Jared Moore has asked us to remove his posts. There are a handful, like this article, which we’ve turned into a summary and left the comments section posted.
On May 25, 2017, in the midst of controversy surrounding the ERLC, Jared Moore advocated a special offering taken up specifically for the ERLC:
The church I pastor, Cumberland Homesteads Baptist Church in Crossville, TN, is planning to take up an offering for the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) on June 4, 2017. I want to encourage your church to do the same (Add it to your Church Calendar).
Jared explained some of his reasoning:
Who leads the ERLC? The ERLC President is Dr. Russell Moore. He has courageously and faithfully lead the ERLC since 2013. He has lead the ERLC to speak and act in accordance with our confession (BF&M2K, especially Article XVII. Religious Liberty), to carry out their responsibilities in accordance with the ministry statement approved by Southern Baptists… By all accounts, he is a faithful Christian, husband, father, Southern Baptist, leader, and preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ. God has used him mightily and I look forward to seeing how God uses him and the ERLC in the future.
Follow in the comments section as some who are ERLC supporters thought this was an ill-conceived idea.
I’ll pass. The organization does important work for southern baptists but already gets a slice of every cooperative program dollar. They are not in the least underfunded.
I am a strong supporter of the ERLC, but I think this is a bad idea.
A lot of work went into making peace between Dr. Moore, the ERLC and those who stood against it and were threatening to withhold CP.
Those who support the ERLC should be supporting the CP, not doing something like this.
I want everyone to know that while we are allowing Jared to post this, this post does not represent my views or any sort of editorial position of SBC Voices.
I think it is not a good idea and I will in no way support it. It is a divisive act when we need to be working on uniting.
Good idea. I think all of our entities should have a specific offering day throughout the year. NAMB already has the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering and the IMB has the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. Why don’t we have a specific day for giving to our theological institutions? Maybe not an individual offering for each school, but a collective offering for all six seminaries doesn’t seem out of bounds. We could also have a specified giving day for Mission Dignity and the work that Guidestone does to help struggling churches and pastors. Thoughts? Would this have to be a motion made at the annual meeting? If so, would anyone like to help me craft the motion?
At the last church I pastored, our treasurer was pretty fond of taking up special offerings for different projects. My normal preference is to try to pay for things through the normal budget process. But I will say he had a pretty good point on a number of occasions. His common phrase on the subject:
“If you don’t like it, don’t give.”
It had a nice way of diffusing complainers about why we shouldn’t be spending (so much) money on this or that. So while my normal preference of paying for things through the normal budget process leads me to shy away from more special offerings… I certainly see no benefit in criticizing others, like Jared’s church, who want to give or encourage others to give with them.
If you wander further down in the comments, you’ll see part of what I’m talking about illustrated. There’s no need to criticize. If you don’t like it, don’t give.
I disagree with the ERLC on position 4.
**Religious liberty is not a God given right for all people .
**That we in USA have been blessed with religious liberty does not mean it is a God given right.
**There is no true religious liberty outside of Christ the Lord.
**And even as we should not use secular means to fight spiritual battles [ex.: not using a town council to stop a Mosque from being built] neither should we look to our government for religious liberty but only to God.
**Likewise we should never aid anyone, outside of Christians, and in any way, in promoting their worship of false gods [ex. the filing of amicus briefs in the case of that New Jersey mosque.] Our message should be that there is no freedom in worshipping false gods and that such worship is an abomination to the One True God.
**True religious liberty, in the Biblical sense, does not depend on the circumstances one finds themselves in: Paul and Silas praising God in jail. Peter and John being counted worthy to suffer for the Name.
I am seeing less of a need for an SBC-funded ERLC now than ever before. What does the ERLC do that Lifeway or The Gospel Coalition (that Russell Moore is also involved with) doesn’t or can’t do? If the SBC needs a “spokesperson” for the media, just have them talk to whoever is serving as president. Otherwise, in the interest of being good stewards of the Lord’s money, we should consider re-allocating the ERLC dept. funds to the other entities, especially given the financial climate that some of them are in.
Dan B. I agree with you. What would be the lost if the ERLC did not exist? Why bring up the still sore subject of Russell Moore and his tenure of failed leadership? Dr. Moore spends a lot of time with non SBC groups that he can state his positions there on their payroll. Maybe a good start would be an accountability of funds, resources and effort to do the round robin of preaching to the choir events that the ERLC leaders attend on the SBC expense account. Most SBC lay members do not know about the ERLC , which is good for the ERLC, because if they knew the actions of Dr. Moore they would be upset. So who would miss the ERLC, the people who have great jobs there representing their viewpoint. Again why bring this up again.
Another special emphasis offering for an entity…no thanks. Everyone in the SBC is part of an autonomous church. As for mine, we are pleased with the allocation through CP to the ERLC.
Amen.
Why is Jared getting beat up on here?
Like Brent said – If one doesn’t want to participate in what he’s offered / planned – no one has to.
But geez several commenters here are taking shots at him – why? I don’t get it.
He’s sharing an idea to show support and encourage giving to a particular entity – it appears to me that his idea in no way harms the CP or other entities (at least no more than the other PLETHORA of *SBC sanctioned* special offerings do) – so what’s the big deal!?
Please defend your accusatory statements.
Jared is “getting beat up on”
Every comment that disagrees is focused on the CONCEPT Jared puts forward and not one says a word about Jared.
You said people were “taking shots” at him.
Show ONE comment that was a shot.
Please either comment on the concept or not. But there is no need to be hyper-sensitive and make it personal. It’s kinda silly and ridiculous.
I’m with Tar Heel on seeing this as weird. The ERLC just took a beating publicly why would a suggested special offering get a “I want everyone to know that while we are allowing Jared to post this, this post does not represent my views or any sort of editorial position of SBC Voices.”
I’ve always appreciated that SBC Voices publishes a wide range of sources but, if any are going to get the “this doesn’t represent us” treatment this is a strange one to put it on IMO.
Since this is so divisive, Jeff, and with the PC coming up, I had to make it clear it did not represent my views or some kind of editorial position of SBC Voices.
We are trying to make every effort at unity through the PC. I do not support this idea anyway, but normally, I would just ignore it.
With the PC coming up, I felt it necessary to make my position clear.
Jeff beat me to it….
Outside of that – I’ll just let the comments I’ve made and your responses speak for themselves.
Except to say that I was a bit overly broad in my statement when I spoke in plural terms.
You called his actions divisive – when nothing in his post or suggestion seems to be so. In fact, it seems on its face to be a positive gesture.
I won’t be leading my church in the way he is on this matter – but I won’t be attacking his motives or actions either.
It’s not hard to see the title as a promo by SBCV for a convention-wide special offering Sunday for ERLC. The piece is not offered as such and Jared quickly says that his church (alone, but with hopes of others joining in) is doing the offering but a disclaimer at the beginning would have been good.
ERLC will receive over $60k that Sunday and every other Sunday out of CP gifts.
William – I’m not sure many readers thought this was another sanctioned SBC offering …
This was an idea and suggestion proposed by a single church pastor – Who as you stated made it clear that this was a proposal not another SBC sanctioned love offering.
Outside of the PC this year – voices does not make a habit of officially announcing SBC type thingies unless it’s something they’re linking from BP or something – and of course the conversations of Lottie And Annie generally around their seasons…
It’s also seems to me that it’s not customary to openly disavow a post – as most people understand that unless one of the editors has personally written it and states it is his opinion… That it does not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of Voices.
For some reason though, this was article was officially and editorially called out as divisive and disavowed – that observation is what led to my questions.
You may be right but with such a high readership, my conjecture is that the title would confuse some. Also, I’d speculate that most do not understand the loose collaborative of contributors here.
If you will be in Phoenix I’d love to see you. I’m definitely going this year.
I’ll be there!
I’d love to meet you as well, William.
Dave,
You keep calling this “divisive”, and I take it you are referring to Jared’s proposal.
However, that amounts to naked assertion on your part. There is nothing inherently or objectively divisive in Jared’s proposal, quite the opposite in fact.
I’ll grant that recently there *was* divisive action taken by those who dislike the ERLC and it was taken through an effort to defund the ERLC (and many other SBC causes). That does not mean, however, that the inverse – providing additional funds – is *also* divisive. The idea that special offerings are divisive would make things like Dignity Sunday (at the national level) or Tennessee Baptist Children’s Home Sunday (in my state) issues of division rather than what they more clearly are – acts of support.
Now, if you say some will take it as divisive, well, you are right. But those same people would see, if Dr. Moore accidently caught himself on fire, putting out the flames as divisive. I would then caution letting the perception of unhelpfully divisive people drive the who-is-divisive effort and certainly hesitate to make their bias grounds for special editorial disclaimers.
Dave, this may be the first time in SBC history when an elected SBC officer called an offering for an SBC entity “divisive.” I’m dumbfounded by your assertion, and I don’t follow your logic at all.
I think it’s good to show support for the ERLC or any other SBC entity financially. I appreciate the ERLC, Dr. Moore, and the rest of our SBC entities. I hope other churches follow suit. I’m looking forward to giving to the ERLC this Sunday, June 4.