You may have heard that some among our Southern Baptist Convention are intent on bearing false witness against Russell Moore and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Dr. Moore is accused of pushing a progressive agenda at the ERLC. He must be stopped, it is argued.
Well, the ERLC has just released their 2018 Legislative Agenda. If this is the new progressive agenda, then sign me up! I am hoping that someone with contacts to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi can pass it along to them so they will know what things to work toward in 2018. I’m not sure they know that they are supposed to be supporting things like the sanctity of human life and religious liberty.
Here are some samples from the ERLC agenda. I hope you will consider reading the whole thing.
On the Sanctity of Human Life…
Scripture teaches that every person is an image bearer of God (Gen. 1:26-27). Moreover, Scripture is clear that the womb is God’s domain, and that his knowledge of the unborn even precedes the creative act of conception (Jer. 1:5; Ps. 139:13). It is estimated that over 3,000 abortions take place in the United States every day. These are precious human lives denied both personhood and protection by an on-demand abortion culture. This year, we continue our fight on behalf of the most vulnerable among us, beginning with our annual Evangelicals For Life conference in Washington, D.C. Additionally, with the current congressional makeup, we are hopeful regarding a number of key pro-life legislative initiatives: Conscience Protection Act, Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Defund Planned Parenthood, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, (opposition to) Physician-assisted Suicide.
On Religious Liberty…
We learn from Romans 13:1–7 that governments and rulers have authority because that authority is given by God. God alone is the Creator of the universe and Lord of the conscience, and recognizing God’s authority also means recognizing man’s authority is never all-encompassing but limited and to be exercised within the parameters set by God. The American Founders understood this basic reality when crafting Article Six and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides religious freedom for American citizens by limiting the power of government. Baptists have always stood at the forefront, both among Christians insisting on religious freedom as a biblical teaching and in the public square contending for religious freedom for all. The ERLC will continue our work to defend the free exercise of faith for all believers.
On Family and Marriage…
Marriage is a gift from God. It serves as the basic human social structure (Gen. 2:18-25), provides stability for raising children (Prov. 1:8), and, most importantly, illustrates the relationship between Christ and his Church (Eph. 5:22-33). Marriage is an essential, foundational institution for human life and flourishing. We will work in the coming year to defend God’s design for marriage amidst related policy items.
On Justice…
Scripture unequivocally teaches that God is just (Deut. 32:4). And as Christians we rightly bear the call to reflect the justice of God as we seek to be faithful followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. That mandate can been seen most clearly in the words of the prophet Micah: “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8) In our advocacy for fair and impartial judgment, and equitable treatment of the unjustly oppressed and marginalized, we bear witness to a God who is ultimately the just Judge, and a gospel that saves indiscriminately and without partiality.
On International Engagement…
Just as the ERLC is focused on advocating for human dignity, religious liberty, the family, and justice issues in the United States, we advance the same agenda internationally. In so doing, we respond to the call of the Scriptures to “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute” (Prov. 31:8). The ERLC’s international work is focused on the most vulnerable, such as religious minorities and victims of human trafficking.
As you can see, the idea that the ERLC is left-leaning or progressive under the leadership of Russell Moore is an absolutely ridiculous assertion. You do not have to agree with Dr. Moore and his team on the specifics of every single issue of public policy to realize that this looks nothing like a progressive agenda.
For my part, I will simply continue to remind those who are intent on telling outright lies about Dr. Moore and the ERLC that the 9th Commandment is still in the Bible.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
The intellectual vapidity and moral emptiness of many on the right today is shown in the tendency to refuse to engage in argument, but simply to call people who vary from their political views as liberal or progressive.
I am an old conservative codger but because I have come to support active racial reconciliation and oppose shipping 12 million people away, i am somehow a liberal or progressive.
Feel free to disagree with me, with Russell Moore, or with Adam (especially about sports). But the “progressive ” thing is either ignorant or dishonest.
Let us be gracious and assume ignorance.
Those chirping the loudest know better. They are dishonest. Those who may be swept up in their chirping may just be ignorant.
Dave Miller and Adam Blosser,
While it is true that “progressive” does not define Dr. Russ Moore, “dishonest” and “ignorant” does not define all who are in opposition to his leadership of the ERLC.
As for me, I don’t want him fired, run out of the SBC, or tarred and feathered. However, I do wish he had not been so vocal about Trump and so obviously less vocal about Mrs. Clinton during the election. I think that to have been a mistake and bad judgment on his part.
I also wish that the ERLC, under his leadership would not put abortion and immigration policies in the same basket.
I am for secure borders and a revision of immigration laws. At the same time, I believe that what has and is happening to people like Jorge Garcia to be completely without one leg to stand on for people who claim to live by a biblical worldview. What happened to that man, his wife and children is wrong and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any Christian could support that in good conscience.
I did not say that dishonest or ignorant describes those who are in opposition to his leadership at the ERLC. I said it describes those who either dishonestly or ignorantly call him a progressive.
CB, I was going to say you are wise beyond your years…..but I guess we’ll just have to go with wise….lol
Seriously, To use your phrase – you’re right as rain in every word of your post.
OK Adam Blosser,
Allow me to be more accurate in my own argument toward your use of the words “ignorant” and “dishonest.”
You did state, “Those chirping the loudest know better. They are dishonest. Those who may be swept up in their chirping may just be ignorant.”
Adam Blosser, I would argue that even among those who “chirp the loudest,” not all of them are dishonest. Some of them are simply very passionate in their opposition. Maybe we could even say they are overzealous. Being overzealous is not the same as being dishonest.
Were that the case, then it would be correct to declare that many of us who were young and zealous for the cause of the Conservative Resurgence were “dishonest.” We were not all dishonest.
Did we make some mistakes? Yes. Yes we did. Were we at times overzealous? Yes. Yes we were.
Were there some during the days of the CR who were dishonest? Yes. Yes there were. Some are “household” words/legends today and hold exalted positions in the SBC and it may be that even you admire some of them.
It is the same today.
As for your use of the word “ignorant”? Well, I do admit you did state they “‘may’ just be ignorant.”
However, it is still not a great leap to consider you mean that among those who are “swept away” by the loud chirping of those who are dishonest, if not dishonest themselves, they are at least simply ignorant.
The truth is that they may not even be “swept away” by those who chirp loudest. They may actually oppose Dr. Moore due to what they believe are valid reasons, but are not very loud about it.
Now, in your defense, I must admit that some who are among the loud and overzealous are truly ignorant of specific realities about that of which or of whom they oppose.
You’ll just have to either take my word for it (or don’t) when I tell you that both of those statements about those who are either ignorant or dishonest are about those who would call Russell Moore a progressive.
I do not believe it is dishonest or ignorant to oppose Russell Moore. I do believe it is either dishonest or ignorant to call him a progressive. Those chirping the loudest about him being a progressive are liars. Those who are swept up by their lies may just be ignorant.
Adam Blosser,
I’ll take your word for it. Now, you’ll just have to take my word for it (or don’t) you could have made your point better and without as much heat in your furnace.
Zeal can cook a fine meal, but being overzealous always burns the biscuits. Take that from a guy who has burned a lot of biscuits.
It’s the new way of arguing, I’ve been watching the development of it for the last 20 years (and the rapid acceleration the last 10). If you disagree; you no longer: engage in debate, refute arguments, and convince. Instead you: insult, miscategorize, ignore context, ignore previous statements, etc.
Welcome to the modern world of logical-less, emotionalism. Buckle up, I don’t think it will change anytime soon.
Clearly you are a liberal progressive.
We can’t all be perfect 🙂
“Vapidity”? You’ll make my next vocab article with that.
I imagine actual liberals get a good laugh in when someone tells them that Russell Moore is a liberal lol
It’s the new “progressivism”
Anyone who opposes anything that comes from Donald Trump’s mouth or the words spoken by his “court evangelicals” is automatically a progressive.
The lack of ability to have an intelligent debate about issues is an unfortunate by-product. As soon as you disagree with someone, using facts, you are either a progressive or unkind or self righteous. It’s quite annoying.
Good article. Sadly I doubt it will be heeded by the people who need to read it.
The list is filled with things that are and must be priorities for us, particularly religious liberty and pro-life, including some realistic and actionable steps that can be taken. No doubt some will say support for a DACA replacement #4 and #3 on some steps for criminal justice reform aren’t conservative enough, but that’s actually incorrect as many conservative legislators support both of those items.
I could understand Moore not wanting to align himself with Trump during the campaign, but the endless criticism and attacks on both Trump and his voters did a lasting damage that is now limiting the influence that Moore and the ERLC might have otherwise had in the current administration.
I think it’s fair to consider Moore as a progressive albeit a Christian progressive if you will. Just because he supports the sanctity of human life and Biblical marriage doesn’t mean that description doesn’t apply. On most other issues, his positions appear to agree more with Democrats’ positions rather than Republicans’. This maybe wouldn’t be a big deal so long as the majority of the CP givers also saw things the same way. But that’s not the case.
And God forbid we agree Democrats on anything. I mean if we find things we agree with them on then we can’t demonize them.
…SMH…
The Democrat party has taken a hard shift to the left over the past couple of decades. So yes, someone with a Biblical worldview would find it hard to come to much agreement with someone within that party now. I am not saying it can’t or shouldn’t be done ever though. For example, there’s no good reason why the Trump DACA deal on the table shouldn’t be slam dunk bipartisan legislation. But that’s only if the Dems are willing to vote something other than “NO” for a change.
I have renounced my affiliation with the GOP because I have found it impossible to square my biblical convictions with the behavior of that party.
I was no longer satisfied with, “Well, they are better than the Democrats” as the only reason to remain a Republican.
Do the majority of CP givers determine truth & SBC policy/positions?; or does the Bible & truth extrapolated from the Bible determines truth?
I know the answered I’d LIKE to give you. But as a lifelong Baptist I also know reality does not always reach to the ideal.
Dwight, the Bible is truth. No one denies that.
There are some different interpretations of what the Bible teaches. It’s why we have different denominations.
The SBC is a bottom-up organization, not top-down. Sometimes it doesn’t seem that way, but it’s important to note. Thus it is reasonable to expect the views of denominational leadership to reflect the views (generally speaking) of those in the pews.
DOCA
LOL
Dan B,
Lots of diverse views in the pew. Unless u do a poll of the pew, not sure how u or anyone else know, what they believe.
As many know I was critical of Dr. Moore during the election of 2016, and of course, with the NeverTrumper’s, just as they surely were with me. Having said that, I never believed Dr. Moore was not a sincere brother in Christ writing and speaking things he believed needed to be said, just as much as I believed he used his position for personal politics and not for the entirety of Southern Baptists he represented.
I don’t know who has started this new “progressive agenda” meme against Dr. Moore and ERLC. To be honest, this is the very first I have heard about. I just read through the document and I don’t find anything so “progressive” (if people are using that term as a pejorative) to be concerned about. Perhaps Adam could point out the specific points in the document people are using to make that claim.
I will say this however. Whether in this document, on the ERLC website, or by Dr. Moore writing about it, I find it short-sighted that there hasn’t been praise given to the President for the things he has done as it relates to the items in the ERLC’s agenda. Can they not at least acknowledge and praise President Trump for being the first (yes first) President to speak at the March for Life? Perhaps they did and I missed it. If this document was truly “just released” why not acknowledge that in the document?
Why hasn’t the ERLC commended the President for the couple he brought to the State of the Union who saved an unborn child from probably being aborted (the police officer with the heroin addict mom)? President Trump’s statement about this, “When Ryan told her she was going to harm her unborn child, she began to weep. She told him she did not know where to turn, but badly wanted a safe home for her baby. In that moment, Ryan said he felt God speak to him: “You will do it — because you can.” He took out a picture of his wife and their four kids. Then, he went home to tell his wife Rebecca. In an instant, she agreed to adopt. The Holets named their new daughter Hope.” Name me another President that has ever given that kind of spotlight to the saving of the unborn in a nationally televised speech?
Can Dr. Moore not acknowledge this President? Does Dr. Moore really want to try and get into the White House on behalf of Southern Baptists? This is where I am still skeptical that Dr. Moore has anything but contempt for this President. As Michael Brown has noted in many of his columns recently, and I’m paraphrasing, “Critique the President when he speaks/tweets irresponsibly, but praise him when he speaks and acts credibly and for Christians and the nation.”
I have little confidence, if any, that Dr. Moore truly wants to work with this administration. As I said at the start I’ll say here again, I supported the President during his campaign and I still support him today. Many may claim I refuse to see any flaws with the President. I do see his flaws, perhaps not as many as some would like me to, but I do think there are still NeverTrumper’s who refuse to acknowledge anything good the President has done.
The ERLC agenda is not progressive, but the jury is still out (in my opinion) on whether Dr. Moore can progress past his NeverTrump status and into one who can work with the Trump administration.
“Can Dr. Moore not acknowledge this President?”
In a strange sort of way, there is a thread of goodness woven into this administration. You can see it if you stare into the distance; you can hear it if you tune out the noise. If only the man wouldn’t tweet …
I have read the ERLC Legislative agenda for 2018, and I previously have read the agendas for other years, as well.
I agree in large part with this agenda, and I believe that most Southern Baptists will, as well.
I think it is very wise for the ERLC to stick closely with things that will be supported by most people in the SBC, and not to try and push beyond those boundaries.
I am not, however, a “straight ticket voter.” I have a couple of reservations, and I would be glad to write on those, but won’t need to do that in full here. My area of reservations with the legislative agenda are in the areas of immigration, and “justice.” But there are so many parts to each of those issues where I would agree on some things, and not on others, that it would take too long to describe.
I have never called for Dr. Moore to be fired, nor would I do so. I think he is doing a good job, and that he can do much for the Kingdom in the future.
I do not consider Dr. Moore to be a Progressive, and would not use that word to describe him. I don’t think others should do so either.
Dr. Moore is way to the right of our current President on things like gay marriage and such.
I do believe that the involvement in the 2016 election was unwise. To his credit, Dr. Moore thought so, too, and he has apologized accordingly. I think that we all need to move on from that.
Other areas of concern might have to do with Ethics. Not, however, because of anything the ERLC is doing. I would like to see some emphasis in other areas.
It seems I read a couple of years ago about the ERLC’s greatest ethical concerns in the churches. I am sorry I can’t link to that page. I seem to recall that sexual abuse and the handling of sexual abuse was not listed among the top concerns. Maybe it has been since then. I suspect it will. Being a bit late to that issue, I suspect, is the product of the young Reformed movement not wanting to have to deal with the specter of the C.J. Mahaney matter, but that is just a suspicion.
I hope that if it has not already done so that the ERLC will prominently place sexual abuse and the handling of sexual abuse as the number one ethical issue to address this year.
A close second, and sort of a related matter, would be church discipline and the ethical handling of that. We need to remember that each believer is a priest before God, thus, we believe in the Priesthood of each believer. I am concerned that is getting lost in recent years as a biblical and ethical matter. The ERLC could help by addressing such things.
I would prefer that the recognition of Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel would receive more attention. The only article that I saw on the ERLC website was a “what you need to know” kind of report, and it really gave more of a perspective from the Arab side than the Israeli side.
I realize that many in the SBC favor Israel for eschatological reasons (I do not), and I suspect that Dr. Moore may not share those. Still, given the SBC’s history on the State of Israel, the relationship of the Christian people to Jewish people, and the fact that Israel is a free democracy that shares many values that the US has, that it would be a good thing for the ERLC to rejoice in the fact that Jerusalem has been recognized by the US as the Capitol of Israel. I think that the people in the SBC would agree.
I also believe the issue of hate in the public arena is an ethical issue the ERLC should address. The marches through cities, the destruction of private property and the physical harm to others, the denial of people’s rights to speak are critically important issues. I am hoping more Christians will speak out on this, including the ERLC. Sometimes people think that hating others is justified. Unless we’re talking war, the enforcement of criminal law – really big stuff, we should be stressing how Christians should not harm others or be hateful. Our country has a really big problem with that. Christians, too. Just read Facebook.
People know that we are Christians by our love for one another, not by the moral or political policy prescriptions we hold.
None of us are going to agree on everything all the time. We ought to be able to criticize any of our agencies and agency leaders, but we should do so fairly.
Finally, my hope is that Christians should stand on things we believe. I am not a member of any political party.
But I do believe in certain things strongly. The candidates and the party that believes in those things the most are the candidates or party that is going to get my vote.
I believe it is unfair generally to make the charge that some Christians are just locked into one party. Actually, I find that Christians accused of that are actually for a certain set of principles. They would be more than willing to vote for a candidate of another party if that candidate was for those principles. That is actually being convictional, not being a sell out. The differences may be over which things we are most convictional about, and how to balance those with other issues. Different people make different choices. But that doesn’t make either a sellout.
This:
“Baptists have always stood at the forefront, both among Christians insisting on religious freedom as a biblical teaching and in the public square contending for religious freedom for all.”
Brother Moore is carrying out the wishes of the SBC in his defense of religious liberty.
So I have nothing against him or ELRC for doing the job they are commissioned to do.
But…
The freedom to practice false religion is NOT taught in the Bible as freedom at all. Rather the Bible squarely condemns worship of false gods.
“You shall have no other gods before Me.”
“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
Or in matthew:
“Then Jesus *said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’””
1st Cor. “No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.”
Deut. 12: “Take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.’ You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.”
Deut. 13: ““If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. …”
“If you hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God is giving you to dwell there, that certain worthless fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square and burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It shall be a heap forever. It shall not be built again. …”
I beseech each one of you to not support ‘freedom’ of religion for those who practice idol worship -false religions. Nor should we as individuals, or as congregations, or as the Convention in any way act in any manner that declares that any man has freedom in this matter for outside of our worship of the Christ, there is not freedom but bondage.
Why then do we call bondage freedom?
True freedom of religion, and the ability to live at peace within any country while we openly serve the Lord is His gracious gift that we have received from Him by the means He has used togive it to us. In our case that means is the US bill of rights. But let us not confusewhat man has done with the power that caused our freedom, namely our King.
And by abusing His benefit to us by declaring that all men have freedom to worship idols of most every sort, we confuse His gift of freedom with the puny workings of man. His power rises far above the desires of evil men and demons, so that we will possess this freedom as long as He deems to give it to us.
Rather to make the unique life giving truth of the Gospel shine in the dark, we should not be supporting this so called freedom of religion, a freedom to worship idols but instead declare boldly that there is no freedom in religion EXCEPT for those that bow to the Crucified and Risen Lord of All Jesus the Christ.
And we should do so pointing them to the day, that Great and Terrible Day, when worshippers of the false religions and their idols, will be vanquished by the return of the Lord, the King of Kings. And plead with them to lay aside their religious chains by humbly submitting to the Glorious Gospel Of Jesus.
But instead of drawing that line, we have commissioned the ELRC to aid them in finding ‘freedom’ to worship idols and demons.
For the freedom to worship anything but the One True God is not a God mandated right but a human contrivance. A right endowed by man not by God.
And what of our witness to the lost and the confused? many who think there are many paths to Heaven. Instead our message is that they have and should have a freedom to worship that which we know ensnares them and destorys them, which robs them of freedom, and of life.
It is sin to worship Allah. It binds one not frees them. It wraps the cords of evil around them. yet we fight for their freedom to do so?
This is NOT to say that we should fight against their freedom in the secular world. Our battle is not to be fought in that way. But neither should we be found aiding others to break the FIRST Commandment!
It is good for Baptists to always be at the forefront of allowing for religious freedom, because Baptists have historically been discriminated against for attempting to practice their religion. Lack of religious freedom in other western countries is already leading to discrimination against Christians (see Canada’s call to end summer work-grants to organizations that are not explicitly pro-same sex marriage or pro-abortion, as an example).
I thank God for Moore’s stand against Trump during the election cycle. It was heartening to see someone standing against the flood of evangelical celebrities rushing to jump into an unholy alliance with Trump. I know the narrative now is because Trump won God must be on his side, but thankfully not everyone is buying it. I’m thankful that the unbelieving world saw at least a few Christians standing up to Trump.
I 100% agree with CB. And I think there are a lot of us in this camp. (Though I’m beginning to sadly reconsider that thought) We just don’t get heard because we don’t create a headline. Guys like CB and I are gonna voice it when we disagree folks rather they are in a perceived camp or not. I’ve been just as critical of Dr Jeffress for his Trump support as I have Dr Moore for the exact reasons CB stated, which his concern is very well documented and traced.
Here’s our system for keeping our entities in line with the views of Southern Baptists. The convention adopts resolutions. Those resolutions, not your buddies in your favorite Facebook group, define the positions that Southern Baptists have taken on the issues of the day. Find the ERLC acting contrary to an adopted resolution of the Southern Baptist Convention and you’ll have a case for arguing that the ERLC is acting contrary to the will of the people in the pews.
And yet, from my recollection, in every recent resolution involving disputed matters of Christian ethics, the vote has fallen in a way affirming the position that the ERLC has taken.
And to quote Bill Murray from the movie, Stripes: “And that’s the fact, Jack!”
Or as I should say in this case; “And that’s the fact, Bart!”
Bart, don’t bother the Internet with facts.
Bart, what you’re saying is that if the ERLC holds a position that hasn’t been countered by a resolution, then it is assumed to be reflective of the people in the pews. I disagree with that. And I don’t think resolutions should be used to effectively set the agenda for the ERLC.
Since when do we determine what is biblical by what “the people in the pews” think? That’s an asinine statement. Do you want your pastor to simply say what people want him to say or do you want truth?
What you get with the ERLC is scriptural counsel on how to interact with culture. And that’s what has caused the backlash. At this point, that scriptural counsel calls to account the favored party of the SBC and the party that a group of prominent SBC clergy are in bed with.
That’s why we need men like Russell Moore leading the ERLC. Otherwise you wind up on stage with a Mormon radio host acting like we all believe the same thing.
He’s saying the only definitive means by which the ERLC can determine the position of SBC members is resolutions adopted by the Annual Meeting. That is only definitive time THE Convention has spoken with any finality at all. Any other means of determining the beliefs of the SBC is subjective at best and destructive at worst.
Dan, I think most of us, if we’re honest with ourselves, have moments when we think that the way the ERLC ought to set its agenda is to give us a phone call personally and do what we say.
That would, of course, be contrary to our polity and contrary to every biblical principle that informs our polity.
Pseudo-Congregationalism is to be avoided at all costs. None of our entities ought to set their agendas based upon who yells the loudest with the reddest face. I much, much, 1000-times much prefer counting on the actual votes at the convention meetings as indicators of the will of the convention.
Completely accurate? No. Impervious to evil misdeeds? Not at all.
Better than anything I’ve seen you propose? No doubt.
It’s the best worst way available.
Michael,
I disagree with that last statement. The ERLC could do better in trying to understand why Baptists/evangelicals vote mostly Republican. Unfortunately, I think Moore and the ERLC have an uncharitable view toward those voters and would rather not try to understand those intentions. It has thus resulted in the tension we see today between the donor base and the spokesman/activist/lobbyist for the convention.
Ryan,
As a bottom-up convention, it should matter greatly what the people in the pews think. To your second question, I would answer, “Both.”
“Scriptural counsel”? Or just plain ‘ol criticism of people who voted for Trump? I agree that Jeffress and others who get too cozy with Trump the person is not a good look. But I don’t think that’s Moore’s place to be judgmental. The ERLC shouldn’t be controversial within its own convention. But that’s mostly what we’ve seen throughout Moore’s tenure with that entity.
Bart,
I’m not advocating for pseudo-congregationalism. But I also don’t think that resolution time at the convention is the best way for the ERLC to know what the will of the people is in the SBC. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Not only is it the best way: There is no way to know what the will of the people in the SBC is other than to have them vote to express their will.
Now I am really confused Dan. To my second question you answer Both. What if what the people in the pew believe is true is in direct conflict with scripture? What is the poor pastor to do then?
Ignore the issue? Hope they change their minds by osmosis? Resign?
With that answer I hope I am either misunderstanding you or that you are not a pastor.
Biblically, as a pastor, there is a calling to both encourage and correct. You can’t let bad theology or false doctrine just stay that way.
Ryan,
I am not in favor of any congregation wanting its pastor to speak on things that are in direct conflict with Scripture. (I agree with your last two sentences.) By “Both”, I was referring to the application of Scripture to the issues we have today (in light of the prior comments about the ERLC’s agenda). We should want our pastor to speak the truth, but the pastor should also understand the heart of his flock on these things (again, assuming no direct conflict with Scripture) and represent the church accordingly. Otherwise, there is disunity.
It seems that Moore cannot be a prophetic voice to southern Baptists because he’s on the payroll. Didn’t Land say his job was more about speaking to southern Baptists rather than speaking for them?
Another sign of Moore Derangrment Syndrome – th e idea that Moore came in and steered the SBC away from Land’s convictions. Land had expressed solidarity often.
Michael Labate:
I would add that any resolutions passed at the annual meeting should be consulted, but not necessarily treated as a true reflection of how the SBC feels. Resolutions reflect how a majority of the messengers attending and voting at that time feel.
A case in point – I believe it was about 6 years ago that a Resolution was passed that said that LifeWay and other SBC agencies shouldn’t use the NIV version of the Bible.
Yep. That passed.
Resolutions can be “engineered” and often depend on who’s there at the time and other social factors.
They are of value, but they would be viewed with caution.
The example you have cited isn’t very persuasive, in my opinion.
I agree that resolutions can be skewed and swayed. What other means to we as the SBC have to hear directly (and definitively) from our members as to what issues they value and what positions they hold?
If a church member came and said they did not like what the church decided at the business meeting, but never came to a business meeting and voted; what would you tell them?
We cannot, as a Convention, be held hostage by a group (no matter how vocal) when the means of addressing concerns and discerning the will of the members of the SBC is already given to us. Flawed as they may be, resolutions ratified by the Convention during the Annual Meeting, are they only way we can objectively determine what the will of our SBC members may be.
Want better resolutions? Bring more messengers. Want better representation? Bring more messengers. Want a larger cross section of SBC rank and file? Bring more messengers.
Michael,
It’s not that simple to just “bring more messengers” to the convention. Most people don’t have the time or money to be able to do it.
It’s more realistic to expect local church members to show up to the business meetings to make themselves heard.
I can understand the point about cost, but how many churches prioritize sending a: pastor, retired deacon, school teacher with some free time in June; to make their churches vote count?
Ultimately I think it is that simple. There is no other way for the SBC entities to know what the rank and file think other than by going through the resolutions the Annual Meeting has passed. All entities have bylaws to follow, trustees to be accountable to, and resolutions that give direction on the cares/concerns of the membership.
What other means are you advocating for the ERLC (or other entity) to utilize in making its decisions?
Michael,
Maybe to start, the state conventions could submit a list of preferred priorities for the ERLC agenda. And maybe before that, the local associations (or individual churches) could submit lists to the state for review. In this setup, more voices are heard. Is anything like this already being done? Or does the ERLC develop its agenda on its own and simply try not to conflict with anything established at the national convention?
Good question, that I do not have the answer to. I don’t dislike the bottom up approach you are suggesting, but would push back, that the purpose of most associations (local & state) are missions/church health minded.
What you are suggesting is more geared toward how the SBC is meant to work (direct/bottom up involvement), but ultimately even in that scenario there must be a final settlement if 2 or more state associations are in conflict, which would bring us to the next step up the ladder; the Annual Meeting. There the state associations would hammer out differences and present what would be construed as the will of the rank and file of the SBC.
I don’t see what would be different when compared to what happens now.
The reason the SBC was organized to be comprised of churches rather than of state conventions or local associations is quite simple and worthy of our consideration: In a family of churches with local-church autonomy, no other way forward is reliable and fair.
Texas has two state conventions. Does that mean that Texas gets twice the input in setting the ERLC’s agenda? There are churches that are a member of one state convention or the other, while there are also churches who affiliate with both state conventions. The dually-aligned church is getting twice the opportunity to shape the agenda of a national entity as compared to the uniquely aligned church, right?
If we adopted a hierarchical way of percolating up our decisions (church –> association –> state convention –> national convention), we’ve just incentivized every state to create multiple state conventions. We’ve incentivized the creation of more and more local associations. We’ve incentivized churches to affiliate with as many of those associations as they can.
People would never game a system like that, you think? Not only would they; they did. These scenarios were all on the table when we were working out the structure of the SBC. Things like that were happening then (particularly when we were in the process of parting ways with the churches that eventually formed the BMA and then the ABA). Wisely…very wisely…the people of the SBC determined that church participation in the SBC annual meeting would not be mediated through local associations or state conventions, but that each church would have a direct connection with the SBC and would be represented there in a way that was fair and equitable.
Bart, fair response and those concerns are justified. But I believe there are solutions to those that would enable such a structure to be fair and effective.
My concern with the current setup is that it seems to favor larger churches with the people and resources to send their pastor and several messengers to the annual meeting each year. With better proximity to state conventions, the smaller churches (of which there are many) are more likely to be able to participate and be heard.
Dan B,
I remember a time in the not too distant past wherein multitudes of medium and small churches sent the maximum number of Messengers to the SBC year after year.
I contend the system works and when the cause becomes important to the masses, they come and they vote.
It’s interesting that the same people who think the ERLC should do what they say because they pay the bills also think George Soros pays the bills.
That’s Interesting indeed!
The Soros accusation is the most annoying of all. Easily disproven except in the eyes of the tinfoil hat brigade.