Nearly 35 years ago, the world nearly came to an end because Matthew Broderick messed around with his 9-inch floppy disks and played a game of “Global Thermonuclear War” on a government super-computer named Joshua. Fortunately, Joshua was designed to explore all the possible scenarios and learn from its calculations. At the climax of the movie, Joshua realizes something very important. Every single option in Global Thermonuclear War ends with unacceptable losses for everyone and no one wins. Everything goes dark, then the screen pops on with these words.
The only winning move is not to play.
The Southern Baptist Convention is currently embroiled in its own “War Games” and the hope of avoiding global thermonuclear war seems to be fading day by day. I believe what Joshua came to understand. If we fight this battle as a denomination, if we take the Jack Graham vs. Russell Moore conflict to the mattresses there will be no winners.
The only winning move in the current SBC conflict is for nobody to win.
I am not dispassionate in this conflict – it is no secret where my sympathies lie. I believe one side better represents the truth and steers a better course for the future of the SBC. If this thing comes to a head there will not be a moment’s hesitation in me as to which side I will be on.
But if my side “wins” it will be a loss for the SBC. Those churches and their pastors that are upset at Moore’s critique of Trump supporters and his other positions on political issues represent a significant segment of the SBC. Many have announced their willingness to withhold CP giving because of their disdain for Dr. Moore. Can we gather a voting majority at the SBC and “win” a showdown over the ERLC and Dr. Moore’s future? Maybe. I think we would but it’s a pointless argument. We won’t know until the showdown comes and when it does we all lose. More specifically, the CP loses.
Is it worth it to win this war if the CP loses in the process?
The anti-Russell Moore contingent needs to make this same calculation. Forcing Dr. Moore to resign may give a moment of joy, a fleeting sense of victory and vindication. But the damage to the denomination will be devastating. Total. Perhaps irreversible.
Will Moore supporters do what they have criticized Jack Graham for doing? Will we withhold our CP dollars in response to such a thing? I believe it goes beyond that. If Moore is forced out it may well be seen as a symbol that the SBC is establishing one political viewpoint as orthodox and is effectively showing the door to those who do not walk in lock step. Minority churches would likely break ties in droves. Many younger pastors and churches would begin to bleed from the convention. I can envision things reaching the point of a split. The detritus of a forced Moore termination would be thermonuclear.
My intent is not to argue whether Moore supporters or Moore detractors are a larger group or can escrow larger amounts of CP money. My point is simple: when we start down the road the biggest loser is the CP and the SBC, whether Dr. Moore keeps his job or not.
The only solution is to find a path of grace and unity, to apply biblical principles to a difficult situation and seek godly reconciliation. According to Ephesians, Jesus died not only to save sinners by grace but to break down walls and to make the two one. Paul spoke of Jews and Gentiles in that epistle, but surely those principles can apply to Jack Graham and Russell Moore.
They must. They absolutely must.
The only winning move here is for grace to overwhelm anger and wash away grudges and for us to chart a new course of cooperation. Russell Moore cannot win. Jack Graham cannot win. If anyone wins, we all lose. We all have to humble ourselves and be willing to give a little.
I would make the following specific suggestions.
1. We need an understanding on the ERLC’s role in political issues.
The ERLC has two purposes and they sometimes conflict. The ERLC speaks FOR Southern Baptists on religious liberty and on moral issues. They also speak TO Southern Baptists on these issues, calling us to live out our faith in the public arena.
Some act as if Moore should take public opinion polls among Southern Baptists and limit himself to speaking on those issues where a majority in the SBC agree. That is not his job. He is to speak for us on some issues and to us on others. We do not determine right and wrong by majority polls, but by God’s word.
But there has developed a consensus that the political discussion in 2016 crossed lines. Dr. Moore not only addressed issues but he addressed candidates and he did so in a way that offended many Southern Baptists. I agreed with what he said, but even Dr. Moore has admitted he went too far in the way he spoke his mind.
Perhaps, with the help of Dr. Page and others, the two sides in this conflict can come to a semi-formal agreement about how the ERLC will address political issues in the future. It would allow the ERLC president and staff to address spiritual, moral, and ethical issues while avoiding some of the problems of the last election cycle.
- Should the ERLC and its president address specific candidates or limit itself to issues?
- The president of the ERLC should be careful in his public statements to affirm that political opinions differ among Christians and we should not question the sincerity of believers because of political disagreements.
2. You can’t muzzle Moore.
Dr. Russell Moore is a powerful and prophetic voice who speaks to a generation of Christians – and annoys many in the process. The solution to this issue, whatever it is, must allow Moore to continue to be who he is and do what he does.
Any solution that attempts to muffle Moore’s voice will not work. Perhaps Moore can be more gracious toward critics but he is responsible to God’s word and the truth not to public opinion polls of Southern Baptists.
Muzzling the man is not a solution. Giving some structure in which he speaks his mind and heart is one thing. Telling him what to say is something else.
3. We must agree to agree about our disagreements.
I hate cliches and “agree to disagree” is a common one. But it is the nature of a cooperative denomination like the SBC. We are old and young, Calvinist and non-Calvinist, including Traditionalists, traditional and contemporary, large and small. And right now, one of our most severe disagreements is political. I don’t believe any of our leaders are actually racist, but we have significant differences about how to approach racial reconciliation. We disagree about immigration, about refugees, about dealing with Muslims and religious freedom. Most of all about whether Donald Trump is a qualified leader.
Are we going to seek to enforce conformity on such issues? Are we going to make either the Moore position or the old-line culture warrior stances a point of fellowship in the SBC?
The SBC only works if Calvinists and non-Calvinist, old and young, traditional and contemporary, big and small, and political views of various stripes operate by their convictions in their churches, advocate their positions as they see fit, accept one another as brothers and sisters within the boundaries of the BF&M, and cooperate to support missions.
The SBC dies a little every time we enforce conformity on a tertiary issue.
4. Amazing grace, how sweet the sound.
“But Russell Moore said terrible things…”
“But Jack Graham is holding missionaries hostage…”
“But…”
If I could go back to the fall of 2015, when the GOP primaries were just heating up, I would do a couple of things differently. I wouldn’t change my convictions or what I said. But I would do two things.
- I would speak more clearly to differentiate my views about varieties of Trump supporters.
- I would affirm more clearly that political opinion is not a matter of biblical orthodoxy but of personal preference. We can disagree politically – even sharply – and maintain fellowship.
I said these things in my posts, but in discussions these truths often got lost.
I took a fair amount of abuse during the election. As a vocal NeverTrumper I was called names and accused of things I think were unfair. People said and did things that hurt me. Angered me.
And we cannot go back and undo any of it. Not a word.
So now, I have a choice and so do you. We can put the 2016 election under the grace of God and seek to move forward or we can continue to prosecute one another and enforce our grudges until we burn down the entire house and the 2020 election gives us an opportunity to repeat our mistakes.
Grace is better.
5. Remember, the world is watching.
I had a call yesterday from a reporter who had read several articles here at SBC Voices. The Russell Moore/Jack Graham brouhaha is national news. The world is watching,
Why not show them real Christianity in action?
Love. Joy. Peace. Patience. Kindness. Goodness. Faithfulness. Gentleness. Self-Control. Loving our enemies. Forgiveness and forbearance. Grace. Returning good for evil.
These are not signs of weakness or a jelly-legged lack of conviction. They are godly. Christlike. They are weapons of warfare that have the power of God to tear down the strongholds of the enemy.
The world is watching Dr. Page and Dr. Moore and Jack Graham and the rest of us. How about we show them godly men walking in the fullness of the Spirit and bringing glory to God. Too often the world has watched us demonstrate the power of our flesh. Maybe it is time we showed them the power of God’s Spirit.
The only way we win is if we all lose…just a little.
It’s simple Christianity. It’s walking in the Spirit instead of the flesh. It’s putting the Kingdom of God ahead of my own kingdom.
A Bible Story to Ponder
Remember when Joshua (the biblical man, not the mythical computer) was wandering near Jericho and came upon the strange figure in Joshua 5? He asked the man whether he was on his side or on his enemies side.
“Are you for us or for our adversaries?” (Are you on Russell Moore’s side or Jack Graham’s?)
The man replied, in verse 14.
“Neither; rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the LORD.” (the preacher’s favorite line – I’m not here to take sides but to take charge)
Joshua fell on his face in submission.
Do you need me to drive home the point of application or can you figure it out on your own?
AMEN!!! Thank you, sir, for putting this so clearly and strongly. May we heed this word.
I agree Steve, this is a powerful word on this issue.
Yes the world is watching. The ERLC has become more representative of the SBC than our own President and the Pastors of the SBC churches. But what is the world seeing?
When this started I was just searching to what the Biblical justification was, as there is certainly Scripture that demonstrates that the Lord does not favor anything to do with a false god. I was astonished to see such a position presented in the name of the SBC. However a Biblical justification has not been forthcoming as if Acts 17:11 does not apply to the ERLC.
Looking into the situation, found an SBC church less than 2 miles away, but no indication that they were supporting this. Since they would have standing in the local court – should the filing have not been in their name? If they were opposed to such a brief was the ERLC acting in contradiction of 1 Corinthians 6:1 ff? Did they go to law against our own church?
Watched Mr. Moore’s arrogant (paraphrasing) “Some questions are hard but this one was easy …” response at the Convention. But wait a minute – if this is true why were the other very similar situations not just as easy and where is the brief for each one??? The Obama Department of Justice filed 9 similar lawsuits — All For Islamic facilities. All over building permit issues for Islamic facilities!
For a question that so easy — why were no other briefs filed? Think about that. Nine law suits filed, eight are ignored but one was so obvious! Why was this one so compelling while the other similar ones were not?
Was it because this one came at a convenient time when Mr. Moore was using his position to try an influence an election for his agenda?
I guess a Biblical justification has not been produced for the same reason no one found a passage that said Jesus was an illegal immigrant as published by Mr. Moore. Could it be because one does not exist?
Well think about this. Why hasn’t the ERLC provided SBC churches with information about the repeal of the Johnson Amendment to the IRS code? Is it because this commitment was made by candidate Trump, then nominee Trump and now President Trump? Why hasn’t the ERLC provided you information about the legislation already introduced in both the House and Senate to remove the IRS tax exemption restriction on political sermons? Is it because the President has expressed statements on Faith when discussing this commitment to repeal the Johnson Amendment and that does not fit the neverTrump senario?
So from the comments above and on other articles – I read that “young” pastors and “black” pastors will leave the SBC if Mr. Moore is held accountable to Scripture and reasonable performance requirements. So the SBC has to become politically correct to keep these folks happy? That can not be justified by Scripture either.
Yes the world is watching – even some members of SBC churches who are not impressed and certainly do not find this inspirational.
This is the Kobayashi Maru.
Wow
Brother Dave, this is your best post that I can recall. I hope that like Joshua the computer the sides will lay down arms. We serve but one King and he has already given us our commission. Let us get back to the work he has prepared for us. The harvest needs workers and cooperation.
Some acknowledgment of ‘legitimate issues’ with Moore and the ERLC and an indication more consideration will be made in the future to statements made and positions taken would have AND still will make this controversy go away. Yes, Grace is needed. But Grace will take some kind of acknowledging action. Perhaps a letter from Moore apologizing the the controversy and promising to be more considerate of all voices would do it.
I think something along those lines may be forthcoming.
You are essentially demanding a win for your anti-Moore side, are you not?
Russell Moore apologized three months ago: http://www.russellmoore.com/2016/12/19/election-thoughts-christmastime/
But the media didn’t carry that on the front page…. duh! A Christian leader acting like a Christian leader and acknowledging that he, like others, is imperfect and sometime misspeaks or is misunderstood is not front page news or even back page news, it’s not news at all or at least it shouldn’t be in normal times. But we don’t live in normal times. The overlooking by the secular media, and who knows perhaps even our Baptist media, essentially allowed the wounds to fester. I suggest we all lance our own wounds, bind them up with salve, and being walking together again.
No one I know from our side considers that an apology.
It was more like, “Shame on you for not understanding what I was saying. You were just too stupid to know that I wasn’t insulting you, but if you THOUGHT I was being disrespectful, I apologize.”
Frankly, it only made matters worse.
If you read that into Dr. Moore’s statement, you demonstrated a complete lack of grace.
Rick, how did you get that from Dr. Moore’s statement? That is really harsh and he didn’t seem to be saying that at all.
At some point, Alan, we simply have to walk forward with those who wish to do so in the grace of Christ. There are always those who will not come along.
Sometimes, even pastors have trouble separating intent and context from personal interpretation.
Seriously? When one spends eighteen months insulting an entire class of people, one cannot simply offer something like this:
“Not long ago, I was in a small group of people and made a statement, only later to learn that people thought I meant something else. If THAT’S what you heard, I truly apologize.”
Believe me, we KNOW what he said that was insulting and he said a WHOLE LOT and it wasn’t to a small group at the water cooler.
Accept it or not, but what I’m telling you is this: “NO true and genuine apology has been HEARD from our side.” I’ve read the so-called Moore apology article TEN TIMES. He gave no evidence of “getting” the offense.
One brother said that if he had apologized to his wife the way Russell Moore apologizes, he’d STILL be sleeping on the couch.
Your words are not only untrue, they are ungracious and unworthy.
Rick it’s quite simple: Dr. Moore wasn’t saying what they thought he said. So he really doesn’t have anything to apologize for.
Moore stated… “But there were also pastors and friends who told me when they read my comments they thought I was criticizing anyone who voted for Donald Trump. I told them then, and I would tell anyone now: if that’s what you heard me say, that was not at all my intention, and I apologize”
A clear explanation of his intentions would have taken this apology to a level needed.
“Rick it’s quite simple: Dr. Moore wasn’t saying what they thought he said. So he really doesn’t have anything to apologize for.”
I’m hoping this is sarcasm. Moore knew exactly what he was saying, to whom he was saying it, and repeatedly said it.
Nate, I said that Dr. Moore didn’t say what “they” thought he said. Not that he didn’t know what he said. Of course he knew what he said, to whom he said it, and repeated it. Because it was true. It just wasn’t directed at the rank and file voter in what he was referencing.
Pastor Patrick,
Your refusal to forgive in this matter until a more appropriate pound of flesh is offered by the other side is first and foremost an issue between you and God. Likewise, Moore’s misdeeds are also an offense to God.
“Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?”
“Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.”
“And forgive us our sins, For we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us*… For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” *as recorded by Luke
“for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.”
If we don’t forgive someone until ‘they deserve it’ or until ‘they earned it’ we’d likely never forgive anyone, ever – and in the process we’re feeding and tending a root of bitterness. I am not saying you were not wronged here – nor am I saying that Moore should not make further efforts to right this situation, but based on what I’ve seen from you on this, I am concerned for you – and for your good – that you may have a death grip on your offense.
LFB, beautiful words–For all of us–about forgiveness and being ready to forgive. You presented that in a way I hadn’t thought about. Also I would throw in, “or until they asked for it.”
Allen,
I think Miller’s point is that perhaps there should be better understanding, grace and compassion from everyone.
And maybe an acknowledgement from those who so enthusiastically embraced a deeply morally flawed individual and boasted how he was the Lord’s man that they might just have stepped over the line too? Or how about not. How about just burying the hatchet on the past and come to an agreement going forward that in the heat of politics we all remember we are all on the same side for the big question. If someone is waiting for an apology then the fight will never end because all have sinned and fallen short…. I think I read that somewhere.
What about a “J. D. Greear” option?
This deserves a response and I’m choosing not to give it, in the spirit of Dave’s post.
Maybe a “Richard Land” option, then?
This kind of snark is de rigueur on certain Facebook discussions, but I would request that you raise the level here to something more in line with biblical principles and Christlike character.
Thank you, David.
Lessons from Sci-fi movies but not from SBC history? Why is a voluntary Moore resignation not a noble, conciliatory act?
Mostly because this isn’t up to a vote on two candidates and Dr. Moore did nothing wrong.
David Pitman,
JD did not resign…he had no office to resign.
Perhaps it time for Dr. Graham and Prestonwood BC to abjure the tactics of intimation that they have employed??
It is interesting that PWBC is being presented as an enemy to SBC (through a decision in their autonomous church) to escrow funds as they investigate how to proceed with their CP donations than Moore is as one who precious SBCers found themselves offended by.
So many seem to be offended that PWBC would escrow their collected funds while finding no offense in those who believed they were being labeled in an ungodly manner.
Would any of you accept an apology from PWBC if they said they were misinterpreted about the CP funds but never gave clarity to what was misinterpreted?
Personally I don’t care whether PWBC apologizes or not. And they can give to CP or not, as is their right. Or if they do apologize, they can say whatever they want. This is just petty and political.
Great post, Dave. I think most of the time we all tend to think that our position is so well founded and so well principled that we can’t or won’t see another point of view. I know that is something I struggle with – we all ought to do better with all the grace and compassion stuff.
(In my defense the struggle is real – mainly because I am right 99.7695% of the time…so stubbornness comes with the territory. 😉 )
Greear graciously and self-lessly stepped aside for the sake of unity.
I would not object at all if Jack Graham resigned for the sake of unity. But I don’t think he should.
David,
I don’t think in this particular situation such a thing would foster unity. No matter what Dr. Moore says people will view this as a forced resignation. And as outlined by several articles here at Voices that will have some far reaching consequences.
There are times when stepping aside for the sake of unity actually achieves that unity. But there are other times when it only furthers the discord. I believe in this instance it would be the latter.
And you are basically saying the opposite of what I said in my piece. We can have peace only if your side wins, right? No peace unless you get Moore’s scalp, right?
This is my point. I know you guys want to win, but if you insist on winning, on getting a scalp, you may lose more than you win. Is your desire to get rid of Moore so strong that you are willing to blow up the SBC to do it?
Salient point indeed Mr Pittman. Water-tight logic and such an action would demonstrate that Moore is willing to walk his own talk. Many of us aren’t ashamed of the “evangelical” label nor being from “The South”
This is excellent. Thank you, Dave.
This is probably the best post I’ve read on this issue.
Joshua, the computer, was playing a simulation game.
Its conclusion was it would be better not to play.
And it was a movie.
What if, and I mean if, one side started the game to win even if winning meant drastic change?
What if they were so upset with the way things are that in thinking they had the votes [so to speak] that they could win and overcome the possible drastic change?
I hope my what ifs are wrong.
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall find peace.
But the ones who are not peacemakers may not .
#stoptryingtowin
Good post, Dave. Thank you. This is needed.
Even when we hold to our convictions, we should still love one another and put the interests of others ahead of our own. That doesn’t mean we roll over and give up what is valid and vital. It does mean that we treat one another with love and respect, recognizing that we are all loved by God and all need grace.
When your goal is to win, we all lose. Agreed. But, we also need to be aware that there are those on every side who simply want to win. They will play the game whether the rest of us like it or not. There is a need for the rest of us to say, “Stop it.” I think that is what Frank Page seemed to be saying in the meeting yesterday – or rather, that is what he came out of the meeting saying. Without truly taking sides publicly, he seemed to say, “Stop it” and that it is time to forgive one another and love one another and move on if we are going to call ourselves part of the body of Christ. And, if we aren’t going to do those things and actually “be” the body of Christ, then we shouldn’t seek lead the body of Christ in any kind of way and the rest of us should say, “Stop it.” That is a legitimate response. Telling others to stop playing this game and that whoever persists in playing this game of thermonuclear war will be rebuked by the rest of us – that is the response that can be appealed to if anyone refuses to lay down their arms.
One side has to win. Either the anti-Moore crowd will give money to the CP or they won’t. If they do, they are implicitly surrendering and admitting they were wrong by their action of giving the money. If they don’t then the conflict continues and they are hoping for a long term victory by disrupting SBC business.
If Moore pens a new, very nice apology letter then it could allow them to save face when they surrender. This would be a good tactical move as one always want to give an opponent the chance to quit the field rather than having a fight to achieve victory.
Great words Dave. I hope and pray significant people will read this and give pause to what is happening in our SBC.
One of my favorite old movies. The doctrine of “Mutually Assured Destruction” is very apropos when applied to thermonuclear war.
Some of us do not see this issue as a war, but as more of a personnel decision. In 2010, Kevin Ezell laid off one-third of NAMB’s employees, a total of 99 people. That was a Personnel decision. In 2015, David Platt reduced the IMB force from over 5,000 to 3,900 by means of a Voluntary Retirement Incentive which cut 1,100. That was a Personnel decision.
I’m not sure if those 1,199 jobs were a “war” or not. Maybe they were just Personnel decisions. Honestly, I did not support all those terminations. But I do support this one.
Would I like to see a new ERLC President who doesn’t insult those of my generation embracing the Moral Majority Religious Right conservative Christian philosophy?
Yes, I would. I hope that people are looking into this, and that they will continue to do so. I look for better days in the SBC in the future as a result of making this change, which I hope will one day come, not as a war, but as a Personnel decision.
While I do not share Rick’s goal in this, he has as much right to call for personnel changes as anyone who is a part of any SBC church.
It was just revealed (this stuff seems to dribble out a fact at a time) that 100 or so churches have threatened to withhold CP funds over this. Each of those churches has an absolute right to make their spending decisions as they see fit and for reasons they find sufficient. That’s our system, for better or worse.
A call for termination is exactly the kind of move Dave warns about in his article. Does anyone “have a right” to do it? That’s not really the question. Is it worth the damage it will cause?
William,
Yes, these churches do have that right. I affirm that. Just like the other churches who have disassociated themselves over the years for various reasons.
I personally have more respect for those who quietly within their own churches chose to do this – than I do ones who told secular newspapers they were doing it unless things changed.
Just as it is these churches “right” to do as they have done – It is also the “right” of others to disagree call such actions divisive and uncooperative.
(Also I cannot believe you let Rick by with that abject false equivalency in his post…)
Will the SBC make it without those 100+ churches?
Will the SBC make it without Russel Moore?
Thinking of the poker illustration above… Looks like someone is going all in.
For me, how the SBC fares in all of this is way down on the list. Now, I love the SBC but the people come before any entity.
I wonder how many churches could you lose if RM leaves?
Are the bean counters working overtime?
God help us!
Rick, perhaps we would take you more seriously if you had not been whining about Russell Moore from day 1. You’re like the boy who cried wolf, along with your strange bedfellow P&P. You’re still hollering but most of us aren’t listening anymore.
As much as I agree with and pray for the peace called for in Dave’s OP, posts such as Dr. Patrick’s above call into sharp relief a reality that we must face as a convention: There are certain among us who are intentionally using tertiary issues to sow discord among brothers.
While those driving such issues are only a handful, they are causing widespread unrest throughout the SBC…and they are playing a very intentional and calculated game.
I agree with Allen Cross. The entire convention needs to rise up and demand that the players in this game “stop it.”
Unless that happens, these players will continue to sow discord and we as a Convention will continue to undermine our Gospel witness and bring shame on the name of Christ by our public displays of disunity.
“intentionally using tertiary issues to sow discord among brothers”
exactly.
Randall certainly has his finger on the pulse of this situation.
Rick, it has been a war with you for years….no one is buying your little “this is not a war but a personnel decision” mumbo jumbo.
You have been after Moore’s hide since day one of his tenure – LITERALLY. We remember.
Geez.
“Would I like to see a new ERLC President who doesn’t insult those of my generation embracing the Moral Majority Religious Right conservative Christian philosophy?”
The Jerry Falwell Moral Majority Religious Right Conservative Christian Philosophy gave us Donald Trump in the name of Power at all Costs, despite the SBC resolution in 1998: “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.”
I’d say the criticism was every bit deserved. If you felt insulted that’s a you problem.
I can’t like this comment enough.
That’s why they are all “offended.” Someone called them on their hypocrisy and they don’t like it.
Dave, this is the problem many have with being lectured on how “our side” only wants Dr. Moore’s head. I don’t and have said it repeatedly. I simply would like to see a legitimate apology.
Jim’s comment, however, is the epitome of those who seem to think Dr. Moore can do no wrong. It would be nice for You, or others, who support Dr. Moore, to call this comment out as just as snide and vitriolic as the ones you call out as diametrically opposed to your post.
Everyone who receives due criticism for their attitude has the opportunity to receive it or deny it. I don’t see how quoting a person’s own words, quoting an SBC resolution duly voted and approved, and suggesting feeling insulted was a problem, then I guess we need to update the definitions of snide and vitriolic.
I don’t think Dr. Moore “can do no wrong.” I think he did no wrong in this specific case we are discussing. I suggest dialing down the hyperbole.
Dr Moore’s voluntary resignation, and a subsequent move to the pastoral staff of one of the SBC flag-ship churches, could help. From that platform his prophetic voice would be unfettered and he could encourage his followers to support the SBC.
Again, the idea of reconciliation, of godly unity – that’s just completely unacceptable to you?
Dr Moore, eminently qualified in so many ways, seems to lack the temperament for his present position.
So, no reconciliation. No unity.
It’s war till you win?
David Pitman,
You question his temperament (a qualification) yet suggest he should leave the SBC and become a pastor????
What a low view of the pastorate you seem to have, sir.
His “temperament.”
So sir, how did you feel about Richard Land’s temperament when he trashed Trayvon Martin? How about his wisdom in joining himself to a Mormon (Glenn Beck) as a part of his Black Robe Regiment?
How about the temperament of Robert Jeffress calling people who wouldn’t vote for Donald Trumk due to biblical convictions “panty waists?” How about Jack Graham’s current hissy fit that hurts the spread of the Gospel?
Anything about any of those guys?
Abson –
All of those (with the exception of Richard Land) are Pastors and as such are accountable to their own church and congregations and ultimately to God. None of us can sit in judgment of them. Richard Land was accountable to Southern Baptists, and as such is no longer President of the ERLC due to that temperament you find so appalling in noting to others.
By your own standard of “temperament” then Dr. Moore should resign. He is the mirror opposite of the worthies you mention whose temperament you find appalling. I don’t believe though you find temperament really that appalling however. You find Dr. Moore appealing enough warts and all. It is ideology that you find appealing or distasteful. Right? Do I understand you correctly?
Rob
Rob,
To be clear. Not my standard on temperament. I was pointing out there are plenty in the anti-Moore camp and Land who could be called out for “tone.”
I find Moore to be biblical. It’s not his ideology I am attracted to. It’s the fact that his stands and positions are based on scripture and not the whims of a political party. He takes the position of prophet not appeaser. He steps on my toes. He calls me to greater biblical fidelity. In short, I like him because he makes me think.
I don’t give two hoots about his “temperament.” That’s a red herring from those who are too afraid to admit that he’s right and their feelings are hurt because they got theologically owned by a guy who they don’t like.
Russell Moore is who I want in the public square and the halls of government. He won’t kiss the ring. He knows which Kingdom he serves. He has shown in the last twelve months what he is made of by refusing to toe the party line and carry the water for an unacceptable GOP nominee by standards we have upheld for two decades. He knew he might get in trouble. He knew there might be hell to pay. He did it anyway because he serves a higher purpose.
We need more men and women like him. If we had more like him, we would not have the President we have now. Or at least we would not have a bunch of “pastors” who are making excuses and baptizing heresy and hedonism in the hope of having a seat at the table.
I hope that clears things up for you.
Absonjourney is my new hero *sniff* *single tear* Yes, this exactly.
Ab –
You give men too much power. How is it that mere men can change the will of God? We have the President we have now by the Sovereign Will of God. I would have thought those who embrace Five Points and Reformed Theology would be far more consistent in their beliefs than us peddling Traditionalists. Either for blessing or destruction, God has seen to it that Trump is President. And I might add “God works all things for good.” That is if I may speak a little biblical reasoning to you to stomp some toes of yours, oh you of little faith and vision.
I could care less at having a seat at the table = and the number perhaps of those who might number far less than you imagine. I desire that guys like you would stop with the Holy War of all the ills you see wrong and point your guns and your talents to a world who needs to hear the message of Christ. You are commanded to share the message right? Why so fixated on things you cannot control no matter how much stamping and stammering and name calling you manage to get through the lick and spittle. Is Jack Graham a fellow believer, a colleague, a brother in Christ? Treat him like one even if you don’t agree with him and remember: Dr. Graham has no power whatsoever to change anything. He cannot single highhandedly bring down missions or the Cooperative Program and the SBC in one fell swoop. Only God can do that. He might just will it too. I once thought most of you guys believed that.
So I thought anyways.
Rob
I have seen the following term used in reference to Mr. Moore:
“prophetic voice”
Is the following published statement by Mr. Moore what that is referring to?
First of all, our Lord Jesus himself was a so-called “illegal immigrant.”
#fakenews!
True news:
Dr Moore called Jesus an illegal immigrant when Mary and Joseph took Him as a baby to Egypt.
Tarheel says
#fakenews!
No it is a dirrect quote from Mr. Moore. A more legitimate response would have been it is out of context which is true. And I will glad to provide the entire context. But the point is very simple – that is an extra Biblical statement. It is not in the Bible nor is it a justifiable interpretation.
In the next paragraph it is further explained:
“In so doing, our Lord Jesus was re-living the life of Israel, our ancestors in the faith, who were also immigrants and sojourners in Egypt”
When Israel came to Egypt they were NOT illegal immigrants – they were invited and accepted. For example Genesis 45:18 – “18 And take your father and your households, and come unto me: and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land.”
This is twisting the Lord’s Word for the purpose of supporting an agenda. Further in the article Deuteronomy 10:18-19 is used to once again imply “illegal immigrant”. However this also is very unclear – as the Hebrew Word is transliterated “ger” which has an aspect of guest from foreign country.
Now this is an example of why some, such as myself, ask for a Biblical justification on Mr. Moore’s questionable positions. If this blog has as many pastors as it sounds I am disappointed that similar questions are not being asked.
parsonmike, you are correct but no where are we told that they were illegal. If they were reliving the entry of Israel they were far from illegal.
I am losing my confidence in the SBC and very worried that political correctness is creeping into the Doctrine. It is interesting in Bible study tonight we studied 2 Timothy.
Back to prophetic voice – in no way does Mr. Moore display a prophetic voice from anything I have seen.
There is a Moore issue that has nothing to do with Trump.
This is why I called #FakeNews:
It’s not that the phrase was not used it’s the spend it being put on it that I Call fake news on.
Was he not, in context, building a case against the “get off my lawn” mentality of many evangelicals?
Did he not preface that phrase with a “so called” – was he not in context referring to the fact that Jesus was taken by his parents into another country – one where none of them enjoyed citizenship – to escape brutality and maltreatment in their own country?
Does his statement in context carry the same implication as the use of the “Jesus was an illegal immigrant” phrase standing alone as a battering ram?
So while it may be true that he used that phrase… The context of its usage certainly carries a different implication that is often used by many who are attacking Moore.
*spin put on it
Not
*Spend it
tarheel:
Yes is the answer to your first question – “Was he not, in context, building a case against the “get off my lawn” mentality of many evangelicals? ”
Should Mr. Moore not be presenting a Biblical based statement on immigration instead of justifying his political position. He was not the President of the ERLC (also pre-Trump) when he wrote and published this article but he was in a spiritual position. The issue of immigration is complex and his article is one laden with political overtones.
I found the “so-called illegal immigrant” misleading. “Fleeing, like many of those in our country right now, a brutal political situation, our Lord’s parents sojourned with him in Egypt” is also misleading, at the time that the article was written very, very few of the illegal immigrants were fleeing a brutal political situation. It is also doubtful their parents were commanded by God to flee to the US.
Moore stated: “In so doing, our Lord Jesus was re-living the life of Israel, our ancestors in the faith, who were also immigrants and sojourners in Egypt (Exod. 1:1-14; 1 Chron. 16:19; Acts 7:6). It is this reality, the Bible tells us, that is to ground our response to those who sojourn among us.”
Israel was invited into Egypt. They were legal immigrants. He is thus misleading in the second sentence which a casual reader would take to mean illegal immigrants. The two situations are not the same.
In the Old Testament there are 4 Hebrew words translated stranger (KJV). The one in Deuteronomy 10:18-19 has an implication of a guest. This would not be an illegal immigrant it would be a legal immigrant.
I believe that Southern Baptists and all Christians should study the Lord’s Word in detail on such subjects and pray for a Biblical based solution derived from the Word. Not take a liberal or conservative agenda and use the Bible to justify it.
Placing agenda first is the trend that I see in Mr. Moore and I believe that it is dangerous for the SBC. Will continue to lead to division. This will get worse if the Johnson Amendment repeal is passed.
But thank you for your response.
I happen to think he did, in that article, and elsewhere, make a biblical case for his position… You and/or I may or may not agree with his position or the application relating to the scriptures he basis his view on … But to say that he is not articulated a position based on scripture would be fallacious in my view.
You also point out something else very important… If he has not said this is head of the ERLC – then why is it being discussed now relating to his suitability for the position?
I still maintain that a spin is being put on that phrase by some for the purposes of using it against him… You may not be involved in that… To be honest I don’t really remember you using it in that way… But others are.
Dave Miller,
Isn’t Dr. Moore staying in his current position a victory? Would not a more complete victory be him staying, and those who oppose him stopping the escrow?
Opponents can and do reconcile after a conflict, but the conflict has to be resolved either by destroying your opponent in battle, your opponent surrendering, or your opponent fleeing. Then a call for reconciliation can happen, but not before.
Until the churches stop the escrow there is no peace, so unity and reconciliation are impossible. Perhaps I’m wrong about this, but I’d like to see a scenario in which the churches continue the escrow and there is believable unity in the SBC.
Ice, we have a policy of using real names for comments. Unless Adam, Dave, or another admin has cleared you to not use your name, please don’t post again anonymously.
The point of Dave’s article is exactly that we don’t have to pursue this until one side “wins” and the other loses. I think Dave has laid out a plausible idea what that looks like. If the anti-Moore side determines they will have his head or go down trying, then you’re right, it is difficult to see any reconciliation happening.
Which is my point, the conflict remains while the churches withhold money from the CP. It’s the elephant in the room and the above is secondary until it is resolved.
Moore would following in the honorable door steps of most of his ERLC predecessors if he were forced out …Valentine, Baker, Land. SBC TRADITION especially under the CR regimes have always forced these guys out for being “out of lockstep”. Only reason Moore won’t last as long as others is because he’s on over his head/ability.
Charley Scott: I do not believe Land was “forced out”. I don’t think this is true. Land retired. Not forcibly, but voluntarily. I don’t think anyone but Land has been in leadership except Dr. Moore. Wasn’t the ERLC created in 1988? I believe so and Richard Land was the only one at the helm until his retirement when the reigns went to Russell Moore.
BTW Charley: Valentine’s inviting a publisher of pornography (among other things), can hardly compare to Russell Moore’s warning of voting for Trump. If you are comparing the two…Wow!
Ice,
“Opponents can and do reconcile after a conflict, but the conflict has to be resolved either by destroying your opponent in battle, your opponent surrendering, or your opponent fleeing. Then a call for reconciliation can happen, but not before. ”
That is only true if you are talking war….
Is this a war?
No. Conflicts have many of the same characteristics.
The pastorate is the most importance office in the SBC. But not all pastors would make good college, seminary or bureaucratic administrators. The pastorate is a better setting for his ‘prophetic voice.”
True, Pastors are to herald prophetically…but that is a special desire that God gives to some and not to others…Dr. Moore apparently does not have such a desire.
Also, the office he holds calls for a strong prophetic voice…does it not?
What you seem to be saying is that his voice should echo YOUR opinions – prophetic voices rarely do that.
True Prophets never apologized for anything. Those things spoken for God were non-negotiable.
Rob
Who I can’t help but think of here is Jeremiah. Nobody likes a guy who pronounces judgment and caution to flee the false gods. (Unless they sign an amicus brief then that’s how the false gods win.)
Prophets are human beings also Rob. We do sin(all sin and fall short….) so sometimes an apology is necessary. It happens.
In your pundit opinion, Charley.
In fact All this anti Moore stuff is based on opinion.
“He should have spoke to this issue or that issue in a certain way. (My way)”
“He shouldn’t have criticized Trump or cautioned his avid supporters and defenders in the 2016 election”
“He shouldn’t gave supported this or that issue, based on my preferences….”
All opinion. Which is itself the definition of punditry.
A pox on all ya all’s houses. No wonder there are more Baptist Churches in my little town of 12,000 people than fast food places. No wonder there are like 80 gazillion denominations. At this point, if I didn’t love my local church, the folks in it (and yeah we squabble a lot), and what we as a church are trying to accomplish in terms of seeking to change the culture of our community so much, I’d go on another 18 month long church search and intentionally avoid any SBC church. No wonder non-believers want nothing to do with Christianity, no wonder people are abandoning church on all sides, most of you all can’t see the picture you’re painting here. Does Russell Moore tick me off, heck yeah, so I think harder and read more deeply to respond to his arguments, does my Pastor tick me off, heck yeah, does Jack Graham tick me off, probably I don’t know enough about him to know for sure — but I’m not chasing my pastor or Graham or Moore — I’m chasing God. Maybe we’d all be better off trying that for a change instead of chasing whatever power trip seems to animate most folks. May God have mercy on all our souls.
Good points!
Well-said.
*breathlessly awaiting my pox*
I hope it is not small ?
No. When I pox, I pox bigly.
While the OP by Dave was conciliatory, the opinions expressed so far by both ends seem to not waiver one inch. Even Dave has opined in the comments about graceless comments given over the personal perceptions of the “non-apology” by Russell Moore. I do consider myself a very graceful person and have forgiven Dr. Moore long ago. I do not consider what he stated an apology however. That is not a matter of being ungraceful, just an opinion of the breadth and depth of all he said before, and the content of the non-apology apology of which I have read multiple times.
Part of reconciliation is give and take – an agreement to move forward = nobody wins, nobody loses. Some have suggested a further clarification of the work of the ERLC, a note affirming that clarification by Dr. Moore, and further a clarification of the harms committed with a heart felt word by Dr. Moore to all the constituencies of the SBC, including with those churches who now threaten the CP. Is that not how reconciliations go? Does not “grace” go both ways?
For those who support Dr. Moore: What are you willing to accept as part of a reconciliation process? You demand that those who do not support him to afford him grace. Okay. What reforms then are you willing to accept as a gesture of good will and grace on your part? The status quo is not acceptable.
Rob
Good points!
I don’t believe Russell Moore should remain silent. To me, the best thing would be some sort of meeting and reconciliation between Moore and Graham (as proxy for all the others), and then maybe a Q&A session in Phoenix where everyone can see them make nice, and yes, Dr. Moore can be more conciliatory, and Dr. Graham can apologize for taking this thing public, and everyone can sing We are One in the Bond of Love then break for Mexican food.
Your comment here seems to be only a shallow attempt to bridge a gap. There is no peaceful conciliation in your remarks. I don’t know your heart – but the embodiment of the Christian life is love. Right?
Rob
“the best thing would be some sort of meeting and reconciliation between Moore and Graham.” I fail to see where I imply not peaceful. Reconciliation is peaceful. The rest after that is catharsis. I don’t know what you find objectionable about Mexican food.
Sure they “give up” something Mike. Have you been reading here lately? The supporters of Dr. Moore self identify with his positions. They respect him because they would say the same things, and do the same things he has. While they have no power as to what he does and say, they minimize his errors, and maximize their agreement with him, even so far as saying he is a modern day prophet. I am totally surprised that anybody has not quoted David about “laying a hand against God’s anointed” in reference to Russell Moore.
It is totally appropriate then to ask the question of “what are you willing to give up.” And as far as what is required, that has been said by many who advocate a “third way” which I articulated in a previous post (and am quite in agreement with Dave in his OP):
“Some have suggested a further clarification of the work of the ERLC, a note affirming that clarification by Dr. Moore, and further a clarification of the harms committed with a heart felt word by Dr. Moore to all the constituencies of the SBC, including with those churches who now threaten the CP. ”
This should entail much much more than “if you were hurt I am sorry” claptrap. While others want him out, I think that a real, genuine thoughtful analysis of past issues, and a genuine pledge to find constructive and creative ways that benefits all Southern Baptists and not just those in polarized camps would be in order.
Rob
Dr. Moore has apologized – but not for the truthfulness of what he said and not for what has been stripped out of context and used to batter him with. He should not apologize for that. He also has not apologized for the “mosque issue” as what he did there is not only keeping with his job at the helm of the ethics and RELIGIOUS LIBERTY commission – but the BFM2000 as well as historic baptist belief and practice – so he should not apologize for that.
I think we have already seem some gestures from Dr. Moore in that he has not commented negatively about Trump – and in fact I remember a nice thing or two he has said about some of the actions of the administration.
It seems he has tried to move on after his apology.
***inserting tongue firmly in cheek***
I would be interested to see if the anti Moore crowd would move to change the BFM article 17 – renaming it “Only Christian Liberty” and removing all statements about religious liberty being universal. Possibly even changing the Initials of the ERLC to EOCLC. Should you guys do that and succeed – RM would then be precluded from supporting or defending universal religious liberty ever again as head of the EOCLC (Ethics and Only Christian Liberty Commission).
Also, you might, while you are at it, amend the BFM with a new article that states “The SBC and all employess of entities will unabashedly and no matter what support the GOP candidate for President – however, shall continue to call strongly for integrity and character from democrats – all the while excusing and justifying the same behavior from republicans.”
Should you attempt that and succeed – again – RM would be precluded as head of the, now called NECLC (No Ethics Christian Liberty Commission) from speaking out against a republican again.
So, y’all go ahead and make those motions and shut RM up for good. He’d have to abide or resign.
***tongue now gently being removed from cheek***
Absurdity to illustrate absurdity.
Well of course there is only liberty found in the Gospel and of course we at the Jerry Falwell Moral Majority Religious Right Conservative Christian Philosophy Commission (JFMMRRCCPC for short) believe in ensuring the government purposefully restricts the building of temples to false gods because ignoring discrimination and authoritarianism is the easiest way to ensure real liberty in Christ.
Yep…that is it.
The JFMMRRCCPC of the Southern Baptist Convention.
And of course your sarcasm and making fun at others is bridging the divide and bringing unity to us all. Exactly what Jesus would do right guys? And you folks wonder where the grace is from the other side.
Rob
Well Tarheel – who is best to share if a conciliation or apology has occurred = to those who have agreed that he has spoken truth all along and others ought to just suck it up = or to those who claim they were marginalized and hurt? Is that what you share if you do any counseling sessions? Or do you encourage true conciliation where those who are hurt understand that the other truly has considered all the faults they have committed and is willing to bridge the gap to mend their relationship? This can be done without denying what one believes. In my opinion Dr. Moore has not done this yet. I hope he does. It would go a long way.
And I might add = you still are fixated on Trump and the GOP. This is not about him or party affiliation. It did not start that way, and will not end that way. It is about what kind of voice and leadership should be installed in our institutions we share together.
I know this is hard. I know you prefer to do your little sarcasms and witty diatribes that rail against your foes like a native dance around dead prey. It may make you feel good. But let me ask you. You rail against the petulant childish boorish behavior of certain people here and in the White House. How much better is your online behavior than those you oppose?
Grace and Peace,
Rob
No, Rob. Sometimes sarcasm allows a person to see their argument reductio ad absurdum (Arminians flee in terror!) , and perhaps make them reconsider their position.
Jim,
Or sometimes sarcasm just comes across as someone who likes to bully and be condescending to others for the purpose of belittling their position, thus making them less than what they are – that is “made in the image of God”. Your being condescending will never get me to see your position ever. I doubt others will be so convinced by your tactic as well. Somehow I don’t see how you would be attracted to someone who did the same to you as you do with those you disagree. Sigh… They do have, “do unto others as you would have them to do you” in your Bible too don’t they?
By the way I am no Armenian. No fleeing here.
Rob
Rob, sarcasm is a perfectly legitimate rhetorical tool, especially when someone says, ““Would I like to see a new ERLC President who doesn’t insult those of my generation embracing the Moral Majority Religious Right conservative Christian philosophy?” Oh ok, well I thought we were supposed to embrace Christ, not some manmade philosophy. So on the face of it, a ridiculous comment has earned sufficient ridicule (in reply to one who–as everyone knows–gives as good as he gets).
I also used sarcasm to point out the logical inconsistencies in a few points that have been made here. My sarcasm has not been particularly harsh, but you seem to dislike its mere use.
Honestly, whether or not you see it my way is not my concern, and if someone is clever enough to show me the holes in my own argument, more power to them. If they use sarcasm to point out I just said something ridiculous, so much the better because then I’ll realize how dumb I sound. Works on me regularly. Sorry you don’t like it.
Rob, did you read the article I wrote? I dealt with that.
I did read the article Dave. Have you read others in this same thread besides me?
Rob
Rob,
You ask of those that support Dr Moore what do they give up. They have nothing to give up for they are not a party to the perceived and/ or actual offense. The beef is with Moore not his supporters. His supporters have no say in how he reacts or how he decides to move forward on this.
Those offended by Dr Moore have to articulate what it is they will accept to mollify their upsetness.
Some want another apology while others want him gone.
This article is convicting for me. I am not a Southern Baptist, but I am a follower of Christ. I was in the NeverTrump camp from the beginning, but tried to understand those who reluctantly supported him. However, I continued to lash out at the old Moral Majority. I simply parroted the tone of my generation. I have been wrong in my approach. My generation has demonized the previous one. We have blamed the Moral Majority for everything and anything related to Christians and the culture. We tend to do this as Christians. We react and label. I cannot tell you how many solid Christian teachers have been labeled as pedaling a “prosperity gospel” when all they have done is believe the Bible. But I digress. My generation may disagree with the methodology and approach of the Moral Majority, which is fine and valid in many respects. But too often I not given credit to some who were just following their convictions back then. Not all were out for power. I can disagree and still be respectful. The reality is that both political parties have used Christians for their own ends. We need to be truly independent from both. When both parties don’t like us, we are likely doing our job. I just pray that all of the name calling and labeling will stop. Starting with me.
Thank you CT. Your approach is refreshing. May your tribe increase.
Rob
Thank you. I greatly respect Dr. Moore and would be very upset and disappointed to see him resign. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I differ a little. Regardless of my opinions or viewpoints though I hope I can be respectful to those with a different view. Truth and grace can go together.
Thank you CT. I appreciate your respect and your loving spirit. For the record I too at this juncture would desire to give Dr. Moore his one last opportunity. For a while there I was ambivalent but see wisdom in allowing him grace = something I must frankly say has not been given much to me or my “side.”
Him staying or going though will not heal the rift between brothers and sisters. We must decide to do that together, “for they will know you by your love one for another.”
God bless my friend.
Rob
Thank heavens for this one comment.
I’m not in your generation and I’m an old GOP operative… and I totally agree with you here CT.
Maybe I’m too far away, serving a normal sized church in FL. Our county voted for Trump by a large margin and many in my congregation are strong Trump supporters, but not one person has voiced concern over Dr. Moore. They seem to expect varying political opionions. We are waiting to see how big the tent turns out to be. I’m in agreement with Dave, there are no winners in this one.
What did Baptists believe about how to make good decisions together?
Do we still believe that? Does it apply here?
I don’t believe y’all so thin skinned that y’all would make an uproar over what y’all consider an insult. So I consider that there is more to this than meets the eye.
So much as I would like to think along Williams’s thought lines: that cooler heads will prevail, I think y’all already have cool calculating heads that know exactly what you are doing.
If so, and if you win, you will be losing.
And by the way, your doctrine is incomplete if you think this fight is godly.
I can only speak for myself Mike. But you don’t know me. We have never met. We have never broken bread, and told each other our loves, passions, concerns, and struggles. We have never looked each other in the eye and measured the man. So as to your speculation as to what I am calculating or desire or want is a way way out there okay?
I am a pastor of a small rural church. We have no power, leverage, or anything as it comes to hiring and firing of a entity head. All we have to voice is our conscience. I have not contemplated or brought up anything to any committee of our church about escrowing CP funds. While we give 13% to support SBC and Missouri missions through the Cooperative Program, our gifts are fairly small in the scheme of things. If we withheld anything it would not be missed, nor would anybody come knocking on our door about where it was going.
Beyond this we love Jesus and want to see him glorified. We do not believe that the current trend in the SBC is leading us to that place. We have no idea if our Missions dollars earned by God’s grace by our sweat and tears and given for the glory of God is going for that purpose. We read where one of our entity heads is saying all sorts of things about one candidate for President and his supporters in the secular press and yet says little to nothing about the other; we wonder why he says nothing if the purpose of that entity is to speak about ethics – why not speak about both candidates and their ethical failures? We appreciate that Religious Liberty should be entertained for everyone, but wonder if the right method for that was what our Mission Board did by placing an “Ok” around building a Muslim Mosque in a brief to a Federal court.
You call us “calculating”? No brother, you know nothing about us. If all that you believe is that if anyone with questions or has concerns about the work are merely calculating vivaciously with ill intent, then perhaps like Paul and Barnabas we must depart and separate for the good of the gospel.
Rob
Rob,
Not everyone who opposed Dr. Moore is thin skinned. Are you?
Because if you are, then my post was not directed at you.
Second, your viewpoint is not the only one opposing Dr Moore. There are those who have opposed Dr Moore from the time of his appointment, are you over of those? If not my post was directed at you.
There are those who desire Dr Moore’s removal because of his soteriology? If that isn’t you, my post was not directed at you. And finally there are those who are willing to risk a split in the SBC and are using this issue to get their way. If that is not you, then my post was not directed at you.
Now I disagree with actions WE took pertaining to the Mosque, but from what I understand, he and the ERLC were operating within the boundaries set up by US. Therefore that is a non-sequitur.
I also understand that only a very few dollars your church (and mine) gives goes to the ERLC. And that you have every right to voice your concerns.
Mike,
I am not thin skinned. I have opposed some of his stances and certainly temperament. Yet I have been condemned for not being a believer. You did not rush to my defense. Silence is agreement.
I did not know at the time that Dr. Moore had been appointed. I believed that if he was hired by Southern Baptists he would be okay. I started being concerned around Ferguson. Having a opinion piece published right after the Grand Jury came out (just a few minutes) did not give him time to read their report. He condemned their process. He did not speak when Eric Holder’s Justice Department published their report that affirmed and substantiated the Grand Jury’s report. Nothing.
When members of his staff where not Southern Baptists to begin with, I became concerned. Are there not enough qualified Southern Baptists to support an entity? Is Southern, Southeastern, Southwestern, New Orleans, Midwestern, and Golden Gate all bereft of qualified talent in ethics to support him as staff members of a Southern Baptist Entity? I could care less of his Calvinism (or lack thereof). But when he seems to support The Gospel Coalition rather than Southern Baptist churches, that has my concern. His childish rantings when he started tweating during Liberty’s Chapel service really disturbed me. His lack of equality of calling the two sides of the electoral coin disturbed me as well. I voiced those concerns. I was condemned and told I needed to get right with God. You did not defend me. Silence is agreement.
I hear of no one who desires a split or who is even advocating for it. They like me want our voices heard in the den of all the yes men. To gain the attention of all the fawning and the fainting surrounding the prophetic warrior who can do no wrong and walk on water. Only one man could walk on water and he was both man and God. The rest of us are fallible. Yet when one has the fortitude to do “something” to gain the attention of all of those who are saying “Amen preach it: get em” he is roundly condemned despite the service he has provided to our collective in the past, and the positive work he has accomplished for the Kingdom of God. Good men like Jack Graham Franklin Graham are showered with hatred, rage, vengeance, and vindictiveness. When I speak in defense of these worthies, I too get the same rage vented at me. You did not rush to my defense – in fact you piled on.
I said nothing about the ERLC putting in a amicus brief for the Mosque = only the IMB. While I have misgivings about supporting the building of the Mosque, I can understand the purpose of the brief. But even my tepid words of concern over this issue you did not rush to my defense. Silence is agreement with the attackers.
So you see, you may believe in your heart that your little post did not attack me. But I have been the victim of your silence – so when you open up who do I think you are talking to?
Just some food for your thoughts brother.
Rob
Rob,
You assumed i was talking to you or about you.
You defended your self and your ministry.
But your not thin skinned.
And now you are a victim of my silence.
I don’t know if you are a part of those I was talking about.
You know, if the shoe fits…
But you know, if the shoe doesn’t fit, why are you so bothered by what someone says?
Just some things for you to think about.
And Rob, if you don’t grasp that there is more about this mess then what meets the eye, I don’t think you are paying attention.
Hey Rob,
Are you saying Moore said you were not a believer?
Document that would you.
And I ask that because there is a lot, and I mean a lot, of Moore’s words being ripped out of context to stir up angst.
Mike – I should have clarified. I am not a believer in Russell Moore – not that anyone has called me out as being an unbeliever. Please don’t misconstrue my words out of context.
I am bothered brother that those who accuse people of being vindictive are guilty of the same offense. Moore needs to clarify his context in order to put it to rest. All of it. Otherwise it will continue to fester – not in the hearts of those who have always had it out for him. But for people like me. All of us who read his words and actions in complete context = but still are very concerned.
Peace.
Rob
The sad part is that that this entire scenario is being played out in front the entire nation (NAMB) and the world (IMB). The fear is that everyone (Moore and anti-Moore) is being covered by the mud that is being slung.
Not in support of RM losing his job.
The one thing that has bothered me in many of the press is the reports that Russel Moore…
From BP… March 15… “Moore has clarified that he never intended to criticize all evangelical supporters of President-elect Donald Trump”
The use of the term “all”. I keep asking which evangelicals did he intend to criticize?
Jon: I would encourage you to actually read his apology. News media reports which summarize what somebody said often have to sacrifice clarity for brevity. There’s no use in being bothered by the word “all,” when it’s not a word that Moore himself used.
Again, I’d strongly encourage you to read his entire statement, (and not just the short section I’m quoting below). It’s on his website, from December 19. In it, he addresses the question of whom he intended to criticize and whom he did not intend to criticize:
“I remember one situation where I witnessed a handful of Christian political operatives excusing immorality and confusing the definition of the gospel. I was pointed in my criticisms, and felt like I ought to have been. But there were also pastors and friends who told me when they read my comments they thought I was criticizing anyone who voted for Donald Trump. I told them then, and I would tell anyone now: if that’s what you heard me say, that was not at all my intention, and I apologize. There’s a massive difference between someone who enthusiastically excused immorality and someone who felt conflicted, weighed the options based on biblical convictions, and voted their conscience. In a heated campaign season focused on sound bites, this distinction can get lost in the headlines, so it bears repeating.”
It does seem interesting that Voices and many other outlets within the SBC are engulfed in this back and forth about an Entity that has only been in existence since 1988 and has had only 2 presidents, both of whom have riled up a sizable portion of Southern Baptists. Dr. Land was forced to resign because of his statements, and now, Dr. Moore is in a difficult position. Both these men (prophetic voices) have gotten into hot water for their provocative statements.
So, why again does the SBC need the ERLC? Why do we need an Entity who has leaders who say things that irritate sizable portions of the membership of the SBC? What exactly has the ERLC done in Washington that benefits the members of the SBC? What value has the ERLC been for the Convention that gives it millions? of dollars each year?
Perhaps our discussion should be about the merits of the Organization itself.
Beware the truthiness of Wikipedia.
The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has been renamed twice. In 1913 the Southern Baptist Convention formed the “Social Service Commission.” The Convention renamed this agency as the “Christian Life Commission” in 1947. Then, as a part of the sweeping “Covenant for a New Century” in the concluding years of the 1990s, the Commission received its present name: The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
Employed heads of the Convention have been far more numerous than just two men. The first head of the Commission was A. J. Barton (the guy whose name you’re most likely to encounter in the history of the SBC in the early 1900s without having heard of him before). Succeeding Barton have been Hugh Brimm, A. C. Miller, Foy Valentine, Larry Baker, Richard Land, and Russell Moore.
You’ll find the Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives to be a pretty good source for basic Southern Baptist historical questions like these—far better than Wikipedia. Foy Valentine was pretty notorious. Basic reading of a history of Southern Baptists or the perusal of any of the literature concerning the Conservative Resurgence might also prove to be helpful. Even a close reading of some of the newspaper articles covering the present controversy would give you a better grasp of the Commission’s history.
I’m sure you know far more about this than I do Bart. So, was the pre-incarnation of the ERLC uniquely SBC? It seems, from what I can find, that it was the SBC in alliance with others in its former iterations? Is that not the case?
It is not the case. I think perhaps you are confusing the ERLC and its predecessors with the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.
Bart, just did a quick search on Social Service Commission and found this link. It states that the pre-incarnation of the ERLC was a committee until 1953. A committee has nowhere near the magnitude or the power of an Entity. There is no mention of any leader other than Dr. Land. Is there another article I could read?
http://www.bpnews.net/40443/1913-southern-baptist-conventions-long-reach-missions-social-concerns-cooperation
By the way, Foy Valentine’s choice to invite a publisher of pornography to speak at a seminar on sexual ethics was one of the abuses frequently cited to motivate support for the Conservative Resurgence. The story of the Christian Life Commission is a fascinating one. Worth knowing.
There’s some inartful prose in that article. The “in 1953” goes with the renaming, not the change in status from a standing committee to a Commission.
One good recent source would be Jerry Sutton, “A Matter of Conviction: A History of Southern Baptist Engagement with the Culture.” While not precisely a history of the ERLC, the history of the entity obviously parallels the history of this topic.
By the way, if you’ve got some time to kill and want to see something fascinating, this link…
http://www.sbhla.org/downloads/138-2.pdf
…points you to the topics list of materials that the SBHLA has on file for the Christian Life Commission. It’s a smorgasbord of controversial societal issues that also serves as a sort of chronicle of the twentieth century, ethics-wise. There are also names listed. Knowing some of the rivalries and tensions present in those days makes you wonder what old Foy Valentine had to say in his files under the heading of “Rogers, Adrian.”
I did see that one. I just skimmed through it, and you’re right, I would need to have some time to kill. 🙂
The question that needs to be asked, IMO, is would a Moore resignation bring unity or more division? Every outcome here has consequences and they must be weighed by those who have influence and/or are the decision makers here.
The outcome I am praying and hoping for involves genuine reconciliation and repentance and an ongoing commitment on all sides to work together for the cause of the gospel. Whatever changes need to happen in the motives, attitudes, and actions of Moore and others, I pray the Holy Spirit will make clear and will lead in making those changes. I pray that the ultimate outcome for everyone involved (including myself) is marked by a spirit of grace, unity, humility, cooperation, and a desire to please God.
Personal feelings and opinions aside, I am praying for the outcome that will most glorify God and advance his Kingdom.
Boy, it seems one man sure has caused a lot of controversy and division within the Southern Baptist Convention.
The whole mess is sad.
I’m still waiting for and praying for a man of God to rise up and call this denomination to repentance – from pride, egotism, and man-centeredness.
CPE 1704 TKS
Nerd
Serious question. I knew what that was as soon as I saw, but I couldn’t have named the code from memory.
Did you have to look it up?
I confess, I couldn’t remember the ‘K’ in the last sequence and had to look it up.
I knew the first two sequences. I could not think of the last 3 characters.
How about a nice game of chess?
(We are playing a game called Just HOW Big a Nerd IS Bart?)
Tremendous. Just tremendous. He’s the biggest nerd we’ve ever seen. When he nerds, he nerds bigly.
🙂
My favorite demotivational poster comes from “War Games”
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/14816_large_3954266206_4a447a5770_o.jpg
Thanks Dave. Great article. And you’re right, from what I can see, Bart is a nerd.
Truth is truth.
If you’re just now seeing that, Clint, you need to have those spectacles checked.
So…after reading entries from the past few days, not limited to this particular controversy, I made the first step to inquire about switching to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
While I have not been Southern Baptist all my life, I was trained at Southern Baptist university and seminary. It would be very difficult for me to leave the SBC, but it has increasingly difficult to put up with these dissensions, as well as doctrinal differences that I have developed over the past several years that I consider to be essential (such as predestination, God’s sovereignty, cessessationism, the increasing tendency for worship to be entertainment rather than service or sacrifice). This discussion I read on this specific blog entry is not helping the cause for me and my family at all.
David, honestly, if reading about this kind of stuff bothers you, don’t read it. There are thousands of Southern Baptists who serve faithfully and cooperate together that don’t know or care about any of the stuff we talk about here. We think it’s important. We appreciate open, honest discussion about this stuff even though many times we wish it wasn’t necessary. I hope you’ll stay within the SBC and would be glad to talk with you about reasons why you should, but should you decide not to, I certainly wish you the best.
I appreciate that.
Yeah, what he said. Like dating, make no judgments based on what you read on the internet.
Dave, to your original post, I have this to say: “Boom goes the dynamite.”
To the rest of this…this is why we will all ultimately lose. Some of you refuse to let it go! And if the Graham supporters win, the young pastors of the SBC who admire Dr. Moore for his unwavering convictions will reject you and the SBC will fracture. If the Moore supporters win, the large churches with established Pastors and the old guard who view this as a battle concerning Calvinism will reject you and the SBC will fracture.
The only way to win is not to play the game any longer.
Kudos Dave!
“Baptist love for liberty often creates the sounds of war when closer examination reveals a fireworks display,” Paige Patterson, president of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, told Fox News.
“The issues are serious, but the focus of our convention of churches on getting the saving gospel of Christ to every human on the earth prevails over our temporary squabbles.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/15/southern-baptist-leaders-tout-unity-amid-rift-that-could-cost-church-millions.html
David R. Brumbelow
Now for the record I believe that Dr. Moore at this time should be given grace (to go along with theme of the OP). I have misgivings, but will allow grace to settle it. I would desire that the ERLC have clear be given clear guidelines that will allow both the freedom of Dr. Moore to do what he does, while at the same time give him some guidance. I do believe he needs to further clarify his position on several issues (not just Trump or supporter issues). For one, the silence of the ERLC concerning the UN Resolution in clear defiance of multiple convention resolutions supporting Israel. You guys want to clip about how Russell was just doing his duty based upon a 1990’s resolution. The latest resolution in support of Israel was 2016, and the ERLC said nothing about things in November up to this moment of time. A truth by the way that NONE OF YOU have commented on that I can tell.
I do want to caution you. History may be repeating itself here. There were many who called Russell Dilday, the former President of Southwestern Seminary prophetic. He was a critic of the conservative resurgence often calling it in student’s hearing “a fundamentalist takeover.” He called himself “a constructive conservative” but it was okay that there were professors under his command who taught fairly liberally. He was very combative, opinionated, with an ugly temper to a point that his board wanted to fire him. It was Dr. James Draper (former President Executive Committee SBC) (who at the time was serving as Chairman of Southwestern’s Board) who gave Russell another opportunity under a gentleman’s agreement. At first the agreement was kept fairly cleanly. But then the “prophetic” (or his critics said an ugly ugly temper) of Russell appeared again. No one felt it more than one member of his own board of whom he publicly scolded and ridiculed in front of witnesses as being unworthy and unqualified of being on his board. Well as they say – the rest of the board had had enough. How do I know all this? Well I was a graduating student of Southwestern in the Spring of 1994 when all hell broke loose. It was the firing of Russell Dilday which was the precipitating event which lead to the schism among Texas Baptists into now two Baptist Conventions.
We can give our brother another opportunity to somehow bridge the gap. But history is against it. God’s grace is good. He has to work with us though.
Rob
Just curious; did yall, or would yall say the same thing about Kevin Ezell, David Platt, and JD Greear when their churches were giving around the CP that some of you are saying about Jack Graham and others?
I am not in the fire Moore crowd, even though I have disagreed with him on many issues and did not like the way he attacked those who didn’t agree with him.
But, I would like to hear from some of you, who are condemning Graham and other churches for withholding CP funds over Moore.
David
I can only speak for myself, but I think that giving around the CP, and announcing first to a secular newspaper and then to the Baptist paper of another state that you are escrowing $1 million because you are unhappy with the leadership of one of our entities are two different things. If Jack Graham wants to give around the ERLC, more power to him. If he wants to wave his money around in an attempt to get his way, well that’s a whole different thing.
And by the way, I don’t really know much about the giving habits of the others you mentioned. I know some, but not all. But if they did the same thing Jack Graham is doing, then yes, I believe it was wrong then too.
Adam,
People gave around the CP back then, and they let it be known it was because they did not like the way certain entities were spending their money. So, it really is very similar.
David
Jack Graham is withholding everything.
He’s giving nothing right now.
That’s never been true that I know of about the men you mentioned.
Also, I don’t remember any other them leveraging what they were giving because they got their feelings hurt.
So no, we didn’t say the same things.
I did and do express the opinion that many mega churches don’t give as much to the CP as I wish they would.
Dave, all of those people who gave around the CP did not like the way the money was being spent, so they designated around it. As I told Adam, it is very similar. So, would you say the same Playing about those man, or was it OK for them to do it, but not for Jack Graham and others to do it?
David
They let it be known internally – not through the secular media.
If you’d be more specific about what and why these individuals “gave around” whatever – then maybe we could discuss this deflection your offering up. 😉
I might say that Dr. Moore let his “prophetic utterances” mainly towards Southern Baptists be published in the New York Times and other secular papers rather than in the Baptist Press or Christian radio. Perhaps Jack Graham was trying to make a point with releasing his news to the same as a tit for tat. It certainly got every bodies attention.
I am not saying I am justifying Dr. Graham. I am consistent. I don’t think Dr. Moore should have done what he did either.
Rob
David W: Can you show where the above mentioned men did not give a large percentage out of protest or disagreement. I think your argument falls flat there David. Did they run to all the major newspapers and say they were not giving out of protest on some issue? Again, the answer is no so that would not make a good argument.
I don’t have time to look all that up, Debbie. I’ve got ministry to do, and a family to love on. So, you can google it and find it. It’s common knowledge.
The fact is that Pastors and Churches have threatened to withhold money, or have withheld it, and have given only to the things that they want to give to, rather than giving to the CP, probably since the beginning of the CP. It happened in the CR days. It happened with the men I mentioned above. And, it’s happening, today. AND, in the SBC, every Church has the right to do whatever they want to do, as they feel led by God to do.
Have a great day, Debbie.
David
Oh, So now he lacks integrity?
What’s next with you people?
Auto correct. Uugh
I know the feeling! Lol
Hey, I love you fellows, and I really don’t want to get in the middle of all this that’s going on right now, but it’s hypocritical to condemn Jack Graham and the other churches who are talking about withholding their CP funds, whenever some people Reading this blog and others coming down on Graham probably withheld their funds back in the day or did not give to the CP until the guys they liked were leading the entities. Then, they gave to The CP. so, they are giving Platt, Ezell, and Greear a pass for what they did….which is extremely similar to what Graham and others are doing.
David
It’s not extremely similar. I’ll explain he difference one more time. I have a hard time you actually believe what you’re writing here.
If Jack Graham had decided they were going to continue CP giving but disallow any funds to the ERLC – that would be somewhat similar to what others have done in the past. I would not have a problem with that course of action.
What he is doing now is toxic, destructive and is not similar. Totally withholding funds from other entities to exert political pressure for a desire outcome.
I am being entirely consistent to support the one and condemn the other. I really believe you, Rick, and others know that and you’re determined to keep throwing up this smokescreen of false equivalence.
Brent,
It’s the same thing. Jack Graham and others will give that money in escrow to missions, eventually. After they evaluate where they want to give it. It may be GCR giving, instead of CP giving, but it will go to missions. So, maybe NAMB and IMB will get big gifts, in the future. I don’t know. But, they have stated that the money is in escrow until they figure out what they want to do with it.
Ezell, Platt, Greear, and many others gave very little to the CP at the Churches they Pastored. Some of them gave very little to Lottie and Annie offerings, as well. And, they were given a pass by many, many of you, who are now coming down hard on Graham and the 100 plus other Churches, which are basically doing the same thing……almost the very exact same thing.
But anyway, I’ve said more than I wanted to say. Like I said, I’m not in the “Fire Moore” crowd. I’m just trying to keep it real.
God bless yall
Volcano,
Friend, if you did not want to get involved it probably would have been wiser to not come on here and call us hypocrites and throw up demonstrably false equivalencies.
But, anyway.
Sometimes the truth hurts.
Yes, it does – like the truth has hurt those who supported Trump and are mad at Russell Moore because would did not – and dared to articulate truthful and biblical reasons why one shouldn’t.
Thats the problem Tarheel. The only problem according to you guys is that the only reason people want Moore out is because people supported Trump and Russell did not so the long knives are out. You ignore the half dozen other reasons people are concerned and only make it out as this one political thing – even though it has been said over and over again there are other things, just as important if not more that need to be placed in the calculus. You call on others to keep things in context. Well – I call on you to do the same thing please.
Rob
1. It is with in context to say that the Jack Graham situation is about Russell Moore/Donald Trump/election 2016… Because that’s exactly what he said it was about when he spoke to the secular media.
2. The “half a dozen in “other statements are mostly out of context and simply battering rams for the war against RM that was waged long ago.
For example the “Jesus was an illegal alien” was clearly taken out of context…
Another example of the witchhunt this taking place is the fact that Russell Moore has done nothing more with the “mosque” issue then speak to religious liberty for all people – something Southern Baptist have claimed since the 1933 version of the Baptist Faith and message as well as the 63 and 2000 – yet it too is being used as a battering ram.
3. I will merrily stop calling on you to keep things in context… When you actually start doing it with regard to RM.
I have. Name one post I have authored in this thread where I have taken RM “out of context.” Date and time please.
Rob
Volfan007,
Good to hear from you. I agree with you they are similar.
And, as far as I know, Jack Graham and Prestonwood have not yet decided what they are going to do.
Rob, you speak the truth.
I remember well those days at SWBTS with Russell Dilday leading the moderates and liberals.
David R. Brumbelow
David B: How can you say they are similar? They are miles apart. That is simply not true no matter how much you want to twist it to fit. It just doesn’t.
Obviously I have a lot of catching up to do.
I could use some clarification on Russell Moore. I came across an article on the Pulpit and Pen site concerning his appointment of Dr. Karen Swallow Prior as a research fellow at ELRC. Dr. Prior is Professor of English at Liberty University (which I thought was a conservative university until I learned they invited Steven Furtick to speak at a convocation), and seems to be a partial apologist for abortion and gay-affirmation.
If this is the case, would someone please explain the rationale of hiring such a person as a research fellow for an SBC entity?
I’m not sure those things are true about Mrs. Pryor…
Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?
Liberty Prides itself in inviting speakers from all across the political, religious, and social spectrum to speak in convocations…however I’m not sure I would go as far as to imply that they are now a liberal school.
Anyone who reads KSP knows she is neither pro-homosexuality or pro-abortion.
However those who read P&P would not Now these things because they don’t quote KSP. They do misquote her regularly.
Ok. My error. Thanks for the clarification.
With all due respect to all of you who post or reply here…it is a challenge to know who is telling the truth, or which version of the truth is accurate and which is not.
Thanks for the fun. I’m outta here.
If Christians would fall in love with Jesus, and have a fresh passion for the Lord, and would sincerely worship the Lord, and would truly obey God, it would cure what ails all the problems we’ve got in our lives. If Believers would really seek to live for the Lord, then we’d see God do great things, and some of the petty differences we’ve got would fade away in the brightness of God’s glory.
The love of Jesus would cause us to love each other; forgive each other; treat each other like we’d like others to treat us; and it would make forgiveness more easy. The love of Jesus ruling our hearts would make us to not be so easily offended, and not demanding our own personal preferences, and it would cause us to not be so selfish.
Dear God, light a new fire in our souls. Let your love rule and reign in our hearts and in our churches.
I stepped away for lunch and things got a little crazy here. Sorry about that.
FYI, comments containing links to Pulpit and Pen will be automatically trashed. That site routinely bears false witness against brothers and sisters in Christ in the articles they publish. We will not be giving them a platform here.
Also, I will remove all links to SBC Today. That site often has a very weak association with the truth. So we will not be driving traffic to their site.
Differences of opinion are always welcome here. Intentional (P&P) or unintentional (SBC Today?) lies are not welcome.
How dare you…
…go to lunch.
Lol!
Aggressive Traditionalists often come here and violate rules 3, 4 and 7.
tarheel
I guess I am the one who raised the issue concerning Mr. Moore’s use of “illegal immigrant.” I have made two responses to your statement that the statement published by Mr. Moore:
“First of all, our Lord Jesus himself was a so-called “illegal immigrant.”
is taken out of context. I agreed and have supplied two responses. The entire statement was; “This is a gospel issue. First of all, our Lord Jesus himself was a so-called “illegal immigrant.”
It is Mr. Moore who stated that particular statement is a gospel issue. The emphasis is his “Fist of all,” Clearly it is not in the gospel. To me the issue is misusing Scripture to further a personal political agenda. I am sorry if my two responses did not convey a clear message but would have to disagree with you that it is part of a witch hunt.
Does not Acts 17:11 tell us to search the Scripture daily to see if what we are told is true?
Well it assumes a few things:
1) The nation of Egypt had some sort of codified law regarding immigration
2) Joseph and Mary bypassed said law
It was a bad analogy used to make a point. Jesus technically was “undocumented.” Because they had no documents back then, that I know of. Then again, Joseph had some method of proving the origin of his birth when the census was taken, but that’s an Israel thing, not an Egypt thing.
Dr. Moore would have done better to say that Jesus was a refugee, and talk about how the Son of Man had no place to lay his head. He’d have done better taking that tack.
All that being said, it is hardly the worst of his sins, and he wasn’t being theological or trying to make a Biblical point, he made a bad parallel. Let’s see all the analogies you fellas have made in your sermons, maybe we’ll find some duds there, too.
I doubt that refugee is a term Jesus would ascribe to Himself. A Pilgrim or sojourner yes, refugee…I ain’t buying that.
Luke: I can see the analogy and think it’s a good one. Mary and Joseph were fleeing from violence just as the refugees some seem to want to reject are fleeing from violence.
Mike Crane: Are you Southern Baptist? I can’t seem to find that information on your site, but I can find where government is a big part of a Bible study you have on your site, which those who reject it are “Biblically illiterate.” If you are not Southern Baptist , then to be frank, this is none of your business.
Mike has said a couple of times he attends a small SBC church and is involved in local ministry…fellow Georgian. That doesn’t make his church/state stuff right, he is dead wrong. I’d probably enjoy a glass of tea with him but it’s as waste of time to discuss this stuff.
They were taking refuge in Egypt from Herod. At the behest of the Angel, but still applies.
Debbie, you are correct that the detailed issues surrounding the ERLC and Russell Moore’s employment with the entity are particularly the business of the SBC and its members.
But I would add that the broader issue of Russell Moore’s impact on the views of religious liberty in America have a much wider appeal and interest. For example:
http://erlc.com/resource-library/press-releases/russell-moore-assembles-evangelical-leaders-to-support-judge-gorsuch-for-u-s-supreme-court-appointment
That this stuff is making news in evangelical periodicals and even secular newspapers indicates that a lot of the world is interesting, and watching.
Considering that Rome ruled the land of Judea and Egypt, Jesus never left Rome, so to speak. So no, I am not convinced Refugee is a term Jesus would have applied to Himself or His situation. Sojourner or Pilgrim, yes, Refugee, nope. I am not convinced.
Oh hi, semantics!
Is that’s the best you can do to convince? Not semantics. I’m not a refugee if I move around the United States to hide from Church people that have threatened me. I remain unconvinced that Refugee is a term Jesus would have used to refer to Himself. Care to try again.
Bro. You’re being intellectually dishonest. Joseph was specifically told by the Angel to flee to Egypt to escape Herod. If that doesn’t the definition of a refugee, I don’t know what does. To go from one place to escape another seeking refuge. The fact that there is an Imperial government doesn’t mean Judea and Egypt weren’t different countries.
Jim,
B-I-N-G-O and bingo was his name oh !
Good swipe! Convinced me./sarcasm
Actually, your argument undermines the entire discussion of refugee. If Jesus went back, then certainly modern refugees should go back as well. Except that isn’t the goal of the current unlimited muslim immigration(aka refugees).
But you are the one defending the use of refugee in regard to Jesus and I’ve asked you to convince me. You have not even attempted to do so.
Firstly Luke, I did not swipe at you, it was legitimate criticism of your argument. Second, I do not attempt to convince you, but I do wish to defend my point, and will do so vigorously.
So when a refugee goes back from where he came, he is no longer a refugee, and therefore had not been a refugee at all. Is that what you are saying?
I’m beginning to think that you believe the analogy was misapplied by Dr. Moore to Jesus’ status in the world. To that I say sojourner and pilgrim are the best terms. But I am not arguing from the standpoint of his status in the world, nor am I arguing in opposition of the travel ban! I didn’t even bring politics into this. All I am saying is simply that he was a refugee at some point in his earthly life.
So I can clearly establish that Jesus was at one point a refugee, and we both know that Jesus said, “Whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me.” At that point whether you are convinced or not, or how you apply these truths, I don’t really care.
tarheel, I guess we will just leave this issue at a point that we disagree.
To answer your question the article was published prior to his selection to replace Richard Land. I referenced it for two reasons:
1) In the view I presented it shows taking an agenda to the Scripture instead of deriving an agenda from Scripture. This is just one of several, once again my opinion and this is just part of a pattern.
2) Several people – perhaps not you specifically – keep saying that questions about Mr. Moore are just a result of his derogatory comments about Trump supporters. This one obviously has nothing to do with Trump.
I have presented several like this and a couple non performance issues such as Eric Walsh, Resolution 2334 and Johnson Amendment.
Mike,
I agree with you, Dr. Moore is imperfect.
And there are some things YOU THINK should have been addressed that were not.
And so?
Just coming here and saying he should have addressed this resolution or that other thing makes it sound like you have a difference of opinion with Dr. Moore.
And saying the same things over and over just makes it seem like you have an axe to grind but never have any substance.
Instead of simply repeating yourself again and again that you don’t like the choices he made, why don’t you, along with that opinion, explain why your opinion is valid and should be listened to.
Most, if not all, of what I have read that has been written here that speaks against Moore is pretty weak to cause such a ruckus. As for your complaints, I have no idea of the their gravitas, because they are just words and opinion.
About the Johnson amendment – to be honest I have not made up my mind on it – but perhaps the incessant and ongoing attacks on Russell Moore and his speaking out against Donald Trump and his positions have backfired in this regard… That he is choosing not to address issues of which Donald Trump has spokn and he has not…And since Donald Trump is so avidly in support of repealing the Johnson amendment if Russell Moore is against it and speaks against it – Might he then get some of the same treatment from avid Trump defenders? Perhaps his deciding to not speak against this issue which he has not spoken to before and Trump has already spoken on is a direct result of choosing to be more conciliatory toward Trump?
You can’t have it both ways – “he should leave Trump alone” and “he should speak out against something Trump has spoken great support for.”
This is one reason why I think y’all’s witch hunt might be backfiring.
The intellectual dishonesty and internal inconsistencies are staggering.
tarheel you stated:
That he is choosing not to address issues of which Donald Trump has spokn and he has not…
If it is part of the ERLC’s duty, and Mr. Moore and the ERLC do receive funding to meet certain duties then it does not matter why he chooses to not do something. This is a performance issue.
Trying be clear – the repeal of the Johnson Amendment to the IRS code would eliminate some or all of the tax exempt issues concerning the pulpit and elections/candidates. This is potentially a dramatic change that could affect virtually every church in the country. It would restore the pulpit to the position it held from Colonial days until the passage of the Johnson Amendment in 1954 on the subject of elections.
His personal feelings about the current President or any personal agenda should not stand in the way of providing information to the churches in the SBC. Even you above are suggesting that he is allowing his personal opinions, feelings, agenda or whatever have some influence on providing information to SBC churches.
Legislation to do this has already been introduced in both the US House and Senate. There may be multiple bills but one H.R.172 is at bottom.
I find it hard to believe that calling this a lack of performance is a “witch hunt”. By the way I have never in this forum stated an opinion either for or against – the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, just that I believe that SBC churches should be well informed and hopefully be somewhat prepared to debate this issue. It has certainly been covered from a very biased view in the secular media.
H.R. 172 follows
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF THE 1954 JOHNSON AMENDMENT BANNING THE FREE SPEECH AND FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF CHURCHES AND EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General.—Paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to list of exempt organizations) is amended by striking “, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office”.
(b) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.
“If it is part of the ERLC’s duty, and Mr. Moore and the ERLC do receive funding to meet certain duties then it does not matter why he chooses to not do something. This is a performance issue.”
But the point is that the anti-Moore folks have consistently derided his speaking out against anything connected to Donald Trump… saying that he should “stay out of politics” ( which really only means so far as I can tell- he should refrain from speaking anything against the official positions of Donald Trump)… Well maybe you’ve gotten your wish…
#makeupyourmind
The Johnson amendment deals with tax code – that is distinctly political yet you’re saying you want Russell Moore to be involved in that political arena… But not speaking in relation to character and integrity, and of those seeking office while claiming the evangelical mandate???
tarheel.
You are correct. Currently churches are prohibited from political campaign participation by the IRS. That has been the case since 1954, but was not true from Colonial Times until 1954. Perhaps you have some knowledge of the “black regiment regiment” from colonial times and its impact on the creation of this country.
I did not criticize Mr. Moore for making statements on a candidate. Please note that his predecessor Mr. Land at one year participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday. I would have preferred the approach taken by Franklin Graham where he compared the two candidates issue by issue with Biblical references.
But the issue I tried to address is that it does not seem that SBC churches are fully aware of the impact of repealing the Johnson Amendment. Yes I believe that providing information on this issue is part of the ERLC duty.
Do you think SBC churches are aware of the implications? It is above both my pay grade and Mr. Moore’s to determine what the SBC response (if any) should be. But the information and awareness component may be very important.
So back to your question, I would like for the ERLC to be sure that SBC churches are aware of the potential impact, not that Mr. Moore establish their decision of how to handle it.
I apologize if that is confusing.
tarheel,
I need to correct a statement in my previous reply. Where I said Richard Land participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday. He did not participate but did make a statement on the Johnson Amendment in a discussion on Pulpit Freedom Sunday.
Here is the extract: (moderators – if posting the link is inappropriate please delete it)
Lifeway interviewed 1,000 pastors and found 86 percent of pastors disagreed with the statement “The government should regulate sermons by revoking a church’s tax exemption if its pastor approves of or criticizes candidates based on the church’s moral beliefs or theology.”
“We believe the IRS regulation is a dumb one; it ought to be done away with,” said Richard Land, pastor and president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “It violates the First Amendment.”
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/more-pastors-sign-on-to-preach-politics-from-pulpit-56944/#8ws72UcH6B3bGKRs.99
“I would have preferred the approach taken by Franklin Graham…”
You mean supporting Trump behind the scenes and by clear inference without saying so explicitly? To be honest, I personally saw that tactic as a bit duplicitous.
tarheel,
You asked:
“You mean supporting Trump behind the scenes and by clear inference without saying so explicitly? To be honest, I personally saw that tactic as a bit duplicitous.”
The reason I preferred the methodolgy used by Franklin Graham over that used by Russell Moore is that Franklin Graham reviewed both candidates, by issue and gave references. It was quite extensive and it was both online and in a published magazine format.
As an example in the September Decision magazine page 15, there is a table comparing their statements on the Supreme Court. This will of course lose the table format but one row of the table follows:
What They Said
Hillary Clinton – Clinton told the Washington Times: “I would not appoint someone who didn’t think Roe vs. Wade is settled law.”
Donald Trump – Trump has praised the late Antonin Scallia as a model justice, saying Scalia’s career was “defined by his reverence for the Constitution …”
If pointing out ungodly positions of candidates is considered duplicitous as you call it, then I would say we need more of it. There was also a comparison of the platforms of both parties which is very telling and about a dozen issues. If Mr. Moore had done the same thing, even if he chose issues that Mr. Trump was weak on – as long as it was factual I would commend for it.
I hope and pray that the Johnson Amendment is repealed. I would like to see those with the gift of preaching and teaching present the Biblical aspects of candidates. See no need for endorsing or providing funding, in 90% of elections the ungodly candidate will become obvious. Mr. Moore in effect weighed in, but I consider Mr. Graham’s method far superior.
I believe this is important based upon passages such as 1 Samuel 8:18 for example or Isaiah 5:20. This does not preclude evangelism and outreach any more than marriage counseling.
Thank you for asking.
Like I said – supporting and advocating for Donald Trump – i’m not sure why there seems to be a measure of acceptance and grace for one who advocated for Trump… And none for one who advocated against him.
They both were “involved in politics”.
I also couldn’t help but notice that Dr. Graham’s assessment that you referred to relating to abortion did not include the multiple different articulations of Donald trumps position on abortion by Mr. Trump himself – some prior to his candidacy in 2016 and some during his candidacy of 2016…for example It did not include his past statements – spanning over his entire life – that only changed when he wanted evangelical votes.
In other words I believe Mr. Graham selectively choose statements of both candidates that would make DT more appealing to evangelicals in an effort to help Donald Trump… While pretending to be not endorsing a candidate. That’s what I mean by duplicitous.
Tarheel at 4:37 about Russ Moore –
“You also point out something else very important… If he has not said this is (as) head of the ERLC – then why is it being discussed now relating to his suitability for the position?”
Tarheel at 7:14 about Franklin Graham not bringing up Donald Trump’s comments throughout his ENTIRE life –
“I also couldn’t help but notice that Dr. Graham’s assessment that you referred to relating to abortion did not include the multiple different articulations of Donald trumps position on abortion by Mr. Trump himself – some prior to his candidacy in 2016 and some during his candidacy of 2016…for example It did not include his past statements – spanning over his entire life – that only changed when he wanted evangelical votes.”
This while pontificating about someone being duplicitous.
Hey Deano, it’s so nice of you to drive by – um – I mean stop by. 😉
The comment I made (that you referenced) about Russell Moore was simply a side point – my main point was that the whole discussion that was taking place was that the “Jesus was illegal” comment people are using now, years later, against him is stripped from its context and is being used as kindling for the fire y’all are building to burn your “witch” at the stake.
The comments (and life history) I referenced about Donald Trump are not taken out of context they ARE the context of his life – that is until he decided he wanted the “evangelical mandate” and Represent the Republican Party as President.
Debbie Kaufman
Thank you for asking …
Yes I am a member of Wilscot Baptist Church in Morganton Georgia which is a SBC church. I also participate in two Morganton/Mountaintown Baptist Association outreach ministries and Appalachian Regional ministry Christmas backpack events.
Please read the material. It clearly states that it is from a Bible Study done in 2012. Only about half has been posted so far, but the rest is coming. There is also a Facebook page where smaller portions are being posted, should you wish to comment on the content.
The comment about Bible Illiteracy is clearly stated as being an extract from a Barna Study. I have found some of their studies to be very interesting and educational.
Yes civil government is a big part of a Bible Study titled “The Bible and Civil Government.” In fact the entire Bible study is about civil government including some material concerning the Biblical justification presented by our Founding Fathers concerning this country. There is considerable Scripture on the subject which from my experience is rarely preached from the pulpit. At the time of the Bible Study I was a member of Morganton Baptist Church and our Pastor participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday which sparked my interest and led to the Bible Study.
Like I said above thank you asking.
Hey, Mike, I’ve been up in your area, but it’s been quite some time. Visited several churches around Blue Ridge while on vacation there (twice). Have some old minutes of Morganton, Mountaintown, Ellijay and Gilmer-Fannin associations. Only church name I remember visiting was New Hope — which I perceive (in my memory) of being somewhat east of Blue Ridge. If I ever get up that way again (which I’d like to) maybe I can look you up. Ever know a preacher named A. J. Clayton? Don’t know if he was Southern Baptist, but he was a very very nice older gentleman from down around Ellijay who loved the Lord and preached well the times I heard him.
Debbie I will say that whether he is SBC or not is irrelevant. He makes solid points from a Biblical worldview and conducts himself respectfully, he should be welcome to comment on the overall issue.
Mike I hope you realize that though you have disagreed with several people, you still are welcome to post here. So perhaps it’s not “agree with them or be banned,” after all.
Robert, would love to get together with you. New Hope is very close to where I live. Wilscot is on Hwy 60 between Morganton and Suches (closer to Morganton). New Hope would be about 7-8 miles from Wilscot.
I do not think I have ever met Pastor Clayton. But do not get down to Ellijay very much.
We have been here since 1999, but my family is from the Murphy area.
Honestly don’t remember whether Brother Clayton was pastoring New Hope at the time, or was a visiting preacher there when I heard him. I need to go back and refresh my memory!
https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=140052312
He and his wife came out to Texas once and visited us and preached for us. It is one of my regrets that we never got back to see them again.
Jim, thank you. I did make that statement in another forum and apparently I was wrong.
Thanks.
Mike, I will say this – I make it my practice to ignore SBC Today and the Roundtable. But my no-good, scoundrelly friends (I keep looking for new ones, but am stuck with what I’ve got) send me clips now and again.
I was sent one today in which you engaged in a conversation with Tom Davis. He was banned from this site for making racist comments, something I don’t tolerate. Evidently, racist comments are tolerated at the 316 Roundtable, because his comment to you about “race-mixing” as a bad thing stands. A comment like that here would be immediately deleted and the one making it would be banned.
I am a devoted race-mixer. I look forward to the day that men and women of every tribe and language on earth gather in heaven to praise God and I think we ought to do everything here on earth to practice for that. Tom does not agree and I think you should know why he was banned.
You will only get banned from Voices for:
1) Racism – I’m very intolerant of that.
2) Repeated personal insults (We all get snippy at times, but if its a habit)
3) Comment trolling and comment stream hijacking
4) Generally being a pain in the neck.
You will NEVER get banned or moderated at SBC Voices for having an opinion different from any of us.
The SBC leadership team has Calvinists, non-Calvinists, dispensationalists, amillennialists – Baptists of every stripe. We tend to be pro-Moore but we have published articles critical of Moore.
You can discuss that here. Despite the slander that Rick publishes about us, we allow a wide range of views here.
But, know this (and this is what Rick doesn’t like), your opinion is going to be challenged here as well. this is not a place where you can say insult and slander and have it go unchallenged (as long as you insult Calvinists, Dr. Moore, David Platt, SBC Voices, etc).
Feel free to state your opinions.
Know that people are going to disagree and hold you accountable for your views.
If you get racist or out of control, you might get put on some kind of commenting limit.
Adam Blosser is in charge now, but I just thought I’d let you know what is going on.
I don’t understand guys you and Luke – and there have been others. You go to Connect 316 and you slander us, then you come here and engage freely in conversation. People disagree with you, perhaps, but no one limits your right to state your opinion.
Why do you feel the need to go on other sites and insult us?
I realize that this scores points with Rick and others by putting us down, but if you are going to come here and engage in conversation, why do you go there and insult us?
Maybe, assuming Luke can answer the same question (realizing there could be two Lukes).
Dave, don’t think, but don’t know, if you have any reference to me. But my post appears not far above your statement about “you guys” who go to Connect 316. I assume by Connect 316 you mean SBC Today? I post there sometimes, but am not aware of having mentioned SBC Voices, and especially would not have said anything that could be considered slander. It is possible I seemed to be on “their side” about some issue, but that is not often. The last time I remember posting at SBC Today was when Rick was taking it hard and heavy over his thread touting the questionnaire that he could not even prove had been used — and then deleted every comment!
Robert, I’m thinking of Mike in particular (he gave a good answer – thanks), Luke by mistake, and more generally. SBC Today, Rick, and the 316 Roundtable engage in a lot of slander and vicious speech about a lot of things – we are one of their more popular targets evidently.
I’ve seen people who comment here engaging in the slander there.
Rick comes over here and jokes around and tries to play nice, then goes over there and engages in pretty low slander behind our backs.
I have, admittedly, said some strong things to Rick. I’ve said them TO Rick. Directly.
What I don’t get is people who come over here, engage in our discussions freely, then go over to 316 or Today, and join in the free exercise of slander that is encouraged there.
Lydia used to do that a lot. She’d come here and comment, then go over there and call us “Pravda.” Of course, some of the harsher, more mean-spirited guys like Scott Shaver I had to ban – they went over and used that to vent. Evidently, Tom Davis is doing that now. He is a racist who I blocked (you should have seen some of the stuff he said – wow) but he comments at 316 a lot evidently. Race-mixing and such.
So, no, I didn’t have you in mind.
Dave,
I tried posting from my cell phone and don’t know where it went.
As to your “question”, you say I go to Connect 316 and slander you and then post here freely, If you are referring to this Luke, you will have to show me where that has happened. You’ve got my ip addresses, church and home, so that shouldn’t be hard to figure out who’s who. Insult you? Well, again, you are going to have to show me that. At any rate, I’ll try to come up with a clever way of being “set apart” name wise. I can’t use my other name Robert, that ought to be obvious. I am not Luke Holmes in LA but I am Luke in SW Lousiana.
Dave, thanks for the explanation. I did make that statement but it was in a Facebook dialog with Tom. I have already added a response to it that I was not banned as he said he was. I should have applied my own frequently administered advice of following Acts 17:11 before speaking in that situation.
Comment away, man. Be careful of Tom, though.
Dave, I’ve never been to a 316 and don’t think I have ever slandered you or put you down. I seldom engage on any sites but you are welcome to show me if I have.
Yeah – I apologize.
1. I’m very old, you know – senility has set in.
2. When you only use your first name, there could be someone else who just uses their first name. I can look here and figure out some background, but I can’t tell at another site – no access to their info.
It’s possible I was confused but I thought I saw a “Luke” chiming in on the slander-fest. I didn’t look that closely.
And, of course, if there was a Luke, it was my assumption that you and that Luke were the same person.
Again, my bad.
Oh, I get it. Connect 316 is SBC Today as Robert asked above. If that is your reference, then I have posted on SBC Today yesterday. To my knowledge, I have never mentioned you or SBC Voices. I am usually a lurker on both. I did post on Mike’s post today here today. Liked it alot. I was involved in another conversation about “refugee” but didn’t mention anyone there either. So, I’ll try to start signing off as I said above.
Luke in SW Louisiana
“SW” Louisiana. So… you’re Luke Skywalker! 😉
Actually, I had my name before Star Wars came out but I sure heard my share of:
I’m your father
Use the force
Jedi I am not. Midi-chlorians I have not.
Luke in SW Louisiana
I love a good sport! Hope you stick around.
tarheel,
You said, “some prior to his candidacy in 2016 and some during his candidacy of 2016…for example It did not include his past statements – spanning over his entire life ”
The material I posted and you are responding to was from the section on the Supreme Court – not the life issue. Extracting a small part of the section “A Life or Death Decision” starting on page 20 – shows Mr. Graham did disclose Trump’s prior position from page 21, a Trump quote “I hate the concept of abortion. And since [being pro-choice] I’ve very much evolved. … And I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life.”
and from page 20.
Trump has said, “The abortion aspect of Planned Parenthood should absolutely not be funded,” adding that he might consider funding for the non-abortion services of Planned Parenthood. (which he has done as President).
In the verbiage section Mr. Graham does discuss some of Trump’s inconsistency in earlier years. But as far as the campaign that was in process in September he correctly points out a stark contrast. Results in first two months have confirmed that contrast, for which we should all be giving Praise. In addition for the first time a sitting Vice President participated in the March for Life in Washington.
Actually on this one I am going to have to call lack of study and lack of acceptance of a statement of repentance. Prior to becoming a candidate Mr. Trump acknowledged his error on abortion. He “confessed” (my term not his wording) that he had previously been in favor of abortion. However a child who at one time there had been plans (not his child) to abort – the mother had changed her mind – and he saw the child as he grew. This he said had shown him the error of his previous view and he disavowed his previous error. I call this repentance, turning from an evil way. Note that as President he has issued an order on the Mexico City Policy which prohibits NGO access to abortion funding reversing the position of the Obama administration and has defunded abortion at Planned Parenthood which neither Obama administration nor Congress had done.
My point is very simple, you obviously were not aware of some or all of this information on Trump. In my opinion you should not have heard it from me. The SBC pays a group of people to inform churches of policy issues.
Mr. Crane I was very well aware of all of that… I don’t read decision magazine – never have – but I am very well aware of the “evolution” Donald Trump claims in regard to abortion – in fact I didn’t need anyone to tell me – whether it be you – Russell Moore – or Franklin Graham… I actually heard Donald Trump articulate those words about the person he knew who was considering an abortion and decided not to and the child grew up to be a “wonderful beautiful person” so he decided to be pro life…that actually is in keeping with Donald Trump’s philosophy of life in general… Ya know his basically Darwinistic philosophy of “winners versus losers” – I have absolutely no doubt after “studying” Donald Trump over the past few years that had that child grown up to be a “loser” in his eyes – he quite possibly would not be presenting himself as pro-life today… or maybe he would since he decided he wanted to play president as a Republican… Previously when he ran for president he was pro-choice.
In just a few years Donald Trump changed very much of what he was saying over the course of his life – that Democrats are better than Republicans – that he was big-time pro-choice – that Hillary Clinton was one of the best secretaries of State that we ever had – that Bill Clinton was a great president – that Hillary would make A good president – all of that changed when he decided he wanted to run as a Republican.
Trust me, I am educated about who Donald Trump is.
Donald Trump is a liar and a con-man, and will lick his finger and stick it in the air to see where the wind is blowing. People got conned, and I’m not buying anything he’s selling.
Dean, I am the one who brought that up in response to Mr. Moore being called a prophet. In that repsonse it was out of context which I admitted and supplied the full context of the phrase:
“This is a gospel issue. First of all, our Lord Jesus himself was a so-called “illegal immigrant.” ”
It was Mr. Moore who said it was a gospel issue, but it is not in the Bible. I will not repeat the whole discussion.
The reason for a question about Mr. Moore’s use of Scripture (please read Acts 17:11) in this case was to give an example that could not be linked to Mr. Trump. Some may disagree but in my opinion it and the article were using Scripture to support a personal opinion rather than using Scripture to form the opinion.
tarheel, thanks for the reply and I am very pleased that you were aware of the information. As an FYI I do not subscribe to Decision magazine either but I did get the election issue.
If you knew all of this then why did you make the negative statement about Mr. Graham’s evaluation? Have you no positive thing to say about the Mexico City Policy, defunding abortions at Planned Parenthood or the Vice President participating in the March for Life this year (not done by previous administrations)?
I am a lay member but I do outreach in food, recovery and benevolence ministries. Many have serious problems in their life either earlier or current. I would never hold such harsh positions against anyone who is professing changes in their life. Especially when there is any demonstration of actual change. I give Praise and pray that it be continued.
We seem to be in tit for tat so I will give you the last tat.
Because, since I have not seen the decision magazine I could not and still cannot comment as to his analysis there – I was speaking of his tv apperancces and secular newspaper interviews were here touted “I am not endorsing a candidate” – but he clearly was… I watched him numerous times say this while at the same time endorsing Donald Trump without explicitly saying so.
I do appreciate the vice president’s solid pro-life convictions– which by the way has been consistent his entire public life and he has worked tirelessly on pro life issues – so it’s no surprise that he went to the March for life and participated in it – I was glad he did.
Given what else I know about Donald Trump and his proclivity toward saying whatever it is he needs to say to get whatever it is he wants to get leads me to a great bit of cynicism regarding his alleged “change” to being pro-life.