David Roach at Baptist Press reported this evening that Byron Day released an open letter calling for reconciliation between Russell Moore and his critics (Article: NAAF pres. urges ‘reconciliation’ among Moore, critics). Day is the pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Laurel, Maryland and current President of the National African American Fellowship of the Southern Baptist Convention, a network of over 4,000 “predominately African American pastors and churches affiliated with” the SBC. Recent past presidents of the NAAF include K. Marshall Williams, Sr., and Dr. A. B. Vines, Sr.
The letter is first a call for unity. Of five paragraphs the letter contains, four stress the desire for unity. Day says the current controversy is damaging to our gospel witness and distracting from our mission. The fourth paragraph, which is clearly meant to play a supporting role in the letter, does offer a strong statement of appreciation & support for Russell Moore continuing to lead the ERLC. This seems especially notable after Dwight McKissic’s widely shared post on Monday in support of Russell Moore. McKissic stressed how Moore is held in high esteem by the vast majority of black Southern Baptists. Day’s open letter further substantiates McKissic’s claims in that area.
Excerpts from the section in support of Dr. Moore follow: “Russell Moore has done nothing worthy of discipline or firing. He… has been outstanding as president of the ERLC… he has also addressed social injustices such as racism which have been long overlooked.” This is high praise from an influential voice in the SBC.
Those sections are important, but please don’t overlook the supporting role they play in calling the convention to unity. Four of five paragraphs stress unity, reminding us to let political differences take a back seat, requesting private meetings to reconcile (Jack Graham confirmed in Tuesday’s Q&A that meetings of that nature had taken place but did not say how much progress had been made.), and other calls for us to put this controversy behind us. Letter text is reprinted below.
An Open Letter to Southern Baptists
The recent events surrounding ERLC President Russell Moore is dividing Southern Baptists and, more importantly, is hurting the name of Jesus Christ and the furtherance of the Gospel. The recent election has not only further divided our country, but it seems that political views threaten to divide our Convention, not over major theological doctrine but over practical or political preferences. Truth be told, our Lord is neither Republican nor Democrat; He is Lord of all.
The name of Christ is far too valuable and the preaching of the Gospel to the whole world too important that we should allow political disagreements to distract us from that which is most significant. The commands of our God and Savior Jesus Christ to love one another as He loves us outweigh any personal political views. This is how we show the world that our faith is genuine. To be sure, feathers have been ruffled on both sides; but obedience to the Bible’s teaching can surely offer a solution so that we can get back to working together to share the good news of God’s love, forgiveness, and gift of eternal life.
What would happen if those offended by Dr. Moore were to take a biblical approach and talk to him privately concerning comments that offended them and then give him opportunity to apologize and be reconciled, to the glory of Christ? What would happen if Dr. Moore would receive their calls and agree to meet with them and experience reconciliation, to the glory of God? What would happen if Dr. Moore, upon learning that his brother has something against him, would leave his offering at the altar, seek him out, and be reconciled to his brother, to the glory of Christ? Would not God be glorified and Southern Baptists be better served?
There are some who have suggested withholding cooperative dollars until Dr. Moore is either disciplined or fired. However, Russell Moore has done nothing worthy of discipline or firing. He has not violated The Baptist Faith and Message and, in fact, has been outstanding as president of the ERLC. He has represented all Southern Baptists, contending for the highly visible ethical issues of abortion and biblical marriage; but he has also addressed social injustices such as racism which have been long overlooked.
Southern Baptist have been uniquely gifted and called to have a great impact for the Kingdom of God. We must not be ignorant of the schemes of the enemy to divide us. Now is not the time for division but unity and we must be diligent to preserve the unity we have in Christ. Perhaps we should all take a step back and consider what would most honor Christ. The name of Jesus is too valuable and the preaching of the Gospel to the world too important to do otherwise.
Byron J. Day, President, National African American Fellowship of the SBC
I appreciate Byron Day’s open letter. I support Russell Moore and the ERLC and I believe much of the criticism is sadly mistaken.
Steve – I agree that some of the criticism sadly mistaken…..But I must disagree with you a little because I believe much of it is intentionally deceptive.
Some are clearly on a witchhunt… Reminiscent of the days of Salem.
Steve, I absolutely agree. Both with the call for unity, which is what I want to see, but also with support of Moore.
Didn’t know the SBC had a black congressional caucus. Learn something new every day.
The SBC has a number of ethnic fellowships because when Southern Baptists meet to worship there may be dozens of languages and ethnicities involved:
http://www.sbclife.net/Articles/2011/06/sla3
Not sure how you meant your reference to the BC to be taken but in case there is general interest in this the article is helpful.
Dr. Day,
Thank you for your open letter and call for unity.
This is where the leadership and actions of ERLC President Moore has gotten us, into a needless situation that now has brought a racial divide contention into play. There are many blogs and comments on R. Moore on the SBC Voices website so If you are not aware of the situation please review them. As a layman who was basically unaware of SBC executive leader ship I was stunned with the harsh tone and rhetoric of Dr. Moore when I became aware of his viewpoints via the secular press. I was even more stunned and disappointed when I started following his written articles, his viewpoints and his twitter activity. To sum up I am past whether Dr. Moore is to be retained I would suggest strongly the ERLC is not needed. The lack of transparency and accountability at the SBC executive leadership level is quite unsettling. I only became aware of all of this by looking into the activities of Dr. Moore. I firmly believe for the good of the SBC Dr. Moore should resign and the ERLC be abolished and more transparency/accountability be demanded from SBC leadership. I believe Pastor Day is a good Christian leader and is speaking from his heart with sincere support for Dr. Moore however Dr. Moore has put his personal political and social agenda above his SBC mandate. I urge all to go back and read the blogs discussing the Dr. Moore issue. The ERLC needs to go and changes with the SBC leadership top heavy leadership need to happen. I believe Dr. Land is not surprised at the outcome of R. Moore’s leadership of the ERLC, Moore has lost his authority to be an effective leader and voice of the SBC due to his actions. He has put the SBC in a very perilous situation by his harsh rhetoric and bitter comments directed at SBC members who disagreed with him politically.
Eric,
Don’t you mean he has exposed bigotry, hate, and hypocrisy that was otherwise somewhat hidden?
And for exposing sin, he is the one at fault?
That seems to be what you are explaining and if so, your logic is quite twisted.
parsonmike, you follow blogs here , you know the consequences of Dr. Moore’s rhetoric. Yes, he did expose sin , the sin of those who disagreed with his political and social views using his SBC position as a platform and you are aware I am in the Jimmy Swaggart arm of the SBC according to Dr. Moore.
“who disagreed with his political and social views using his SBC position as a platform”
That may be the way you see it, but it’s not the way everyone sees it. You only feel that way because you assume he was talking about you. If you agreed with him you would say he speaks for you.
Dwight and now prez of the African American SBC group certainly convey the importance of the Executive Committee’s two study committees and the delicacy of their task. I’m optimistic that cooler, sensible heads will find a way to defuse all this and that prior to June.
//Now is not the time for division but unity and we must be diligent to preserve the unity we have in Christ. //
Fine…I am certainly to shut up for a year…maybe even give Moor some kind of medal in Phoenix. …And then in 2018 the SBC can vote to just get rid of the ERLC…This would give Moore an entire year to find a place within or without of the SBC with greater freedom to tell us how he REALLY feels about us evil Trump voters. The opposition to Moore is NOT about RACE. It is about RESPECT…..If we have learned ANYTHING from the 2016 election cycle it should have been that ‘everything people say is about race is NOT about race.’
Allen, no one said the opposition to Moore was about race. We did say his opponents may not be considering the impact these actions are having on minority Southern Baptists. Thats a big difference.
To be honest, Allen, comments like this are wearing really thin. “It’s not about race” has become the default misdirection when someone brings up the ways minority SBs view or are affected by the recent campaign against Russell Moore. It’s an effort to discredit views you don’t agree with and don’t care to try and understand.
Who might have a better understanding of when there are racial dimensions to a situation? Allen Calkins or Dwight McKissic and Byron Day? Are you well informed on racial issues? (Saying they don’t exist doesn’t count.) Are you in regular dialogue with minority Southern Baptists to try and understand a viewpoint different than your own?
No one said race was the primary reason Moore’s opponents have launched this campaign. Although some of his statements on race have been brought up by critics, so it’s not like race is absent from the picture either. So your comment is off base in the first place, but the part that is really troubling is how dismissive you are that racial minorities are seriously discouraged by this campaign against Russell Moore.
Lots of white people say it’s not about race. Well of course we would think that because we’re not them. It’s time we actually try their shoes on for a change.
Brent, with all due respect, unless you know Allen personally you are making a judgment call as to whether or not he is following and is knowledgeable about racial dimensions. Furthermore, Dwight McKissic and Byron Day don’t automatically know more about the subject matter based on their ethnicity either, which it appears you are implying. That is not to say they haven’t studied it more than Allen, yourself, or me, but one’s ethnicity doesn’t give their words more force than others, not on this issue.
The reason is because I personally don’t believe the issues that many, including myself, have with Dr. Moore has anything to do with Race or, for that matter, the CAL/Trad debate, which others are arguing as well. Others I know that are upset with Dr. Moore don’t believe this to be a race issue either.
It has to do with personally attacking Southern Baptists who supported Trump. As I have said multiple times, the so-called apology did not actually recant from any of those statements, it only said, “my bad” if you “thought” I was speaking to you, yet he never clarified who he was speaking to. The wind? The wall?
If you had a problem with me, and I gave what I thought was an apology, and then I found out that you didn’t believe it was a sincere apology, I would respond and apologize again and seek to know what you needed to hear. Dr. Moore has not said one more word on this (to my knowledge) since he offered his “apology.” If he wants this to settle down, why is that?
Brent,
Our brother Dwight McKissic wrote on 3/6/17:
“I totally agree with Louis’ assessment of the roots and reasons of the Moore controversy. . . . According to Louis, the attorney—immigration, tone and emphasis on race relations and positions taken on race and law enforcement are the root causes of the Moore controversy.
Later on in the same article he wrote:
Dr. Russell Moore is essentially under investigation by the Southern Baptist Convention for his accurate, biblical, prophetic and outspoken views regarding race in America.
In the first response to Dwight’s article, you wrote:
There are some who will disagree with different minor points that have very little bearing on the main point of his article: how minorities in the SBC view the pressure being brought on Russell Moore. Please don’t nitpick small details and take over the comment stream with minutiae. Let’s have a comment stream about the substance of what Dwight is saying here.
Now you write:
Allen, no one said the opposition to Moore was about race.
I take it then, that the reason our SBC minority brothers view the pressure being brought on Russell Moore is because they see its root cause to be about race. Period. In their view, race is not peripheral, nor merely significant, but central.
FTR, I did not vote for Trump and I think Dr. Moore was right to bring to light Trump’s character concerns. Moreover, I think we (the SBC) need an ERLC. But I don’t think the bulk of Dr. Moore’s critics are racially motivated. As a layman it is difficult to keep up with all these developments but there are a plethora of concerns regarding Dr. Moore.
Main most in my view, is the amicus brief filed for the construction of a mosque in the Township of Bernards, NJ. The name given on the brief is: Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Apparently, this wasn’t done on his on time. So when we give through our local churches that support the CP, some of that pays for the salaries and ops of the ERLC which in turn have supported the advancement of Islam. This is problematic.
On the ERLC “Ministry Statement,” #4 reads: “Assist churches and other Southern Baptist entities by promoting religious liberty.” Supporting Islam is the very opposite of promoting religious freedom. There is nothing in Islam’s teaching or history that concords with religious freedom.
When Muslims came to power in Sudan in 1983, they killed over 1.5 million of our brothers and sisters. These were not white people out of the Bible belt that were killed.
So when some of us are critical of Dr. Moore it is not about race. And whatever Dr. Graham and PBC’s motives were, they have given voice to the lay people in the little churches.
Is it ok on this site for a lay SBC member to criticize Dr. Moore along these lines without racism being inferred?
Pastor Moose,
It seems you and I agree about there not being a redeemable value in the filing of that amicus brief. And that it was a wrong move.
But many in the SBC support the move as a positive one, and one that will help us as Southern Baptists and as Christians in general to maintain the freedom we have now in a future more hostile environment. They speak of law and precedent and thus hope that ‘down the road’ we might retain the legal and lawful right to worship our God freely without government intrusion [or persecution?].
My opposition to this idea is that it is God alone who gives us religious freedom, and that it is not a right, but a privilege and a blessing that not all of our brothers and sisters enjoy, for even as you mentioned the 1.5 million+ who gave their lives for being His. And the true church has been persecuted since the beginning, for we read:
“But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.”
and in another place:
“Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.”
And there are many other verses along that same line.
I think many of our brethren have confused the privilege we enjoy with what they call a right.
If and when the government decides that Gospel-proclaiming-and-sin-that-is popular-condemning Christianity is the problem, the number of amicus briefs we have filed for Muslims or who ever will not matter one iota.
Allen and eric,
I’m sorry you guys feel disrespected.
Things seem to be moving in a positive direction. The call for some type of “behind the scenes” reconciliation between the primary agents of this dustup would be excellent.
If Dr. Moore and some consortium of churches, that have problems with the ERLC and/or Dr. Moore [Prestonwood being the most notable example], could bury the hatchet then the oxygen would go out of this whole thing.
My suggestion to consider Dr. Moore and the ERLC separately is not drawing any traction. Most, if not all, pundits who are weighing in on this — from all sides of this situation — evidently are treating the trajectory of the future of the ERLC and Dr. Moore to be bundled.
If there is some type of problem resolution, such as is called for by NAFF letter, which involves retaining BOTH the ERLC and Dr. Moore as president of the ERLC then of course I’ll support it.
I am abandoning my stance of recommending the idea of eliminating the ERLC while unleashing Dr. Moore to pursue a job where he will be able to have more degrees of freedom.
It is time to reach out for a olive branch here. Keeping the ERLC is definitely “not a hill to die on”. It is not even a tiny mound of dirt.
Roger OKC
Roger, was this open letter the main reason for your change of mind?
Brent:
Yes!!!
Also, people are locking horns too much on this. They are taking “non-negotiable” positions on stuff that — at most — only has the most infinitesimal effect on their lives in the real world.
I guess there is more to life than being a combatant in some SBC debating society.
To effect change in the SBC, according to standard scripting, takes a decade. You have to follow the Judge Pressler / Dr. Patterson path. You have to elect people to the Committee of Committees who will put guys on the Committee on Boards, who recommend slates of trustees, who have staggered terms, who finally are able to do something ten years later. I came to the conclusion that doing all of this just to eliminate the ERLC is not worth it. I think, on balance, the ERLC causes more trouble than it is worth. If the ERLC didn’t exist then we wouldn’t have an institutionalized arena to have this fight. But trying to disentangle Dr. Moore and the ERLC is just too much for people who are in positions of leadership in the SBC. Most leaders in the SBC are, or were, pastors. They tend to see things in terms of relationships and people rather than objectively.
I objectively do not believe that the ERLC should exist. But I yield to the majority opinion based on the need to mend fences. Patching up severed relationships is more important than having the “right” structure.
The letter from NAAF says, in effect “bury the hatchet”. My response is “Give me a shovel and a place to dig”. After all — this is the SBC. Relationships mean everything!
We have the COOPERATIVE program, not the adversarial program.
Well said, Roger. IMHO I like the ERLC because it keeps the politics and public policy out of the central SBC apparatus. Getting rid of the ERLC just puts the onus on the President or the Executive Committee or whoever else to be in the public forum. Russell Moore is well-equipped for this role, even if some people’s feathers got ruffled. Those feathers didn’t get ruffled until it came time to oppose a terrible candidate.
Addenda to the Pressler / Patterson methodology in my previous post.
I left out a few steps at the beginning:
1. Launch a massive info campaign across all the SBC churches so that messengers would take a stand to eliminate the ERLC
2. Encourage messengers to go to SBC conventions for ten years running who support eliminating the ERLC
3. Promote candidates for president of the SBC who specifically are running on the “eliminate the ERLC” platform
4. The presidents elected as a result of this information campaign appoint people to the committee on committees who support eliminating the ERLC
5. The committee on committees nominates people to the committee on nominations who support the idea of eliminating the ERLC
6. The committee on nominations nominates trustees for the ERLC who are committed to eliminating the very agency that they are trustees of.
7. Finally over a number of years a majority of the trustees of the ERLC vote to eliminate the agency that they are the trustees of.
8. The action taken in step 7 may have to be approved by the convention during the annual meeting for two years running
I short-circuited this process in my previous note. The SBC is setup so that change only happens as a result of a long deliberative process
How many of you who favor getting rid of the ERLC think, as I did prior to today, that this idea is actually worth it? Is it workable?
Comment to Jim Perry:
I stipulate to you that Dr. Moore is “well equipped” to handle his role. My point has been consistently that he could operate in some type of structure that is more accountable to the SBC than a separate entity.
Entities have their own trustees. They run their own operations on a day by day basis. It can take a decade or more to turn them around.
I ask a rhetorical question: >> How long did it take Dr. Patterson and Judge Pressler to turn around the seminaries? The answer is that the conservative resurgence took ten years. The reason that this was true is that the seminaries are their own entities with their own boards. These trustee boards may or may not be in sync with the rank and file of the SBC.
Up until a few days ago I felt strongly that the ERLC would be in a better position to serve the rest of the SBC if it’s governing structure was not so entrenched.
But I have changed my mind because the ERLC and any perceived “wrongs” that it and/or Dr. Moore did just does not rise to the level of staging the type of ten year battle that might be required. Specifically, a battle to shut down the ERLC as an entity is just not worth it. Also I finally have come to the conclusion that there is no viable pathway to shut down the ERLC without Dr. Moore suffering collateral damage — which would be damage to him that he does not deserve.
So that is why I recent days I have reversed my position and I am no longer calling for the abolition of the ERLC. Readers trying to decode my past position should recall that at no time — up to and including right now –have I ever called for Dr. Moore to be fired.
Dr. Day is right. Cooler heads need to prevail. The warring factions have to get together and iron out their differences. I just don’t think the Exec Committee or any outside arbitrator is going to be able to solve this. But the Exec Committee could facilitate a dialog between the parties.
A thousand bloggers like me are not going to be able to help. The principles in the dispute are going to have to lock themselves in a room until they come to some type of stipulated agreement.
The principles in the dispute are:
[1] Dr. Moore and/or the ERLC
[2] Prestonwood and all churches similarly situated who are escrowing CP funds due to problems with the ERLC and/or Dr. Moore
The exec committee is a victim of collateral damage in this dispute because it is in charge of the collection of CP funds which are being held hostage pending some type of resolution between the parties.
To me this is a high stakes negotiation. The outcome will determine if the beginning of the end of the CP is at hand. The SBC will weather this storm — but after the storm passes by the landscape may be a little different. One outcome is that we still have the SBC but the CP yields to more of an “a la carte” funding mechanism.
In summary: Dr. Day’s calling for mutual reconciliation is the only viable path available to solve this.
I’m going to stop commenting on this for a while. I’ll be back on SBC voices after the first of April.
Roger OKC
Good response, Roger, thank you.
Eric C and Allen Calkins, I have read your repeated calls for the abolition of the ERLC, and I am genuinely curious as to why you hold this position.
Contention for religious liberty for all is as old as the Baptist faith and it played a rather significant role in the founding of this nation. With the startling rise of moral relativism in our culture, the need for unflinching biblical ethics among the people of God has never been more pressing.
Why should we not have an Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission?
Are either of you on record calling for the abolition of the ERLC prior to Dr. Moore’s tenure?
Grace to you.
Before I leave for a few weeks let me correct my bad word usage. In my last comment I chose the wrong word.
It should be “Principals” not “Principles”
— Principals are guys running something
— Principles are foundational ideas which apply to a person or organization
See you after April Fool’s day.
I can not take a hiatus from blogging while a glaring uncorrected grammatical faux pas is out there.
Roger OKC
So Randall, I gather that you are among the group of SBC “pastors” willing to sign amicus briefs supporting the construction of mosques as homage to your construct of “religious liberty/syncretism”?
Randall , There are several blogs on this website that revolve around Dr. Moore with many comments. A quick review of them might show why I personally have come to believe Dr. Moore and the ERLC no longer serve a useful purpose and Dr. Moore’s tirades against supporters of Trump have poisoned his tenure as ERLC President. To get to the core of your question this is my path to believing Dr. Moore should resign for the good of the SBC and the ERLC should be abolished as it just serves no purpose of value.
I have covered this 2 or 3 times in other comment sections but since you asked this is how I as a lay person feel. I had no opinion or real knowledge of ERLC or their function before coming across a Dr. Moore article in the Wash. Post on the internet . I have been an SBC member for years and did not follow the SBC leadership operations as I trusted the system. I believed the main purpose of the SBC was missions and that is what SBC leaders handled. Dr. Moore writings on his website, his book Onward and his twits lead me to look in depth at his actions as ERLC President. It is clearly not just the ERLC joining the side of the mosque in the NJ case, that is just one issue. If you care to read the comments section of Dr. Moore related blogs here the last several days you will see why some of us disagree with the ERLC on this issue.
As I became aware of the lack of transparency and accountability of the SBC leadership to the general SBC membership I was shocked. I once joked Dr. Moore makes $750,000.00 annually, gets 18 weeks of vacation and a new car every year but we know this is not true because no one knows the compensation of SBC leaders because ? Then the never ending seminars, meetings, conventions and interchange of ideas with non SBC organizations also troubled me.
Just to close this I will look up some previous comments from previous blogs as this has all been covered and reference them so you can see this is not a one issue , get Moore campaign with no basis other than I do not agree with him politically. He in my opinion has become a liability and an unneeded lightening rod for the SBC.
Eric, you’re right that those comments have been repeated numerous times in our comment section on various posts. You might save yourself some time by copying & pasting rather than retyping virtually the exact same thing you’ve said over and over again.
Randall, These are my comments posted under Mike Berman’s blog dated 2/17/2017 here title What Changed. I had comments at 6.40 p.m. , comments at 12.35 am on 2/18/17, comments on 2/18/17 @2.18 and 2.29 pm and on 2/19 at 6.36 pm. If you care to give them a quick read you will see how I feel. Again I am a lay person who really was shocked and saddened the more I followed SBC/ERLC operations. a quick review of all the blogs concerning Dr. Moore on the site the past several weeks show the where leadership of Dr. Moore has taken the SBC and I believe the majority of SBC members just are not aware (as I was ) of what is happening in ERLC leadership . However this has gone beyond R. Moore and the ERLC, the lack of accountability and transparency of the SBC is troubling to me and would be to most lay members who are use to quarterly business meetings.
Hi Eric,
Yes, I had already read most of your posts on this issue. I still don’t understand why you wish the ERLC abolished.
Taken at face value, you seem to be saying that because you feel offended by Dr. Moore and because you don’t feel the accountability structure of SBC entities meets your standards, both Dr. Moore’s position and the ERLC should not exist. You seem perfectly willing to dispense with the defense of religious liberty and the public articulation of biblical ethics based on nothing more than your feelings. You seem to feel justified in this because a few others “feel” offended by Dr. Moore and the ERLC.
Am I reading you correctly?
If so, may I ask you which of Dr. Moore’s public positions on ethics and religious liberty fail to meet the standard of Scripture and the clearly stated beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention?
Grace to you.
Randall, I can add nothing to what has been posted by me and others. I guess you can state that Pastor Day and other Moore supporters are acting on their feelings. Of course we act and take stands on what we believe. I believe there is plenty on the SBC Voices that show the concerns about R. Moore, that are based on his stated viewpoints, which lead to our conclusion or feelings. So the gulf between Moore supporters and Moore detractors will only grow. I believe the turning point will be when and more importantly if the majority of lay SBC members become aware of Moore’s viewpoints, positions and partisan political involvement. I know the SBC leadership and executive board trustees do not and will not rock the boat. So we disagree politically or socially but we are all still saved and in the family of God, which does transcend all. Thank you for your reply and God Bless.
Randall,
“If so, may I ask you which of Dr. Moore’s public positions on ethics and religious liberty fail to meet the standard of Scripture and the clearly stated beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention?”
They won’t answer that- they just won’t.
Tarheel,
eric said:
“Randall, I can add nothing to what has been posted by me and others. I guess you can state that Pastor Day and other Moore supporters are acting on their feelings.”
What it sure seems like to me is that eric and others had their FEELINGS hurt [they felt disrespected by Dr. Moore] and they are unhappy that SBC entities aren’t responsive to their concerns. Isn’t unhappiness a FEELING?
Now those that support Dr. Moore appreciate his stance[s]. =a feeling.
But why is he appreciated: because they agree with his positions.
And why is he vilified: because they disagree with his positions and/or he used improper language about them: he is wrong and he hurt my feelings.
But as noted, they won’t show how he was wrong.
One area I disagree about with Dr. Moore is an area I disagree about with the SBC in that it holds to the idea that we should aid by secular means anyone who is having religious freedom problems. But in that case, Dr. Moore is spot on with the SBC and is only carrying out the will of the convention.
I disagree with some of his positions – but I do not call for firing or eoimination of entity based on my disagreement.
I disagree and have been bothered by statements made by numerous entity heads over the years but unless they’re arguing for unorthodox positions or acting/speaking contradictory to our denominational confession I just state my disagreement without calling for firing or elimination.
@Randall,
You write: “If so, may I ask you which of Dr. Moore’s public positions on ethics and religious liberty fail to meet the standard of Scripture and the clearly stated beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention?”
I realize this isn’t directed to me but I would like to attempt an answer.
The ERLC Ministry Statement #4 reads: “Assist churches and other Southern Baptist entities by promoting religious liberty.”
Supporting a mosque via an amicus brief in the Township of Bernards, NJ is not promoting religious liberty. If someone thinks otherwise, please tell what in Islam’s history or teaching has concord with religious freedom? Promoting Islam runs counter to religious liberty.
If giving is offering worship to our Lord Jesus Christ, I don’t see how I can give with peace to support that (the ERLC) which supports Islam. Who is standing up for all the people that Islam will eventually beat the snot out of?
Pastor Moose: I do think allowing a mosque to be built is promoting religious liberty. They are not going to “beat the snot” out of anyone. They are peaceful Muslims and I think that is ridiculous to think otherwise as that is just not true.
This is the United States where anyone has the right to practice their religion in this country. It is the land of the free, even for Muslims who have done nothing to break our country’s laws. To take away their freedom is to also take away our freedom of worship.
Pastor Moose,
You are looking at this wrongly in my view. You are looking at this as if the ERLC promoted the expansion of the mosque by way of opposing a discriminatory zoning ordinance aimed at keeping them from expanding…..
I think what really happened was that the ERLC opposed the discrimination no way supported the work.
Basically, the ERLC said – “wait a minute here, you (as a government – zoning board) can’t treat a religious group different simply because you do not like what they may or may not teach in that building. (As RM has said – it is not a far stretch to imagine how that precedent can bite *us* in the posterior, too)
Religious liberty means we do not want the government picking and choosing which religious expressions are valid. This has nothing to do with affirming what is taught there – it is about seeking to keep the US governments from infringing on religious liberty.
I support religious liberty for all people (as do Southern Baptists through the BFM2000) not because all religions are equally true (certainly they are not) but because I believe the gospel is true an ONLY through its power and proclamation will people be saved.
As a practical matter, a mosque or a Jewish synagogue, or a Mormon stake for example(all false religions) built near my church does not threaten me, my church or the message we proclaim. It is only through the proclamation of the gospel of Christ that those sitting in those places of (false) worship come to Christ – the only way to the Father – just the same as it is for those who sit in my or your pews every week.
We do not need the govt. to further our gospel ends and should oppose the government when they seek to stifle religious expression…Instead of on crying foul and saying “hands off ” when the govt. opposes us – we should simply say to the govt. “hands off religious expression altogether” – and that is what the ERLC did in the “mosque case”.
Fact: failing to support another faith’s right to not be discriminated against will render us all hypocrites when Southern Baptists’ liberty is infringed.
Debbie,
You are right when you say this:
“This is the United States where anyone has the right to practice their religion in this country. It is the land of the free, even for Muslims who have done nothing to break our country’s laws.”
But wrong when you say this:
“To take away their freedom is to also take away our freedom of worship.”
Let me explain.
In the first quote you are speaking of a man given right. It is not a God given right, We as Americans under the US Constitution have what amounts to a worldly freedom to worship whatever deity or deities we want to. And as it is based on man it can be reversed by man.
The latter part of that paragraph is just plain wrong.
Consider John Rogers [ http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1501-1600/john-rogers-1st-of-many-martyrs-11629985.html ] who aided the cause of Tyndall to get the Bible printed for the common man. He was burned at the stake. But as he was led to it, and while he was afire, he was singing praises to God. No one can take away your freedom to worship our Lord.
Consider that what you call “their freedom” is actually bondage. And yes they for most of them will never be terrorists, they themselves are trapped in a mindset by the ultimate person who seeks to steal and to kill. From a Christian perspective there is no freedom to worship false gods. From a Biblical perspective, it is a direct violation of the Commandment that people should have no other gods before the Lord.
I am not advocating we run therm out of town, nor am I saying we should fight to prevent their Mosque or cemetery from being established. For that is fighting a spiritual battle with worldly weapons. But neither should we be HOPING that our future religious freedom is based on anything but the good pleasure of the Lord, knowing that we always will have the freedom to worship even when faced with persecution and death because of it.
Religious freedom is a secular right not a right from God. Many of our brethren throughout our history have not been blessed by God with such a freedom. But though they have not had a religious freedom, they have worshipped God with their lives and many with their deaths.
@Debbie,
In my previous post, I asked (anyone) to: please tell what in Islam’s history or teaching has concord with religious freedom. Can you answer this? There are over a billion Muslims on planet earth and Islam is an old religion, but to my knowledge the predominant Islamic nations that afford religious freedom are few and far between. Are there currently any that do so?
You wrote: “This is the United States where anyone has the right to practice their religion in this country. It is the land of the free, even for Muslims who have done nothing to break our country’s laws. To take away their freedom is to also take away our freedom of worship.”
What transcendent world view undergirds our laws? Why is Islam allowed but not the worship of the Ammonite god Molech? IMO, your last sentence (“To take away their (Muslims) freedom is to also take away our freedom of worship.”) is 180 degrees out of polarity as has been demonstrated regularly throughout history.
PS: My thoughts and post were not ridiculous. I like SBC Voices. But I don’t see it helpful to reply as such.
Well Moose, we have plenty of historical evidence of elements of Christianity allowing little religious freedom. Inquisitions, crusades, Native American displacement/conversion, just to name a few. When Islam looks at us, what do they see?
Tarheel,
I agree with you that in one sense the amicus brief does not support the building of the Mosque in that its intent was to support the law that is meant to keep the Govt out of religion.
And i oppose those Christians who use the Govt to oppose the building of the Mosque or any false religious initiative that otherwise conforms to local and national laws.
The problem i have with the support given by RM and the ERLC or any other entity is not that they overstepped their bounds and acted un-SBC like, for they did not. Rather it is two fold.
Many in the world of unbelievers see any religion as most every other religion, as just another claim as a path to God. They do not see the uniqueness of the Gospel. They think that all religions worship the same god but just in different ways, that is if there really is a god at all. And formally of them they have an informal religion that declares by them and to them that as long as they live decent lives and seek to be good, god will accept them. Thus they have an investment in maintaining the all roads lead to God idea of religion.
By Christians supporting another religion’s right to build a Mosque we reinforce those false perceptions. See, you say we are supporting the law, not Islam, but how do they see it? Fir in one way, our support of the law can be interpreted to support, in one case, the building of a Mosque.
Now add to that mix a person whom much of the world sees as the ultimate Christian, namely the Pope, and the Pope says that as long as one is faithful in their own religion, whatever that might be, God will accept them.
Thus i think that even the appearance of Christians supporting another religious path is bad for the Gospel. But neither do we have any support from the Bible by command or example that gives us any precedent for such support.
Secondly, many have put forth the idea that by supporting other false religions now in their right to worship their false gods, we Christians will help secure in the future our right to worship the true God, because a precedent has been set and the courts look at such things.
I see two things wrong with that idea.
One, if and when the country decides that intolerant-of-popular-sin [like Gay marriage/rights and abortion, and other atrocities] Christians who also proclaim hate [because we claim only in Jesus is one accepted by God the rest condemned] is a problem that needs taken care of, it won’t matter how many amicus briefs have been filed on behalf of Muslims or other such measures on our part. What is wrong os that we seek to keep religious freedom based on secular means at the cost of pluralizing religion.
Two, our religious freedom may become jeopardized, even as our brethren across the globe and throughout time have had to suffer persecution and death for the faith, but the world can never take away our freedom to worship God, even as those persecuted brothers and sisters have shown us by their suffering and death. God alone is who we should look to for religious freedom, seeing that it is a blessing NOT a God given right. If and when God calls his church in America to suffer for the Gospel, we might not have the religious freedom we have today but we will always have the freedom to worship Him, even if we are persecuted for it.
Jim Perry,
you said:
“Fact: failing to support another faith’s right to not be discriminated against will render us all hypocrites when Southern Baptists’ liberty is infringed.”
How about this for hypocrisy:
On the one hand we declare that Jesus is the only way to God and all other paths are in slavery to sin and the devil.
While on the other hand we support these dungeons of slavery and evil to exist so we can [hopefully] have liberty and not persecution from the powers of this world.
#trustGodnottheworldnomatterwhatthecost
That’s one way of looking at it, Mike, and I don’t begrudge you for it. Thanks for your reasoned explanation.
I look at an Amicus Brief as an element of good citizenship. Like voting, we vote (or try to) for as good a candidate as we can, one whose policies we can support, and that we think is honorable and can do the job. I don’t vote because I think that my fate and future–or the Church’s–depends on it. Sadly, I believe many do. So many people abandoned principles just so long as Donald Trump nominated the right kind of person to the Supreme Court, and to heck with all the other garbage he spews.
With the Amicus Brief, the ERLC supported a principle that this country–indeed, the initial European settlement of this continent–was founded on: freedom to worship in whichever way people choose. It’s not that we NEED this brief to prove how congenial we are so that courts are more lenient, but we are on record and consistent as we support religious freedom for all. Were we to insist that Evangelicals are careless with regard to these laws in New Jersey, and then turn around and petition the government, we would be perceived as hypocritical and inconsistent.
You said, “even the appearance of Christians supporting another religious path is bad for the Gospel.” Well, if we’re in the business of managing people’s perceptions, which perception would you prefer to manage?
Lastly I will put forth this scenario:
On the one hand we profess love for all men and women, and want them to believe in Jesus who died for them because he loved them. We also love this nation which has enabled us to be free to worship.
While on the other hand we turn a blind eye to government discrimination, and so when approaching our Muslim friends with the Gospel, they find out we don’t actually love them, we just love who we wish they were, and the First Amendment of the Constitution of the nation that we love which enables us to worship should only apply to those religions we like.
I differ on which one “hurts the Gospel” more, but even that’s a misnomer. Nothing hurts the Gospel. The Word of God does not return back void. The only thing that hurts our witness for the Gospel is doing it without love, and we are nothing more than a noisy gong.
Brent, I am so old and computer illiterate that I do not know how to cut and paste, when I was young we did not even have paste so bear with me. I was going to paste a message but the Elmers messed up my screen. This is what happens when you are in the Jimmy Swaggart camp of the SBC.
There is not actually a Jimmy Swaggart wing of the SBC. He’s in the Assemblies of God.
Here is Dr. Day’s best paragraph:
“What would happen if those offended by Dr. Moore were to take a biblical approach and talk to him privately concerning comments that offended them and then give him opportunity to apologize and be reconciled, to the glory of Christ? What would happen if Dr. Moore would receive their calls and agree to meet with them and experience reconciliation, to the glory of God? What would happen if Dr. Moore, upon learning that his brother has something against him, would leave his offering at the altar, seek him out, and be reconciled to his brother, to the glory of Christ? Would not God be glorified and Southern Baptists be better served?”
I agree wholeheartedly with this paragraph. However, the typical Southern Baptist (including pastors) have no access to Dr. Moore. This blog and others, though, are surely read by Dr. Moore’s staff, so it would appear to me that Dr. Moore is well aware of what many of his fellow Southern Baptists are upset with him about. While there maybe some ancillary issues, I firmly believe most of us are upset with the nature of his political vitriol toward Trump supporters.
Dr. Moore could, as Dr. Day has suggested, very easily address this. If he did it would go away, at least it would for me, and I would pray, for others as well.
I have also said repeatedly that I did not agree with Dr. Graham and Prestonwood’s decision. However, they are an autonomous church. Even so, Dr. Graham DOES have access to Dr. Moore, and to Dr. Day’s point, those two should have already had a conversation. Perhaps this has taken place and the rest of us are unaware it has. If so, that needs to be published so the rest of us could have a visual of their reconciliation.
Nate,
There are over 40,000 churches in the SBC.
There are a few people blogging here who are unhappy with Dr. Moore.
Don’t you imagine that there are others upset with him than blog here.
He can’t meet with everyone who is upset with him.
Some of these people, not all, who are upset with him, are also upset because of his soteriological beliefs. Meeting with those people will solve nothing.
Why do you need a visual of their reconciliation [assuming there was one]?
Prestonwood has every right to use their monies as their congregation sees fit. But do they have the right to use their funds as leverage to influence the convention when that is not the SBC way? Who would care if a small or averaged size church protested that way? No one and certainly not the Big Secular Media.
Do you even know what the exact problem Prestonwood had with Dr. Moore and ERLC?
Wow Mike, did you even read my comment? I believe I said, “However, the typical Southern Baptist (including pastors) have no access to Dr. Moore. ” I also said there were other blogs than Voices. So where do you think I said Dr. Moore should meet with everyone? Also, I believe I said, “I have also said repeatedly that I did not agree with Dr. Graham and Prestonwood’s decision.” And, no I don’t know all the reasons Prestonwood decided to withhold their contributions.
I also believe I addressed that people were upset with his Calvinist positions, but that is NOT what has gotten him into the situation he faces right now, it is over Trump.
So let me make sure I don’t misunderstand your position Mike. You said, “Who would care if a small or averaged size church protested that way?”
Are you saying that small churches, their money, and their contributions to the CP are no concern of the SBC? I doubt you are saying that, instead, I would imagine you are saying that my small church makes no difference, and our monies, if withheld would not matter — If we were the only church to withhold. You’re probably right!
But, since I was echoing Dr. Day’s call for Moore to take heed of small churches, reach out and make a sincere apology, are you saying he shouldn’t? Are you saying that those of us upset, and our churches should just keep our mouths shut and the money flowing? Nothing to see here…. Just keep moving… Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
I guess we shouldn’t bother to show up at Phoenix and vote either, because I mean nobody, cares what small churches think or do. No one and not the Big Secular Media, right? Why do they keep reporting about our falling membership each year then?
So if meetings with or about Moore won’t solve anything, why would he want to hang around and why should an ERLC continue to exist while the bottom drops out of its funding? Makes no sense from either a business or spiritual perspective. Jettison what’s killing morale or wait to see how much further it sinks are the two options here.
Nate,
I read your reply wrong, attributing to you what was actually something you had quoted from Dr Day.
My apologies.
parsonmike, your comments at your 3/13 post at 2.55 pm were of great benefit to me. You articulated and expressed so well what I was not able to communicate as you did. Just a well thought out and well expressed explanation that I totally agree with. The early Christians in Rome had no religious freedom granted from Rome but they went to their death following their freedom to worship. I cannot add to what you wrote so I will quit trying. Again that is why I was surprised by R. Moore actions on the mosque issue when he wrote that we are Americans best when we are not Americans first, then based his support on the secular freedom granted by the state. Anyway some may disagree but I appreciate your comments and reasoning .
Eric,
Thanks for the kind words..
But Dr. Moore, despite his inconsistent words, and despite my disagreement with his action toward the Mosque, was doing what we as SBCers have expressed as our position on religious liberty.
Dr. Moore was in line with the convention and with our BF&M2000.
I think we as a convention need to reverse course in this matter for we are nto in line with Biblical truth, but again, RM was in line with SBC policy.
Maybe what this country needs, as it is spiraling down the toilet hole of sin and debauchery is:
a persecuted church
Maybe, they need to see a power greater than than the people proclaiming it, a people who stand for truth despite being persecuted for it.
I am not praying for persecution. Oh no, I like my comfy life, my non threatened ability to worship at my local church building. Easy street compared to many brethren in the world.
But neither do i want us to think of this great blessing from God as a RIGHT we should fight for in a secular way as if we DESERVE it and such easy living free from persecution here in the good ole USA is the ultimate goal we seek. What would it profit us to cling to such riches if we fail to live in obedience to our Lord? And where in the Bible by either example or command are we urged to fight for false religions to have freedom to worship/sin false gods? No where.
And while the linked song is not addressing this subject exactly, the idea is there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG_oQVpdqt8
Russell Moore said that we are Americans best when we are not Americans first, so let us be willing to give up on defending the “American” right of freedom of religion and risk future persecution by proclaiming the message that Jesus is the only way to peace and to God in EVERY aspect of our lives.
For there is no freedom in worshipping Allah or Baal or a Jesus-less-Jehovah.
No freedom whatsoever and our words should never proclaim anything less.
Jim Perry,
Thank you for a reasoned response.
I agree with you that nothing will hurt the Gospel, but we can hurt our witness of it.
Isn’t there other ways we can show love to Muslims?
of course there is.
But let us look at the way mentioned and the reasoning you gave, and that others have given:
We support the law so that down the road, maybe, we might not suffer the same kind of persecution.
That has been the main message put forth by many and initially by you. That we are helping them in order that by that help for them we might also help ourselves dow=n the road if need be. That’s not love, brother.
Second, the ERLC is not a citizen but an an entity representing a religion that proclaims that members of a Mosque stand condemned before the Creator God and that they worship an idol.
If you, as a citizen wish to protest your city councils discrimination, that is your right as a citizen. You, in doing so, will probably meet some of the Muslims you are standing up for, and by your personal interaction with them, will be a witness of Gospel truth.
But, and let us use the case before us, what if the church just down the street, has led the charge to keep the Mosque from being built. What do you think will weigh more in the minds of those lost Muslims – an amicus brief filed by lawyers in a court, or their neighbors who go to that Christian church and seeking to keep them building the Mosque? The neighbors.
Thus I think your reasoning is not deep enough. And that its first blush was not of love but of self preservation.
Who would the hypocrites be, if NJ prohibited some Christians from building a church? Would it be you or me? Nope. It would be those people who used the power of the state to discriminate against others but who now do not want to be discriminated against. I oppose any Christian who uses the power of the state to discriminate against false religions unless those initiatives were not accordance with already established local and national laws.
Therein lies a problem. Some Christians are using the state to stand against the Mosque being built while other Christians are using the state to support the Mosque being built. In my opinion, they are both wrong. Where in the Bible by example or command are we to use the state to attack or defend the practices of false religions? No where.
You said:
“While on the other hand we turn a blind eye to government discrimination, and so when approaching our Muslim friends with the Gospel, they find out we don’t actually love them, we just love who we wish they were, and the First Amendment of the Constitution of the nation that we love which enables us to worship should only apply to those religions we like.”
The ERLC doesn’t have Muslim friends. Individuals have friends. And neighbors. And you can go to your friend or neighbor and witness the Gospel to them while at the same time go to a city council meeting and demand that there should be no religious discrimination. And your other neighbors will know that you stand against the faith of the Muslims but for them as people. An amicus brief does not do that. An amicus brief does not give the Muslim neighbor the Gospel, it does not tell them how wrong the Mosque is and why he should not go. It tells them that some Christians are fearful of being discriminated against by the Govt. and they hope to forestall it by setting legal precedent.
You could tell them personally why you dislike their religion even as you fight for them not to be discriminated against. That witnesses the Gospel to many, even to non-Muslims. The amicus brief does nothing to further our witness of the Gospel. The amicus brief is NOT an act of love. Love is personal.
I did not say that the legal practice of the amicus brief was love, I said that was intellectual consistency. Abstaining from one argument only to reserve the same argument for later is hypocrisy. What is loving is standing for people’s civil liberties. I don’t know why that is up for debate.
The ERLC may not be a citizen, but an entity which represents other citizens for the specific purpose of promoting ethics and religious liberty (not “Christian” liberty), and an amicus brief is a practice of citizenship, taking part in the legal process. The SBC could stand firmly against them building any mosques, and an individual neighbor could possibly overcome that with their Muslim friends, sure. However if we can affirm that our denomination stood for others against the violation of their civil liberty, why is that a bad thing? It’s not.
I don’t think it takes any deep analysis to reach the right decision. So I agree? I guess? But you can’t tell me my reasoning wasn’t deep enough and then cite what you saw “at first blush.”
Look, this really isn’t that hard. Either we stand for religious liberty FOR all, or we don’t stand for it AT all. No one is defending religious practices. We’re defending the fair application of the law. Where in the Bible did Christians have a free Democratic Republic with their right to worship codified, and which allowed the free expression of thought and political participation? No where. If we ought to participate in the political process, then we ought to participate in the legal process as well, especially as it relates to Religious Liberty.
It is true, individuals have friends and neighbors, not organizations. Yet the ERLC is operated by individuals who have friends and neighbors, and are responsible for being in the public forum and standing for the truth. I can’t get on CNN or in the major publications and debate important issues from a Christian perspective, but Russell Moore (who is an individual) has the platform to do this.
An amicus brief doesn’t support idolatry. An amicus brief does nothing to detract from the witness of the Gospel. If, as you say, an individual can stand against the faith of the Muslims but for them as people, then an amicus brief standing for them as people does not necessarily also stand for their faith. I’m sorry, but your argument is not internally consistent.
Jim Perry,
So if standing up for civil liberty meant confusing people about the Gospel, it would be love?
First of all, the stated intent, by many, was to protect OUR religious freedom. It was even what you first posted that I responded to.
My position is that we are hypocrites if we say that Muslims or any other false religion has a RIGHT to worship false gods. That might be the secular law of the land, but it is AGAINST the law of God.
Now you want to run the argument away from the first stated purpose you defended and defend another notion: that it was loving to stand up for their civil liberties.
Maybe i am getting you wrong, but since you brought up the term, that sure seems hypocritical to me.
It seems to me that when your first argument doesn’t work, you declare it an act of love. But if the motive, as you surely stated, and as others surely have as well, was to protect our own civil liberty, it seems like the action was more self serving than giving.
You said:
“The ERLC may not be a citizen, but an entity which represents other citizens for the specific purpose of promoting ethics and religious liberty (not “Christian” liberty), and an amicus brief is a practice of citizenship, taking part in the legal process. The SBC could stand firmly against them building any mosques, and an individual neighbor could possibly overcome that with their Muslim friends, sure. However if we can affirm that our denomination stood for others against the violation of their civil liberty, why is that a bad thing? It’s not.”
I agree that the ERLC was acting somewhat within the bounds of its mission. That is not the point. The point is that it did so to protect OUR civil liberty. And that we are duty bound to the Gospel to do more than just promote certain civil liberties in this country, but to firstly and preeminently to promote the Gospel. That Gospel proclaims, among other things, that worshipping false gods is an abomination unto the One Lord God. And that proclamation should not be overshadowed by actions that are intended to AID our own quest for future liberty while supporting false religion, under the guise that we want the USA to be fair to everyone, so we support civil liberties.
When we witness for Jesus we are not witnessing for our denomination. There are, I am sure, a lot of churches that cal themselves Southern Baptist that I would not attend nor would I want a new convert to attend. People don’t get saved by how good a denomination is. And even such a boast is true, how does that affect the person you are witnessing to: spiritually -NOT AT ALL.
So being able to beat our chest and declare how great our denomination is has no positive influence on our Gospel witness. Read the comments across many posts and OPs. Many SBCers want Muslims out of the country. Having the boast you declare or having an amicus brief will not counteract the many who are anti-Muslim-being-here type of SBC church goer. That is because people are connected to denominations but to their neighbors- to other people.
You said:
“Look, this really isn’t that hard. Either we stand for religious liberty FOR all, or we don’t stand for it AT all. No one is defending religious practices. We’re defending the fair application of the law. Where in the Bible did Christians have a free Democratic Republic with their right to worship codified, and which allowed the free expression of thought and political participation? No where. If we ought to participate in the political process, then we ought to participate in the legal process as well, especially as it relates to Religious Liberty.”
All for one and one for all. NOT.
The law is secular. Let that which belongs to Caesar be with Caesar.
God’s Law is supreme. And it tells us that there is no liberty in worshipping false gods.
Where the law of man conflicts with the law of God, what shall we choose?
How do we declare the fight: AS a protection of the freedom to worship. We mix the secular with the spiritual. And you don’t think that can be confusing to the person on the street? Many in our own ranks have equated love of the USA with God’s love of Israel and conflated church and state.
If their right to worship is codified, WHY do they need us to file an amicus brief? It is a secular legal matter, so let the secular legal lawyers handle it. Muslims have money for these fights and have good lawyers to aid them.
Now why didn’t God anticipate the USA? Why didn’t God anticipate the need for Christians to fight for the freedom of God haters to worship their false gods in a free Democratic republic? So since God did not address it, we are free to fight for God haters to worship false gods, because that is a loving thing to do?
When it comes to the Word, what are we told?
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. [1 Tim 2]
Note that we are not to appeal to men or kings or those in authority, but to God. Appeals to secular courts would be appealing to those in authority. Our appeal is to God. And as we look back through time, we see that God has not always granted His people a quiet and tranquil life. And yet He has always preserved His people through every storm. I take from this that God does not want us to be looking towards civil liberties to gain that tranquil and quiet life but to only look to Him. Because it just may be true that one very time and every place there will be a need for that tranquility and quietness to be sacrificed for the cause of the Gospel.
Historically we have seen that to be true. And maybe when His children start looking to the Govt/world for what they should only look to from God, they get corrupted and worldly, desiring the things of the word more than what can not be seen. And maybe the church in America has grown fat and lazy and self serving. So self serving in fact that when they start to fear the possibility they might lose their nice cushy ride they seek steps that might aid them to keep their civil liberties and in defense of that, call it love.
I stand by my statement, and yield back the remainder of my time.
Was Russell Moore overly harsh in his criticism of many evangelical leaders enthusiastic embrace and endorsement of Donald Trump, I honestly don’t think so. Was he over harsh toward those evangelicals who decided that Trump was the better of the candidates in terms of the long term of religious liberty and therefore supported him despite Trumps manifold moral flaws and doubtful adherence to basic Christian tenets (repentance chief among them), yes I think Dr. Moore was overly harsh on them. But evidently many think the SBC ought to be the abused girlfriend of the Republican Party rather than the Bride of Christ.
Dr. Russell Moore makes me mad, a lot, but then I always have to think about what he has to say. Is my position political or is it biblical? He is an excellent conscience, challenging us to think Biblically about issues we would rather think about politically. Most often I come to a different policy position than would Dr. Moore, but I know that I can defend that position both politically and more importantly Biblically. I for one am thankful for Dr. Moore’s thoughtful and Biblically informed challenges to us. He is exactly what we need — theologically conservative (he’s made it clear time after time that he is committed to Bible inerrancy and the orthodox doctrines of the Baptist flavor of Christianity), entish when it comes to politics (not really wanting to be on any political party’s side because they’ve proven time and again they are not on our side), and more concerned with people than power (we ought to be about winning souls for Christ rather than passing laws against sin {because after all sinners do what sinners do} or winning elections).
I thought he was accurate in what he said, but then, I agreed with him. My personal opinion (and it’s just opinion) is that Evangelical leaders bought a bill of goods and sold out their principles on the altar of political power and control. I think everyone who stood for Trump during the Primaries and not actual conservatives and sensible, tasteful, respectful candidates sold out for power.
Hi Jim, I tend to agree with you, if we are speaking of the primary election. I was writing in reference to the general election. But my former self as political operative also kicks in and I wonder whether an avowedly Evangelical or any avowedly orthodox Christian could win a general election nationally in the U.S. in post-Christian America? I fear we are going to be faced with the unenviable choice between the friendliest pagan and the most hostile pagan for many years to come.
Andrew Breitbart was correct in his analysis that politics is downstream of culture. But he failed to recognize that culture is downstream of theology. And presently American theology is the the theology of the self. Randians on the right and Sexual Revolutionaries on the left have more in common than is often thought. Both elevate the self to the level of the divine.
So, our task as Christians ought to be to focus on people rather than power. We need to change people’s lives by demonstrating in word and deed that Jesus is better, then over time the theology will change followed by the culture and then politics. But as long as Christians chose to fight over politics rather than people, we will both lose elections and lose people. Satan will have won this round of the mopping-up. And the Kingdom will not advance. We as Southern Baptists need to decide is Russell Moore on God’s side ro the world’s side. I for one think he is on God’s side, I hope I am too.
I don’t need Al Mohler, but most of the primary candidates were far more palatable–and met the criteria of the SBC Resolution on character of leaders–than the clown we have now.
I agree on the balance of your point, and this Russell Moore kerflapple is all about politics. His criticisms were exactly to the point of the Church having principles that go beyond politics. And if Moore can’t speak to principles and call out leadership for ignoring that resolution, then that means it’s basically another arbitrary “political correctness” standard, unfortunately in the Church.
As a Christ follower, but not a member of the SBC I am trying to understand this opposition to Dr. Moore. I cannot seem to get a clear picture. Some reference the amicus brief filed by the ELRC. This is a legitimate debate, but does not warrant Dr. Moore’s ousting or elimination of the ELRC. The decision was consistent with their mission, though ultimately I disagree with it. But it is okay to disagree on these things. Sadly it seems the real reason is because Dr. Moore chose to speak Biblical truth to a political candidate. That should be welcomed, not condemned. We as Christians need to speak truth with grace to both political parties. I pray he is not removed nor the ELRC abolished. It will reflect very poorly on Christians’ witness to the world.
It is largely because he dared to make a values judgment on the people who supported him, and even his rather innocuous op ed in the New York Times was read as some kind of condemnation, rather than a warning as was intended. He also dared to call out Evangelical leaders–perhaps not by name, but implication–which included some SBC leadership. The SBC delegates at the Salt Lake City convention in 1998 voted to approve a “Resolution on the Moral Character of Public Officials,” something Donald Trump clearly violates on multiple levels, and Russell Moore perhaps insisted on some consistency there. What a concept.
The last line of the resolution reads, “Be it finally RESOLVED, That we urge all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office, and to elect those officials and candidates who, although imperfect, demonstrate consistent honesty, moral purity and the highest character.” This goes straight to the estimated 80% of SBC members who voted for him. In my mind they sold out principle and character for power.
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/773/resolution-on-moral-character-of-public-officials