement, ignoring Eric Walsh and the Johnson Amendment for starters.
Thank you very much.
*vigorous applause* for absonjourney.
The problem with Moore’s comments about Trump is they were right, and sadly, so were his comments about Trump’s most vigorous supporters. Unfortunately too many people who held their nose and voted for Trump took Moore’s comments personally when they never should have.
Now I have my own problem with people who held their nose and voted for Trump. Those same people could have elected a reasonable candidate if they hadn’t played politics for power. I think those people deserve a measure of shame, but that’s just me. It doesn’t make them bad people.
Thoughtful article.
I think Prestwood has proven the point that, for some, Trump trumps mission and gospel cooperation.
I would have some understanding if we were talking about a doctrinal issue or a question of mission priority. No, we are talking about politics. We are talking about being offended by Russ Moore.
I’ve been offended by fundamentalists but I’m still leading our church to give. I’ve been offended by Calvinists and non- Calvinists, but we are still giving. I’ve been suspect of this or that but I’ve not come to the issue that would stop me from supporting cooperative missions. It may come- but Lord forbid it be over partisan politics or my own sensitivity to what someone else says.
Donald Trump is a sad hill to die on. He is an even sadder reason to suspend cooperative giving.
Yet, they are autonomous. And I support that. So they can do whatever they want to do. I pray that their tribe does not increase.
Like.
Double like!
Triple like
And more “Like”
Sorry, anything beyond ‘triple’ just seems silly.
“Donald Trump is a sad hill to die on. He is an even sadder reason to suspend cooperative giving”
– Beautiful comment.
“Donald Trump is a sad hill to die on. He is an even sadder reason to suspend cooperative giving.”
I heartily agree with this statement, though Moore should also bear a responsibility as an Entity Head to not incite with rhetoric many find offensive on an issue that should be a hill NOT to die on.
I realize this is the rub that we disagree on. I would say that Graham is just as wrong as I believe Moore to have been wrong on his vitriolic tweets and op eds.
I disagree.
It could reasonably be argued that Moore was trying to combat the effort of some to “unequally yoke” Southern Baptists and more broadly evangelicals to Donald Trump….it is clear that great number of big names (including Graham, BTW) were publicly trying to do just that.
I guess that whole unequally yoked thing can be applied lots of ways – eh??
Tarheel, if you read my comment I said this is the rub we disagree on. I hear your argument, I’m not sure you hear mine. Both Graham and Moore have been too vitriolic in their statements. Again, this is my opinion, but to let Moore completely off the hook and only act as if Graham is doing something “wrong” is why we are even discussing this to begin with.
Question: Do you think Moore bears any responsibility for implying that SBC’ers were “out of their minds” for backing Trump.
Nate, I will answer that question. I think Moore does bear the responsibility of his words saying SBCers were “out of their minds” for supporting Trump. And if he knew what the results would be, he would do it again. That’s what you have to do when you are a man who cares about the Gospel and you see the people who you love, who God has called you to help lead, chasing after an idol.
The idol is political power. Trump promised its return after some felt it was lost under President Obama. Those who felt that way were willing to sacrifice anything- their names, their reputations, the Gospel itself- to attain it. For the sake of this idol, they excused racism, xenophobia, sexual assault, adultery, serial philandering, and profiting from gambling and the exploitation of women. They made excuses. They covered things up. They accused opponents of the idol of not being true believers. All to please the idol.
So does Dr. Moore have to own his words. You bet. He was one of very few voices crying out for the madness to stop. He should own them because they were words of righteous truth rising up to dispute a lie being sold to people by the very men and women who were supposed to guide them away from idolatry. Their pastors and spiritual leaders.
Dr. Moore was our Jeremiah. Our Isaiah. Our Ezekiel. And like most prophets the powers that be now want to run him out of town or silence him.
Personally, I pray he keeps speaking truth to power. People are watching and listening.
The president and his surrogates demonstrate, day after day, that Moore’s fears and warnings were not unfounded.
This is exactly why this will continue, because you, Bill and others think Hillary would have been better. Of course, you’ll never admit that but she was the only other person who would have been elected. No 3rd party was going to win; you know this but contend otherwise. So we don’t know where this administration will take us, but everyone knew where Hillary would take us.
Moore does own his words, as does Graham. Neither is being helpful to uniting the SBC
Nate: Everyone seems to own his own words except the President. He lies to our faces practically every he speaks. But his supporters never bat an eye. It’s all “blame the media”. Well, the media did not make him lie about his electoral college margin just a couple days ago. The media does not make him repeatedly lie about voter fraud. Even people at Fox News are shaking their heads. I was and am an unashamed never Trumper, but I honestly see more promise in him than I did before the election. But he is his own worst enemy. He is so obsessed about crowd size and poll ratings and vote margins that he can’t seem to govern. We deserve better, I wish we would demand better.
On the contrary, I would contend that many pro-Trumpers have failed to truly comprehend the thinking of many never-Trump, never-Hillary, folks all along. You don’t understand how a failure to support Trump does not constitute for us a de facto support of Hillary.
The bottom line, as I see it, is the degree of hope one places in the electoral system and government to bring about what is right and true in the world. I do not have a high degree of hope in politics or any politician to accomplish anything of lasting worth in the world. It is much more important to me, in the grand scheme of things, to be faithful in my vote, even if my candidate has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, to trust in God for the long run, and to let the chips fall where they may.
My hopes are not pinned on a reinvigorated Christian America. My hopes are pinned on the Second Coming of Christ. In the meantime, I participate in the political process as an act of faithfulness and as an act of service to my neighbors, demonstrating by the things I vote for and support what I believe to most closely match the ethics of the Kingdom of God—even if it only matches what 1% or less of the general public favor.
I think the reason that this way of thinking may be interpreted by some as castigating others with vitriol is that it appears super-spiritual and judgmental of those who take a more pragmatic, short-term approach on the relationship of the church and culture, that prizes compromise for the expediency of gaining votes and winning elections. It is not my intention to castigate or show vitriol to anyone. I wish others could see my heart in this. But it may well be that the basic difference in approaches is so radical that it cannot help but come across as judgmental to those who think differently. It is indeed counter-intuitive for those who have thought along the lines of the Moral Majority for so long.
He’s holding a campaign rally in Florida for crying out loud and he’s already won the election! He is addicted to adulation. At a campaign rally, no one is there to disagree with him, or oppose him, or fact check him. How long before we hear about the awesome crowd he drew? He’s finding being president is a lot less fun than running for president.
My hope is not in a reinvigorated America. However, I do care about the country I live in. The absurd notion that anyone other than Trump or Clinton was going to win is well…
I have no problem with those supporting Moore to the extent they don’t act as if nobody can speak against him. If you feel as if this doesn’t apply to you, great.
David, I legitimately asked you to give me your thoughts as to why Moore is taking more heat than Land did with SBC’ers. Now, it appears pretty clear. Everybody thinks he is incapable of putting his foot in his mouth. Good to know we have someone infallible leading an Entity.
No, Nate.
His motives were pure. He made some mistakes in presentation, he has acknowledged it….he’s apologized for his rhetoric in as much as it was hurtful.
No one is saying he’s infallible – we are just saying it’s Time to move on.
For those of you who incorrectly perceive that the only concerns people have with Russell Moore have to do with Donald Trump, let me invite you to read either the essays, or at least the abstracts, from the THIRTY editorials that have been written in opposition to Moore’s leadership over the past four years.
I believe they will provide you with a broader understanding of the principled opposition to his ministry philosophy and leadership style.
[link removed by editor]
But, all those come “editorials” from the same corners of thought (mostly “trad” 316gang types, and a few really really strange bedfellows) that have disliked him and set themselves against him from day one…actually before day one.
It’s been a snowball that you hope will gain traction….
also, not coincidentally in my view the vast majority of those were written recently like within the last year and half…now what does that coincide with? Hmmm….let me think? The movement that starts with a T…and is often used in conjunction with a train….
Like I have sald before – this is a 4-legged chair creating a “perfect storm” for RIck 316Gang “war” …..
Anti-Calvinism
Meets
Muslim fear-mongering
Meets
Republican politics at all costs
Meets
Pro Trump
I still am waiting on an answer to the question that has been asked concerning whether or not there was any coordination between COnnect316 in any way with Haun and Graham (or Staff) prior to their actions and public press conferences??? Its also strange that all this coincides with Gaines press conference where he ticked off all the Gang316 talking points.
Yes Rick we know, no little needle has gone unturned by you and the SBCToday group.
BWAHAHAHA
Rick come on brother. A good third of those are from P&P. You consider them a credible source after all they did to your buddy Ergun?
Well, at least they were right about Ergun…lol
Tarheel,
I am more than happy to put you out of your suspense. I started to do so earlier by simply responding, “Who’s the conspiracy theorist now?”
1. DEAN HAUN RESIGNATION
I did not speak to Dean Haun, at all, prior to his IMB resignation. (I did reach out to him afterward, knowing that he made a difficult personal decision as a matter of conscience, and that he would be feeling some heat for it. I thanked him for his courage and for standing by his principles. I sincerely respect people who are willing to do so, even when they know it will elicit some personal attacks. He responded with the kind acknowledgement of my gratitude.)
2. JACK GRAHAM ESCROWING CP GIFTS
I did not speak to Jack Graham, at all, prior to the decision at Prestonwood to escrow CP donations. (I am, however, seeking to communicate with him, by means of a mutual friend, regarding an unrelated matter. Should we happen to converse, I do plan to express my appreciation for his courage, and that of the church family in which I was born again, in exercising Christian stewardship such that the principles they hold dear are exalted, in just the same manner that I expressed appreciation to Dean Haun.)
3. STEVE GAINES’ RECENT PUBLIC REMARKS
I did happen to speak to Steve Gaines the day before his recent public comments were published. However, we did not discuss Moore’s job security, the mosque issue, the Dean Haun resignation, or the escrow situation at Prestonwood. We spoke for just a few minutes about an upcoming meeting focused on evangelism.
4. PAIGE PATTERSON AND MY CHAPEL MESSAGE
While you did not speculate on this matter, others have suggested that Dr. Patterson and I must have talked about my sermon topic prior to that Tuesday morning. Sorry to disappoint them, but he did not ask about my topic until we met for prayer just a few minutes before the service, when I explained that I would be preaching on “So Great a Salvation” from Hebrews 2:1-3, highlighting the importance of the story, study and significance of salvation doctrine, of course from the perspective of a Soteriological Traditionalist.
Guys, this is much bigger than sbctoday.com. Yes, we cover the stories, but we are not driving this, as many here have suggested. You are simply giving us too much credit. And there is no Connect 316 or SBC Today conspiracy to do anything but try to make the SBC a better place by balancing the current regime of leaders with those of use on the other side of the theological aisle who also have some ideas for making the SBC a better place.
Unfortunately, I must now say a word about the SBC Today post “Russell Moore’s ERLC—A Compendium of Concern.” As several of you have pointed out, the inclusion of SIX articles by Pulpit and Pen has been somewhat controversial now, on three different levels. Although one brother estimated that 33% of the articles were by P&P, the truth of the matter is that only 20% (six out of thirty) are theirs.
1. UPSETTING TRADITIONALISTS
I heard from one or two Traditionalists who, like yours truly, remain profoundly grieved whenever we think of the memory of Braxton Caner, which we do often, and his promising life, and how he left us too soon. I care deeply about the Caners, and my inclusion of articles from a site that caused them so much pain was certainly not directed at them, so as to cause them even more. Rather, the purpose of the project was a very specific one—to list EVERY SINGLE editorial essay explaining the concerns that Southern Baptists have expressed with Russell Moore’s ERLC. As it turns out, Pulpit and Pen happen to have written SIX such articles. Therefore, they were included. (On a side note, although the pain that I have personally experienced as a result of Pulpit and Pen’s articles critical of me personally, and of Connect 316 and SBC Today generally, cannot possibly compare to the tragedy experienced by the Caners, I have nevertheless suffered deeply and personally as a result of P&P. In including their articles, it was also necessary for me to overlook the injuries they brought about in my own life.
2. UPSETTING PULPIT AND PEN
The brief disclaimer I placed on their first article, and referenced on the other five, expressed my concerns about some of their tactics and approaches. When you criticize absolutely everything and everyone, it minimizes the impact of your message. I feel they cross the line on a regular basis, and I plainly said so. They overreach at times, use guilt by association tactics at times, and simply overstate the case at times. Having said that, I complimented their writing, editing and research. And, frankly, SOMETIMES, they write articles with which I can actually agree. Needless to say, they took umbrage at the disclaimer. I told them if they are going to dish it out and go after absolutely everybody else, they are going to have to live with the reputation that they have earned as that kind of a website.
UPSETTING A FEW ON VOICES
I guess we can now add a few of you, right here, to the list of those concerned about P&P’s inclusion in the Compendium. All I can say is, “Welcome to the club, and thank you for expressing your concerns.” Seldom do I manage to upset EVERYBODY on all sides of an issue SIMULTANEOUSLY, but this is apparently one of those occasions. The only principle I have to fall back upon, in all three cases, FOUR cases if you count how upset I am with myself due to P&P’s mistreatment of me in the past, is that the compendium project abstracting THIRTY articles, from a wide variety of websites, began with a promise to be as comprehensive as possible in including EVERY essay dealing with the subject matter. As best I could, I fulfilled that promise, even though I was personally conflicted by the Pulpit and Pen situation, for all of the reasons I have listed.
Rick,
Ok. So 20% are P&P and the other 80% are from your little bandwagon – it’s hardly evidence of being as exhaustive as you claim. The P&P in your words “criticizes absolutely everyone” and SBCToday and CONNECT316 criticize absolutely everyone in anyway connected with Calvinist thought.
I’m glad to hear from you that Rev. Haun
Nor Dr. Graham nor any of their staff have been in any way consulting or communicating with you/Connect316 regarding these issues. Other than your self professed complimentary comments after the fact.
(I don’t want to overstate what you’ve said – is that what you’re saying? )
Hey, classic linkbait. Hide a url under a bit.ly so no one can see what site they are going to visit, and it’s not even Twitter. Just over here shaking my head.
My like trumps other likes #swidt
I believe that Jack Graham and Prestonwood Baptist Church have taken the wrong path in this matter. A better way would be to meet with the Texas trustee on the board of the ELRC and express displeasure. Beyond that, a pastor of Dr. Graham’s standing could surely secure an appointment with the chairman of the ELRC board of trustees. If that tactic fails, then Dr. Graham could introduce a motion at the annual meeting of his state convention. A motion or resolution from a big convention like Texas would carry a lot of weight with the trustees of the ERLC and the Executive Committee of the SBC. Last, he could introduce a motion or resolution at the annual meeting of the SBC. In summary, I’m saying let our Southern Baptist system work. That is better than withholding funding from thousands of missionaries who have no part in this political brouhaha.
Mark, I would be glad to see steps like you’ve mentioned rather than what we’re seeing in this instance. Thanks for pointing out there are many other options than pulling funding.
Let’s see here. A morally bankrupt president with a long history of using his checkbook to get his way…defended by a SB church using their checkbook to get their way…because said SB church is upset with a SB employee who pointed out the moral bankruptcy of said president.
And all of this applauded by the Executive Director of Connect 3:16.
The irony is palpable.
I keep telling Dave we need to get a way to like or upvote comments around here. Cause this ^^^ is another great one!
Five-star comment.
Two thumbs up.
= no more mics to drop.
Beautiful.
Randall,
Truth = mic drop!
Hopefully, I am wrong, but I see others doing the same.
Truly sad
And those who are not Christ Followers will continue to ask why they would want to when we act no different.
I guess following Jesus and all He commands (Matthew 28) is only followed when convenient.
Come on my SBC brothers let’s die to ourselves and reach our neighbors and the nation’s with the Gospel.
Let’s not forget we are not called to act like Democrats and Republicans we are called to act like Jesus Christ!
Dallas 2018
What has a lot of small church people upset is the lack of respect given them by the convention… when Ed Stetzer and some of his SBC friends tell us we need to reach across the aisle and make Hillary Clinton supporters “feel” welcome and help them in their understanding of defeat in the Presidential election almost to the point of apologizing for Trump winning irritated several SBC members. When challenged on his website about this statement you get a response of I’m too holy to discuss your oponion… when in fact nothing was said about reaching out to those who “felt” disenfranchised under the previous administration…. it shows hypocrisy… Moore’s comments as well in reference to helping build mosques in America… and then the video showing his smugness when asked from the floor about his statement also irritated many SBC members… I would like to see the numbers in regards to Pastors of church’s whose membership is between 75 – 150 that are elected to the President of their state’s conventions and the last one elected to be President of our National Convention..when reading the Pastors accomplishments $$$ is the number one factor.. how much was given to cooperative program and to Lottie and Annie… So if the $$ does not matter and it’s Prestonwood’s attitude that needs to change …. I’m looking forward to seeing who will be nominated to President of the convention this year along with the Presidency’s of our states conventions and associations…. I see a lot of timber in people’s eyes…. even mine as well…
Like
I can assure you what Russell Moore says doesn’t reflect the values and beliefs of the majority of churches in the SBC, which is made up of small churches. I believe Dr. Steve Gaines will be elected for a 2nd term in Phoenix, and a new president will be elected in 2018.
“I can assure you what Russell Moore says doesn’t reflect the values and beliefs of the majority of churches in the SBC…”
Yet on the two issues raised by the Prestonwood article Russell Moore reflected *precisely* the values and beliefs of the SBC as expressed in resolutions passed by overwhelming majorities of Convention messengers.
The churches are not necessarily disagreeing with the resolutions. It’s the application where churches disagree. Most can unite on the principles passed, not not how the leadership is fleshing it out in their application. That doesn’t give a green light to Moore. At my church, a number of members disagree and are afraid to speak out because our Pastor has been very vocal and is very connected in the SBC and the local seminary. That doesn’t translate into support or agreement.
Tiffany Long: How do they or you think it is applied wrong. The resolution is pretty clear in its intent.
It is a resolution on the moral integrity of public officials. That would include the office of President. There can be no misapplication.
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/773/resolution-on-moral-character-of-public-officials
Which is comprised of both small and large churches.
If one will look back over the last several years to blogs and Southern Baptist Press stories for example, people and this included ministers were complaining that there weren’t enough sermons being preached on sin. That the church was being womanized and not manly. We read this a lot.
Now Russell Moore comes along and despite opposition preaches against sin and moral failings. Not just once but through out Trump’s life and career(remember he is also a businessman who went for the throat and it didn’t matter if the throat belonged to a rich or poor person. See why he ticked off Britain for example) and there is strong opposition to the point of pulling a Donald Trump. “Agree with me or you will pay the price.” And this among Christians, not so much among those without Christ. But born again, bought with Christ’s blood, Christians.
Careful, Mr. Cofield. Exposing hyperbolic intellectual dishonesty is liable to attract criticism.
As OS Hawkins said, Dr. Graham’s decision to escrow funds to CP has nothing to do with Trump. Let it go.
My question is, what Pastor on here would not face the same recourse from his members if:
1.) You told the older members of your church that they needed to step down from their positions of serving and witnessing for Christ due to “budget reasons.” They could still attend church, but they needed to let someone else use their gifts in that position you have faithfully been committed to for 20, 30, even 40 years- and are still seeing the fruit of that ministry?
2.) You made a major decision- without any accountability from church leadership- that would affect the whole congregation…and only come forward about it when it eventually became public?
3.) You publicly berated and embarrassed a member, in good standing, during a business meeting for holding to a position that was in opposition to yours, the “Pastor”, …and then did not allow them to respond to your response?
There are probably other issues that could be stated but that would start WWIII on here, so I will refrain.
I am not trying to start a war of words. I am not trying to offend anyone. I don’t want to be castigated 🙂 Just some observations that I would like to see responses too.
I love everyone on here who posts. Great site. Always great discussion.
Stuart
1.) You told the older members of your church that they needed to step down from their positions of serving and witnessing for Christ due to “budget reasons.” They could still attend church, but they needed to let someone else use their gifts in that position you have faithfully been committed to for 20, 30, even 40 years- and are still seeing the fruit of that ministry?
______
If the budget reasons are real and profound and the leadership had been in discussions and are in agreement that such a coursecorrection had to happen to sustain long term (and even short term) existence then it would be be painful but necessary to be done in love.
Such is exactly what happened with Dr. Platt and the IMB.
_______________________________
2.) You made a major decision- without any accountability from church leadership- that would affect the whole congregation…and only come forward about it when it eventually became public?
_____________
You are assuming this is what happened and also assuming nefarious intent.
If it happened just as you said, and there was nefarious or underhanded intent (or a history of such) then I would assume there would be ramifications….
However, in the case of Platt – your assumptions in your analogy are not bared out by he facts.
3.) You publicly berated and embarrassed a member, in good standing, during a business meeting for holding to a position that was in opposition to yours, the “Pastor”, …and then did not allow them to respond to your response?
Again, specific situation is being used (Moore’s statement at the convention to the questioner) – so I will answer from that perspective.
There was not a personal berating of the questioner – only the idea he was conveying….that religious liberty only matters when its us who are at issue…Dr. Moore, granted forcefully, answered the question addressing the issue and DID NOT attack the questioner.
As far as not “allowing a back and forth”….first, RM did not prohibit that – the rules do – rules that have been in place for years and were put in place by the messengers.
There have been issues with over the years that I felt strongly about and wanted to question entity heads about or see a back and forth with someone who did get to the mic, or at least not witnessed and answer from the entity head to a “planted questioner” ….like when Paige Patterson gave a third person apology (“the President apologizes”) for his intentional violation of the rules at SWBTS and the followed that up with an explanation of why the ends he desired justified the action for which he had just apologized in the third person for.
This issue by the way was ACTUALLY an issue of “yoking” with Muslims – as there was the potential of that individual, as practicing Muslim, to be able to tout a degree from a Southern Baptist Seminary…..but the Connect316 crowd defended Patterson and yet have savagely attacked Moore for demonstrably less “unequal yoking”.
Another example of the hypocrisy around this issue from Rick and the Gang.
If it had nothing to do with Trump, why is no one offended by what Dr. Moore said about Hillary Clinton or her supporters? Lots of Democrats still in the SBC who saw her as a better alternative.
First, I am not just speaking about Dr. Graham and Preston. I am speaking in broader terms. Secondly, while what Dr. Moore says may accurately repepresent the majority of those who attended the convention, I assure you what Dr. Moore says doesn’t accurately reflect the values and beliefs of the majority of Southern Baptists.
I keep hear from the same few people that “Dr. Moore says doesn’t accurately reflect the values and beliefs of the majority of Southern Baptists.” Still trying to find evidence for that claim. In fact, there are few Southern Baptists I know that would disagree with Moore.
Well (1) we can only go by those who actually show up to the Convention and vote and (2) there is no indication that the messengers that do attend are not an accurate representative sample of the Convention as a whole. The fact that many ministers you know share your opinion is not evidence that the majority of the Convention sides with you. The only way we have of measuring the intent and values of the Convention is the votes of its messengers, and Moore has consistently reflected those values.
Todd,
Yes, that’s exactly my point.
And cries about underrepresented “small” churches sound just like those people who complain about church decisions but don’t go to the business meetings. I do feel that the SBC should consider smaller cities that aren’t tourist traps like NOLA or Orlando. I’m sure that would keep hotel costs reasonable. You have to actually GO to the meetings, though, if you want your precious voice heard.
Tarheel,
Thank you for the civil response 😉
I believe we can entertain your view on the missionary action. And I am certain it was painful. Especially for those called off the field…
I believe we can agree to disagree on how Moore handled the situation at covention.
However, the situation with amicus brief needs our attention. I don’t believe I assumed anything. I outlined how it would be perceived in the local church. As to the information or any accusation, the words of Dean Haun speak for themselves.
http://baptistandreflector.org/tennessee-pastor-resigns-as-imb-trustee/
Thank you for the ecchange.
But, you have only heard Haun’s story and therefore have assumed its complete and correct.
I am not assuming what Haun has said is not true – and certainly not impugning him in any way. I am just saying that 1)we have only heard one side of that “story” 2) There since there is little to no profit at this point of full “trustee board statements”, President’s statements (beyond what Dr. Platt has already said), etc creating a I he said, he said…we are unlikely to hear from the other side.
So only having the benefit of one side of the story – – – –
I am remembering what grandpa often said:
“A board is mighty thin if it only has one side.”
I find it funny that the ones saying the trustee system is not a rubber stamp forget not too many months ago that Dr. Platt was forced to come forward with evidence that the IMB had blown through millions of dollars…all these funds were approved by the trustees (no accountability to the SBC, which is another topic entirely) that was news to the SBC. What would happen if pastors tried that in our churches?
If you really think that the Trustee board of most (if not all) SBC entities don’t simply rubber stamp the agenda put in front of them, then you are very naive. Please look at Haun stepping down from the IMB over the mosque issue. Why would a trustee and current president of a state convention just step down from the board if his voice was being heard on the trustee board? Wake up! Things stink within our denomination. Until more answers come to light we will see more people following Dr Graham and Prestonwood.
As a pastor myself I stand before the people God has called me to serve and tell them the money we send to the CP is Missions. I have seen the inner-workings of our denomination first-hand and have seen excesses like crazy. Only a fool would say that 100% of CP dollars are going to Missions….I would be surprised if 60% goes to Missions. But we will never know as we can’t see their expenses and reports (unlike in our churches). Ask Wade Burleson about our Trustee system….Enough said.
So much money in our denomination is wasted. And for the record…we can’t challenge the ERLC, NAMB, or other agencies from the floor over this because their “guys” are stacked on the floor and occupy the question time by asking predetermined questions on topics that can be rambled on and on over until time runs out. If you can’t see this then you are blind.
Jack Graham is a man of integrity and a man who loves the SBC. His heart beat is to see lost people saved. He was a part of the CR as a young pastor and fought to see us move back to the right. Why do you all throw stones at a man who has shared his heart and convictions over issues within the denomination he loves?
Some of you really need to step outside the ivory tower and into the real world for a few moments and realize that the SBC you blindly follow has major issues. Until these are adequately addressed how can we designate tithe money that we tell our flock is being used for Missions….and not the excesses that we all see (if we open our eyes). I guess we shouldn’t question the status quo tho…blindly follow…don’t stand on convictions….continue to be sheep and fall in line….or we will blast you on a blog. We will question your allegiance to a denomination you fought for…and we will bash your integrity. Very Christ-like guys.
The issue isn’t about Trump. Some may be pushing the issue in that direction, but that is not the core issue.
God is judging us. He is giving us the leaders we have always wanted. That is just my take on the issue.
I don’t agree with the strategy of Prestonwood. Jack Graham is a Man of God, a fine Pastor with a tender heart. I disagree with him here greatly on tactics.
I do not agree with Russell Moore. I could care less about his Calvinism or non-Calvinism. I care more that he speaks for Southern Baptists. His stewardship of the ERLC has not in my opinion “been his best work.” While some see him as prophetic, I see him as an elitist and an arrogant speaker who often doubles down when confronted, often blaming others for not “understanding him”, or failing to get his specific nuance of the English language right. Yet his words have rang out loud and clear through the highs and lows of the Southern Baptist hinterlands. The very issue of him being divisive seems not to discourage his supporters = for you see he is right and everybody else is wrong or stupid. There is very little middle for him. His detractors and advocates seem to be the only two sides in existence.
The actions of Prestonwood is probably just the first salvo of a much, much larger movement. Unlike blog meisters who shelter themselves in cloistered communities, there are many people representing many churches who sense much is wrong in the Baptist zion. Until the air is cleared, this issue along with others will be hanging over the convention’s head. Will we continue to argue like children, merely posting “Amen” or “I agree” under every post that tickles our fancy? Will cooler, calmer spirits prevail here? No matter where you come from, I pray that this is your perspective or will be soon. It may be said shortly of the organization we all support that this year marked the end of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Come let us reason brothers and sisters. “Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much” – James 5:16 NASB.
Rob
ERLC:
I propose a test. Let’s use the scientific method. I recommend that someone move at the convention in Phoenix that we disband the ERLC effective the end of the 2018 fiscal year with the proviso that we vote can re-instate it at the 2020 convention. My guess is that 99% of us won’t miss it.
PRESTONWOOD:
As to Dr. Graham at Prestonwood: I don’t have any comment except he should explore every other channel before using the nuclear option. Why withhold funds to the CP if the ERLC and/or the guy who is running that agency is the target? Why should the IMB, NAMB, seminaries, etc. be taking a hit if the target is the ERLC? Why not use a high powered rifle with a scope rather than blast away with scatter shot causing carnage due to collateral damage?
I may “amend and extend” my remarks if Prestonwood announces it will channel funds directly to NAMB and/or IMB via Lottie and Annie and also send funds directly to some (or all) of the six seminaries using a conduit outside of the traditional CP channels.
Roger OKC
This has been mentioned but it bears asking again.
If a wealthy church member decided to withhold his tithes and offerings because he wasn’t happy with the pastor or some other leadership decision, in order to force his will upon the congregation, would any of you here have words of encouragement or admiration for this man?
That happened where I was Bill. Though the protest then was a silent one while the conspirators worked behind the scenes rather than an open transparent rebellion. I have already stated that I disagree with the method. I do like the fact that it is open rather than a secret. This will end primarily in two ways more than likely: Moore will go or many others will. That is the reality. That is where we are.
Rob
Todd,
It is not only pastor friends I know who are dissatisfied with Dr. Moore’s leadership at the ERLC, but it is also SBC church members. Right now in my current church I am fighting off a push to escrow our CP gifts from a group of members who know what is going on in the SBC. I am encouraging them to give the established SBC process time to see what happens at the ERLC. As I speak with other pastors they are sharing with me the same reports. As more grassroots church members learn about the current leadership and direction of the ERLC you will see more church members expressing their displeasure. And what is striking to me is that those who have been loyal to CP giving are now open to escrowing or redirecting CP gifts. From my years of pastoring small and medium churches, I am confident that as more information filters out to the members in pews, the more members will be speaking out and perhaps even attending the annual meetings to let their voices be heard. We could very see Convention attendance like we had during the days of the Conservative Resurgence. I remember the battle for the Bible in those days, and I remember serving as a trustee on the boards in those days and learning what the task of trustee was and discovering that the trustees were not carrying out their duties. The majority were nothing more than “fans” and “rubber stamps”. I also remember the Entity Heads stacking the committee leadership roles with “yes” men. It appears from what I am seeing and hearing the same thing is happening on some of our SBC Trustee Boards. I know a number of church members have written a number of the trustees at the ERLC, and to date have not received any type of response. When trustees won’t communicate with church members, church members will find a way to get their attention. Baptist church members really don’t appreciate arrogance and disrespect. If there aren’t significant changes made at the ERLC, I fear we may be headed toward another battle in the SBC, or churches cutting off their CP giving and giving to other organizations and ministries. I pray I am wrong. I am Southern Baptist by conviction and by choose. I have been loyal to the SBC for over forty years. It is my fervent prayer that God will give us wisdom I how to resolve the issues that we face that could destroy our convention and our witness for Christ.
I wonder though if these members you speak of being bothered with “what’s going on” the SBC/ERLC are primarily so because people
Of “prestige” and platforms are telling them they ought to be….and the drama surrounding Trump.
I.e. Huckabee, Graham, falwell, Jeffress along certain websites and divisive groups – SBCToday, Connect316, etc…
Are you suggesting that the hoi polloi have to get their marching orders to make waves based not upon their own convictions but whatever the people of “prestige” tell them to do?
Who tells you to believe and do what you do eh?
Rob
No sir.
So it has nothing to do with Trump?
Objection. Asked and answered.
Rob
Everyone is ignoring the elphant in the room and that is that David Platt, the President of the IMB, had his church, The Church at Brook Hills, withhold funds to the Alabama Baptist Convention because he didn’t want any of the church’s funds going to support Samford University – the issue being members of Samford’s Religion Department. Also, if you look at the website for The Church at Brook Hills, you will see that they support a number of missionaries who are not IMB. It’s a little hard to tell small SBC churches to give more to Lottie Moon when your own church is giving to support other missionary endeavors and you are the President of the organizaiton.
No one has said a word about Platt’s choosing to not support the Alabama Baptist Convention. In fact, The Church at Brook Hills is not even one of the top givers to Lottie Moon even though it is a large congregation located in the most affluent area of the state of Alabama. (I have seen the listing of giving that was published by the Alabama Baptist Convention).
The reality, is that regardless of how much folks may not like it, there are always going to be churches who have a beef over theology or the actions of an entity head and will choose to withhold their giving. The bottom line is that Dr. Russell Moore should have thought about the consequences of his acitons every time he decided to opine in the Washington Post.
I wish someone would answer this question, why should Dr. Graham or Dr. Jeffries (or many others) feel obligated to pay Russell Moore’s salary after the blistering things he said about Trump supporters?
It appears Moore realized the consequences after the results of the election when he tried to write a conciliatory column. The results speak for themselves – exit polls show that Trump received more votes from evangelicals (81%) than Romney, so Moore didn’t have the influence he thought he would.
” The bottom line is that Dr. Russell Moore should have thought about the consequences of his acitons every time he decided to opine in the Washington Post.”
I disagree. I absolutely believe Russell Moore knew full well the “consequences” of pushing back on the the status quo/tradition and looking at things through a biblical perspective. And that’s part of the reason I am thankful for him. Russell Moore seems to be the type of man that serves God before wanting a seat at the table despite the “consequences.” I actively pray for more men like him. I hope, by his example, there will be.
The prophets did not apologize for being “misunderstood”.
Rob
“so Moore didn’t have the influence he thought he would.”
I think it’d be more accurate to say:
“so his touting of biblical principle and historical Baptist positions relating to immoral politicians didn’t have the influence he thought it would”
(I say that not rehash that issue – but to point out that I believe that RM did WHAT he did because he thought it to be right and wanted to speak rightly to other evangelicals who he saw being pulled astray from what we have long said we believe regarding these issues (at least when it relates to democrats).)
Did he get carried away in his rhetorical barbs? Perhaps. Probably. Obviously, Jack Graham, Pastor Haun, Rick Patrick and others think he did and you are grateful for what they are doing in leading a march against him for having spoken out….but you do realize, don’t you… that many within the SBC think that , Franklin G., Jerry Falwell Jr., Mike Huckabee, Robert Jeffress and others also went too far in their love unabashed fawning affair with Trump and are grateful for what we see as Dr. Moore being a voice in the wilderness proclaiming truth to deafened ears. Many of us feared (and I bet he did too) that these influential voices would grant Christians “cover” for setting aside disqualifying moral and character concerns in supporting Trump – and – for good reason. If I heard, saw it on FB once I did so a thousand times…..”_______________ (insert fawning high profile SBC /evangelical leader) says we should vote for Trump so….
It seems you guys are bent on making the issue about President Trump. Help yourselves if that is your pleasure. The issue is about Moore. It appears perhaps you are Moore loyalists. And that is your privilege. At least you should show some respect and a certain amount of humility and civility to other brothers and sisters in Christ who do not agree with certain stances Dr. Moore has been taking, which clearly do not reflect the values and beliefs of the vast majority of Southern Baptists over 40 years of age.
Jesse–your authoritative statements are just too general. I’m 65 and believe Russell Moore to be just what we need at ERLC.
Jesse,
“It seems you guys are bent on making the issue about President Trump. ”
Unmmmmm……. Graham said it *IS* about that – plain and simple.
“In a text to Baptist Press, Message Editor Will Hall noted he had queried Prestonwood about its giving to SBC causes after pastor Jack Graham was interviewed in December by The Wall Street Journal. Graham told The Journal the church was “considering making major changes in our support of the Southern Baptist Convention.”
At issue, Graham said in the interview, was alleged “disrespectfulness” by ERLC President Russell Moore toward evangelical supporters of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.”
http://www.bpnews.net/48364/prestonwood-escrows-cp-funds-cites-erlc-actions
That isn’t the only issue. Dr. Graham also talked about the growing disconnect between entity heads and the SBC churches.
He said it was the issue.
The growing disconnect? Bawahaha. You mean as opposed to when HE was a leader in the boys club?
It’s not any worse now than it was then it’s just that he doesn’t like not being in the club like he used to be… There are others who feel that way too.
You, as a trump supporter – should understand this…. it’s kind of like the old establishment Resisting the establishment of a new establishment they can’t seem to control. 😉
Sometimes the language of the SBC’s bylaws and constitution are difficult to interpret, but it seems to me that a church which withdraws its contributions in order to force a personnel issue around the established trustee system and process would easily be defined as “not being in friendly cooperation” with the convention. Any of its members on committees and boards should be immediately suspended, and none of its messengers should be seated.
As I said, you guys are in the Moore fan club, and that is your privilege. There may be some 65 year olds who are members of the club with you. That, too, is their privilege. However, I doubt the majority of that age demographic within the SBC would be members of the club. I respect your right to be a Moore fan.
Don’t worry – we “respect your right” to be fanboys of the members of the old boys club….. so we will dismiss your comments out of hand too.
Boy, this is helpful. :-/
Personally Jesse it wouldn’t matter to me if you respected it or not.
And if there were others(and I have no doubt there is considering evangelicals put Trump in office) it just shows how bad the churches are right now. Majority does not mean anything. Christ or the disciples or any main character in the Bible were usually in the minority. I’m OK with that and high numbers is not what helps me decide my stands.
Just once I’d like to see one of the prominent Christian Trump supporters hold the president accountable for what he says. It is galling to hear the president decrying “fake news” in the media while he and his mouthpieces are the biggest sources of fake news in the country right now. “biggest electoral victory since Reagan”, “won the popular vote”, “3-5 MILLION illegal votes, all cast for Clinton”, “highest crime rate in 47 years”, “terror activity in Sweden on Friday”, “Bowling green massacre”.
When the media, biased as they may be, is portrayed as the “enemy of the people”, and a brutal Russian dictator is not, then we have a big problem.
You know this kind of diatribe proves a point. From a discussion of Jack Graham and The actions of his church into a launching of a lament of the current President. Good. Glad we got that out of the way. Glad we know what all this wailing and knashing of teeth is really all about. For the record I also abhor lies from politicians. I find your rancor a bit of selective outrage. Somehow I must of missed all those consternations about how you could keep your doctor and your plan, as well as that spontaneous demonstration in front of an embassy in Libya. If you ever did mention those lies Bill I just must of missed it.
My opposition to Russell Moore is not based on him being a NeverTrumper. His arrogance and stances on multiple issues have lent to my opposition. However I believe that his defenders are only defending him based upon his opponents and the fact that most of them were NeverTrumpers themselves. I will turn this around to you: is Trump a worthy hill to die on?
Rob
I didn’t need to speak out on the lies of Clinton and Obama because they were rehashed ad nauseum from the same Christian folks who are now silent on Trump’s.
No, I don’t think Trump is a worthy hill to die on, but some evidently think so.
That is nonsense and you know it. Those lies I mentioned either affected people’s lives or covered up the fact that people’s lives ended due to incompetence. Somehow they deserve no mention by you because others that now say nothing did all the talking then? God have mercy Bill do you hear yourself? You chide and condemn others on their inconsistency but you are just as inconsistent as they are.
Rob
What I hear (or don’t hear) is Trump getting a pass on things that would send Christians into apoplexy if they were done and said by Democrats.
What I hear is that you get apoplexy whenever the name of Trump is mentioned, yet had nothing to say when other politicians (namely Democrat) did near or the same in the false witness category. You do here the same you accuse others of doing = just the other way around. Romans 2:1.
Rob
Rob: That’s fair. I certainly have made it clear that I don’t think Clinton had the moral fiber to be president, and that I would never support her as president, but I don’t think I’ve specifically mentioned Bengazi or the other specific things people have brought up. But this is my reason: She’s not in my political party, she’s not the darling of high profile evangelicals, and lastly, she’s not the president! I didn’t want Trump to be president, but now that he is, I want him to be a good president. I don’t want the person who represents my country, my party and (in the minds of some), my religion, to be someone who lies, blames, and deflects constantly. We don’t serve him, he serves us. We hold our own accountable, not people on the outside. If the 80% of evangelicals who helped elect Trump said a collective “knock it off”, maybe he’d listen. We need better and we deserve better. We should insist on it. Infinitesimally better than Clinton or Obama shouldn’t be the bar we are setting.
Well…I don’t see him representing my religion. As for those who deflect and blame I don’t need to watch a news conference = all I need to do is open up and read a Baptist blog :-).
Any President regardless of party is “our” President as a Citizen. We all hold whoever holds the office and their acolytes accountable and rightly so. When the President and the Secretary of State did those things you were silent then. It just seems to me your words now are ringing hollow holding the current occupant to account when you were unwilling to do so before. So…those who remain silent now are being hypocritical. But if you remained silent before…..then what?
Thank you for the discussion Bill. When you say “fair enough” then truly all is well in the world. Grace to you.
Rob
Thanks
As a pastor, I appreciate and support Russell Moore and the ERLC. I can see how some people disagree with him, but the opposition seems like a severe overreaction to me. He is clear on prolife issues, has held firm on the biblical view of marriage, has called for the compassionate treatment of refugees and immigrants (while acknowledging the need for national security), and has stressed the importance of character and morality in our elected officials. Almost all of those opposed to him seem focused on his concerns about Donald Trump and his criticism of those who were enthusiastically supporting him. Well…he was basically right to raise those concerns. The role of the ERLC isn’t just to represent the views of the SBC on social issues but also to help Southern Baptist to think biblically on these issues. Frankly some of our prominent pastors would do well to stop compromising their Christian values for political expediency. Let’s stop this witch-hunt against Russell Moore.