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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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’.… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.