In his recent post entitled “The Christian Butcher, Baker, and Wedding Picture Maker“, William Thornton offered a numbered list of nine critiques against the SBC’s handling of the present religious liberty contest that is before us. Of those nine, one predicted heightened judicial activity in this area (with which I certainly agree), seven were variations of the basic argument that religious liberty is unpopular right now, but one deserves a careful and specific response. SBC Voices has once again, for the second time in a few weeks, completely shut me out from making comments, so I’m responding to that critique with a separate post. William wrote:
- On a denominational level, we have not had much serious focus on religious liberty issues.
Is this a fair charge to lay at the feet of the SBC? Let’s consider the evidence
- The ERLC had a conference just last Spring that included a focus on precisely the religious liberty questions that are in the headlines today.
- The ERLC, among other Southern Baptists, have been filing amici during major religious liberty cases in recent news.
- Guidestone and a number of Southern Baptist denominational institutions have led the way in challenging in court recent violations of religious liberty surrounding Obamacare.
- The ERLC and other Southern Baptists have written extensively in various online and printed media in reaction to major cases like Greece, Hosanna-Tabor, Boerne, and Hobby Lobby. I can’t think of a case that we’ve missed in this regard.
- SWBTS held a First Freedom Conference from which the seminary published a book back in 2007.
- The Southern Baptist Convention has issued resolutions involving religious liberty (most of them including “religious liberty” in the title) in…
- 2013
- 2012
- 2011
- 2010
- 2005
- 2003
- 1999
- 1997
- 1996
- 1995
- 1992
- 1991
- 1986
- 1983
- 1981
- 1978
- 1977
- 1976
- 1972
- I’m going to stop, if you don’t mind, at those resolutions that reach back before the year when I was born
Otherwise, we’ve pretty much been asleep at the switch, yeah.
In my mind, this counts as a serious focus on religious liberty issues. I’d dare to say that we’re in the top ten among all denominations. If, however, we are far below average, I’d welcome the opportunity to see actual data like I’ve given here to show the multitude of other denominations who are doing it better.
“Serious…?” is a subjective opinion. I note your response. Culture war forays, particularly by Land, seemed to me to be far more of a serious effort, but maybe there’s no market for a talk show focused on RL. If Moore is on the case, good. Resolutions, IMO, have the value of a pail of tepid expectoration.
The goal was to pass RL legislation. It failed in my state. Why? Can it be resurrected and passed next year? Perhaps, but such requires persuading solons, countering the opposing narrative, and providing a safe route for elected officials. I’d bet that if we go through another cycle of attempts in state legislatures the ERLC and allies will recognize this and employ a different strategy. They may even enlist you.
Or, religious liberty legislation is losing not because the packaging is not right, but because people’s hearts have hardened toward the idea of universal religious liberty. It’s not always true that hiring the right firm on Madison Avenue or K Street means that you win.
There is such a thing as sin. We do have an enemy. Sometimes the explanation is just as simple as that.
I submit to you that there is no such thing as a “better case” for religious liberty that would win these legal battles if only the right person were to make it.
Liberals support religious liberty when it comes up against drug laws. The don’t support it when it comes up against fornication and homosexuality. This is so not because the argument isn’t framed correctly. The case for religious liberty is made in exactly the same way in both cases, winning in the former situation and losing in the latter. It happens this way because this country presently does obeisance to its true god: the god of sex.
Bart,
Amen!!! “There is such a thing as sin.” It is the “god of sex” that this country is bowing to.
The Word of God does not bow to contemporary culture. Contemporary culture should bow to the Word of God. We must remain faithful as God’s remnant articulating and living the truth of God’s Word.
Your post and thread commentary represent the Kingdom well here.
Amen! Thanks, Dwight!
Dwight,
Amen!
David
That’ll preach!
Bart, from the elevated equine that all Texans ride: “Or, religious liberty legislation is losing not because the packaging is not right, but because people’s hearts have hardened toward the idea of universal religious liberty.”
Martyrdom is attractive but sometimes elusive. I find myself wishing, in vain evidently, that you and others might at least consider that public opposition might, might have some underlying basis and cause. Such may be completely ill-founded, or partially valid with simple fixes, or valid but without a satisfactory solution. The latter is the honest route to martyrdom.
No less than your friend Russell Moore has offered consideration of compromise wording. I don’t know if he has experimented with incorporating such into any actual RFRA proposal or if he is satisfied with the current state of things.
I’m not sure how this comment was improved by the personal jab at the beginning, William.
Also, since the ERLC is focus here, my view is that we get less value from the $3,102,000 they receive from the Cooperative Program than any other entity. I like Russ Moore’s more irenic approach to things, though. If they assist you in these discussions, good. They need to sell their value to the SBC rank and file.
It might be noted that while many have tried to distinguish Land’s approach from Moore’s, the two of them seem to be two peas in a pod and don’t see their approaches as that different.
Until now, I have never, NEVER, heard anyone describe Russell Moore and Richard Land as “two peas in a pod.”
Sure, they agree on most moral issues, but in political philosophy, debating styles, cultural engagement, staff hiring, and general ministry approach, they vastly differ.
Richard Land was about “salt” and “light” and taking a clear, bold stand against our godless, pagan culture. No one wondered where he stood.
Russell Moore is more concerned with “Kingdom Advance” and bridging to the left, often confusing the secular media on where the SBC stands and disturbing many SBC conservatives.
Peas in a pod? Sorry, but I have to roll my eyes, sigh, and swallow a little mouthwash since I had a little reflux just reading that.
That, perhaps, is more your fantasy than reality.
William,
I, too, think that the $3 million given to the ERLC would be better spent on the mission field. Our SB Seminary Presidents could do the same thing that the ERLC does….without costing us $3 mil.
David
Dave,
I didn’t support it in 2010, but maybe the time has come.
https://sbcvoices.com/a-great-commission-suggestion-pink-slip-the-erlc/
And I have come to see that the work the ERLC does is well worth the money spent, in spite of the constant efforts of those such as you, Rick.
I was being facetious. Sorry if it was not clear.
It’s kinda like Ezell and Annie, Platt and Lottie, etc. They didn’t like them before they were in charge, but they sure do like them now.
With the change in ERLC leadership, now all of a sudden, many who didn’t care at all before suddenly like the ERLC.
To elaborate on my facetious comment, I do believe in the ERLC as an institution. I just find it currently “out of step” with many, if not most, Southern Baptists. I do think Dr. Moore is very bright and articulate, but disagree with his new approach to the ERLC.
What changed your mind?
Rick,
What Dr. Moore has succeeded at doing is leading us out of “war footing” and into a Gospel focused engagement with culture- wise, winsome, and focused on mercy not anger.
He is like Dr. Land in that they share the same values and biblical convictions (hence two peas in a pod) but unlike him in practice because he realizes, unlike Dr. Land, that culture war has not gotten us anywhere and has truthfully obscured the message of the Gospel we are called to proclaim.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. That’s what the “culture war” proponents want to see in the SBC. Thankfully, a new group- that is multi-generational- is rising to challenge that mindset and is focused on being salt and light rather than scorched earth.
I’m thankful for the difference.
Dave miller,
Respectfully
I ask what has Changed to lead you to now support the continuation of the ERLC?
If as you say today – that Dr. Moore and Dr. Land – are “two peas in a pod” – which I take to mean that your estimation is that they’re basically operating the ERLC in the same ways and doing the same things – it perplexes me how The work of one pea in the pod lead you to say that it should be disbanded and money redistributed to missions – but the work of another pea in that same pod leads you to now say the ERLC should continue as its good and valuable work.
First of all, if you read that old post I floated an idea for discussion. I did not articulate a hard position, though Rick in his passionate defense of the value of the ERLC tried to paint my words that way in the comments.
I said in the article I was willing to be instructed.
I never brought that up again that I recall. It was an idea, not a crusade.
Having attended a couple of the ERLC Summit events I can see the value of the organization.
We weren’t going to do away with the ERLC then. We aren’t now
If that happened, where would Gospel Coalition folks go for jobs?
Um – they all have jobs before stints at ERLC – and I’m betting they won’t have trouble getting jobs afterward.
Wow.
*had jobs…
My beef with the way that Dr. Moore is leaving the ER LC has nothing to do with his hiring a staff – as I said in another debate on that topic – as the president he has (and should have) the privilege to select and hire his own staff.
*leading the ERLC…
Don’t get me started. Hey, everybody, let’s import Non-Southern Baptists to lead us!
Dr. Moore is leading the ERLC – he has been selected for that role by the trustees of the ERLC – He is a Southern Baptist – and a rather strong willed one (in a good way) – I think it reasonable for him to choose his staff as he sees fit.
These people are not policy makers but policy carryouters…
The universal hardening of the people toward religious liberty is planned deal, one that is in many ways an outcome of PC, that is, politically correct whatever. The coup d’ etat will very likely be a decision by the Supreme Court recognizing same sex marriages. The folks behind the scenes who pull the strings of their political puppets have been planning for this outcome for a long time. The anemic and tepid responses of the SBC is a result of not knowing our Baptist history. I grieve, when I think of how little we know about the efforts our predecessors and, in some cases, ancestors put forth to secure this desirable freedom.
We read about what the Bible says with respect to obeying the government as if it never said anything else to the contrary. Peter, I think it was, gave away the show, when he said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”(Acts 5:29). Our problem is that we allow for the present day methodology for science and education, etc., to govern how we study and understand the Bible. I remember one of my professors giving us a one shot case of a scientific nature in the Bible, complete with a null hypothesis (Daniel 1). What neither he nor many others realize is that the Bible also presents us with a more synthetical method, one that takes I both sides of a presentation into consideration, thus avoiding the paralysis of analysis of the present day scientific method.
Ryan,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have heard that before, of course. I am simply of the opinion that Dr. Moore’s approach has not and will not be any more effective than your assessment of the culture war approach. In a few years, it will be just as insane to have tried this method.
The idea that we will engage a godless culture in a way that will “work” is, in my view, unrealistically optimistic. I think it will not work. They will continue to persecute us until the rapture. Thus, it is our job to be clear, bold and faithful in giving the world a counter-cultural view that they will oppose at every turn.
The difference, as I see it, is whether our views are presented with boldness and clarity, in opposition to the culture, or whether they are perceived as being somewhat conciliatory and compromising in tone.
I guess that depends on your definition of “work” I agree with you that the cross is an offense to a lost and dying world and that we will always have our opponents, but I wonder how the methods of “culture war” fit in with the biblical call to seek to be at peace with all men, as far as it depends on us?
Further, I would look to history as the Christians of earlier centuries were persecuted and marginalized they did not fight their oppressors but served them. One of my favorite examples of this kind of sacrificial love comes from the time of the Plague when Christians did not abandon pagan plague victims but served them, even to their own detriment for the sake of the Gospel. In doing so, they won a hearing with an oppressive culture for the Gospel.
I don’t think that ending the philosophy of “culture war” is going to change anything about our opponents, but it does change our minds. Instead of seeing people as enemies to be defeated, we see them more as people we should engage with in a friendly, winsome manner. That’s a huge difference from the past 30 years and in my mind a more biblical approach.
Thanks for the interaction.
Ryan,
“As far as it depends on us,” doesn’t mean that we stop boldly promoting the truth. And it is our truth proclamations that does and will cause the friction.
The conflict is in their own hearts and minds, but their solution is to kill the messenger. As long as we are speaking the inconvenient truth, they will seek to silence us. Catering to them, if that is the plan, will only water down the truth and make us less faithful to our Lord and to the witness we are commissioned to proclaim.
In the past we have allowed our message to be intertwined with nationalism, so much that many in our churches can not separate the two. Now is the time to let our words be true and in doing so, the elect of God will be drawn from the world and into the Body. And our mission will be a success.
Ryan,
I am not for returning to the old culture war, where we take back America. But I think the time is past for looking the other way as this country sinks even further into sin and debauchery. I think we need to be bold and proclaim out loud with strong voice that judgment is coming and escape is only in the Lord.
Because, judgment is coming, as a country we have earned it. As Christians, we have earned it as well for being in bed with sinful ways. But as Christians, we have the only way out: to turn to Jesus as Lord.
Dear parsonsmike: I want to call attention to your phrases, “escape is only in the Lord” and “judgment is coming, as a country we have earned it.” There is another way of looking at this which might underscore the phrase, “escape is only in the Lord,” as well as this one: “we have the only way out, to turn to Jesus as Lord,” namely, a Divine visitation, a Third Great Awakening, one that realizes the truth of Roms.5:20,21 which might well be summed up in the words of the hymn, “Grace Greater Than our Sins.” We have forgotten that the essence of our message is Sovereign Grace, that is, reigning or ruling grace. We are thinking of the power of unconditional favor, a grace more abundant than sin, superabundant in comparison to the abundance of sin. As things proceed believers will be driven to their knees to cry to God for His gracious intervention. At that time, the one most propitious according to His design, His answer comes (the darkest hour is just before the dawn). As the Holy Spirit came on the people in overwhelming power in the days of the First and Second Great Awakenings and in the launching of the modern missionary movement, so it will be in that day, when the stone begins to reach its completion as a mountain that fills the whole earth (Dan.2). Our Lord’s sovereign rule, His controlling power, will cover the whole earth, reach to the stars and, according to our Lord, the elect will be from one end of THE (definite article in the original) heaven to the other. And such success for a thousand generations (note: not years, but generations) in order to full the prophecies and promises to the Patriarchs of a seed as innumerable as the sand by all the seashores of the earth and all the stars of heaven. Think about it. Our Lord says, “I am coming to you”(Jn.14 present tense in the Greek). He is in the process of coming to us now, a spiritual coming (not a denial of the final return in His physical body) that occurs again and again in an overwhelmingly winsome influence. Like the lady said to a friend of mine who bears the last name of Spurgeon: “O, it was so wonderful that I could not resist it.”
James,
I was speaking of their escape, not Ours. So if there is a great awakening they will escape.
I have never said anything about ceasing to speak the truth. It’s not just about what we say, it’s HOW we say it. The language of “culture war” vs. the language used by Jesus to address sin is markedly different. Jesus dealt with sinners gently and directly. He reserved His harshness for the religious elite who spent their time doing “culture war” first century style.
We could learn a lot from His approach.
Ryan,
I didn’t mean to imply you were against speaking the truth.
The culture was different in the days of Jesus. Different tactics are called for in different type cultures. I think a better comparison of cultures would be the cultures in where the OT prophets called out all of the people, and rebuked the nation for their turning away from the Lord.
Certainly, in dealing with individuals, those broken by sin, and who know they are broken, a different approach is called for, more like the Master’s touch with the seeker.
But many today proclaim they re not broken, and not in need of God or His help. In that sense they are ‘religious elite’, who are above the church, for they are the ‘enlightened ones’, and we are the histroy-past-overed-ones.
The “pod” is not all that different…..
Land….
“The Gospel must begin with the truth that each person must be born again and spiritually transformed by accepting Jesus and His sacrifice on the cross as his Savior. But it doesn’t end there. As a consequence or fruit of being born again, we are to go into the world as salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16), seeking to preserve against decay, disinfect against the infection of sin, and dispel gloom and depression with the light of the Gospel.
Being salt and light in society is part of the Great Commission mandate “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). Back in the 1940s Lillian Smith, a white Southerner, wrote with breathtaking, broken-hearted pathos of her Georgia girlhood experience of racial segregation and how it victimized everyone. So we learned the dance that cripples the human spirit, step by step by step, we who were white and we who were colored, day by day, hour by hour, year by year. . . . Something was wrong with a world that tells you that love is good and people are important and then forces you to deny love and to humiliate people. . . . in trying to shut the Negro race away from us, we have shut ourselves away from so many good, creative, honest, deeply human things in life. . . . what cruelly shapes and cripples the personality of one is as cruelly shaping and crippling the personality of the other. (Lillian Smith, Killers of the Dream, 1949)”
Moore……
“The gospel means we must point to the sin—and call it that—but it means we don’t stop there. We speak with a northern Galilean accent that says, even to those who hate us, there’s good news for those who repent and believe.
That means we speak and we vote and we mobilize. Onward Christian soldiers. But we don’t do so as gloomy pessimists, continually wringing our hands or crying conspiracy. And we don’t do it as naïve utopians, believing we can organize our way back to Mayberry. We do it as those who weep for those around us who are being sifted by the darkness. We do it as those who are cheerily marching to Zion, knowing that whatever the short-term setbacks, we are on the winning side of history.
We teach our people that their vote for President of the United States is crucially important. They’ll be held accountable at Judgment for whomever they hand the Romans 13 sword to. But we teach them that their vote on the membership of their churches is even more important. A church that loses the gospel is a losing church, no matter how many political victories it wins. A church that is right on public convictions but wrong on the gospel is a powerless church, no matter how powerful it seems.”
“Northern” Galilean accent?
I read those two statements as quite different in tone. Moore seems to chide the church for losing the gospel. Land does not. I don’t think the church has lost the gospel. We do weaken it, though, when we try so hard to be accepted by the world.
I will agree that the tactics used by Land and Moore will be different. Yet the strategy is squarely within the “Pod” as someone here has said. The two guys simply are not that far apart, if any, on the strategy. The tactics will be different. Two different leaders, different ways, etc.
SBC guys, like you and me, can keep him in line with the strategy. If the strategy changes, then you will hear a lot of screeching.
That is the better side of the lake…. I’ve been there, it is beautiful!
“when we try so hard to be accepted by the world”
I guess that is my major issue with they way it appears Dr. Moore is leading the ERLC….It seems to me that to him being a “softer, gentler” SBC is the goal.
Problem is on matters of ethics and religious liberty…there is not really an effective approach that seeks to be “softer and gentler” – Instead when one does that about issues they always seem to be moderating and less clear rather than more clear.
I will say that I think the Dr. Moore seeks to be extremely clear on ethics and religious liberty (I happen to just think that his approach muddies the water) – and I agree that he and Land are similar in conviction – but to argue that their approaches are not very different seems to me to be an inaccurate way of presenting it.
Say what you want about Land, and he certainly had his shortcomings, but his strong and convictional stand (and representation of the SBC) on issues of the day was never in question – I am not sure the same is true with Moore – although I think he believes the same as Land on most of the issues – his strategy for expressing it can often leaves one wondering.
Definitely differing tactics. Both men have the same goal. But again, I think it is up to us to keep Moore informed. More involvement and input from the SBC folks will be of great benefit to Moore. It will help him with the tactics. Tactics are easily changed, and can be moved around quickly. Strategy is a much different animal. I don’t yet see that Land or Moore have differing strategy.
Chris J., I think you (again) have made an astute point. Your comments are so often not only on point but they provoke thought – at least in me. Thank you.
I was trying to say the same thing. I do not think Moore is an heretic, or apostate, and I truly hold not ill will toward him – I think, despite disagreements regrading general tone and a few specific stances that we agree on much, much more (and more important things) than we disagree on.
I am not a hater and not on an anti-Moore crusade. I just wish he would say and do a few things differently than he does – but hey I am willing to bet that there are a few people here and there who might wish the same about me…just a few mind you. 😉
Its the tactics that I disagree with him on.
🙂 My eyebrows go up and down as well on the tactics.
First: “I don’t know if he [Dr Moore] has experimented with incorporating such into any actual RFRA proposal or if he is satisfied with the current state of things.”
How is Dr Moore, who is not an elected politician to insert different language into any legislation?
Second, how is it that those calling for more ERLC involvement in RL cases and concerns, want to decrease their budget? That’s kind of like making more bricks with less hay.
On the money, $3+ mil can be spent in a lot of ways different that present. On the RFRA language, I doubt that any legislator came up with wording (there are a number of different versions) on their own. Lobbyists often suggest or even write the legislative pieces.