Big news yesterday from the church of an ex-SBC president. Jack Graham said that Prestonwood Baptist has decided to “to escrow gifts previously forwarded to support Southern Baptist cooperative missions and ministries while the congregation discusses concerns about the direction of the Southern Baptist Convention,” according to Will Hall at the Baptist Message, the “news journal” of Louisiana Baptists.
While each church has the right to determine how to support the cooperative efforts of the SBC, this particular decision takes on a more public light given Graham’s previous position as SBC President, the significance of the sum of money, and the decision of Prestonwood leadership to speak with the Baptist Message about their decision.
According to Hall’s article, Mike Buster, executive pastor of the church, said the decision stems from “various significant positions taken by the leadership of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission that do not reflect the beliefs and values of many in the Southern Baptist Convention.” Hall goes on to write, “Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, has created tensions among Southern Baptists by signing a friend of the court brief in support of the construction of a mosque, and, for making strident insults against evangelical supporters of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 election process.” It is not clear, though, from Hall’s article if these are specific concerns stated by Prestonwood representatives or interjections by Hall himself.
Nonetheless, Hall’s words raise the specter that the church’s decision is rooted in positions taken by Dr. Moore on the issues of religious liberty and political candidates. To be fair to both sides, Moore did state some of his positions in a calloused manner, a reality for which he later apologized.
I want to return to the statement: “Various significant positions taken by the leadership of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission that do not reflect the beliefs and values of many in the Southern Baptist Convention.” In light of Hall’s article, significant positions center especially on the ERLC’s filing of the amicus brief and Moore’s opposition to Trump as president.
My question in response to this is: When did the beliefs and values of many in the SBC change?
I would like to point to three resolutions adopted by the messengers of the SBC since the mid-1990s. Though non-binding, resolutions do reflect the opinions held by messengers of Southern Baptist Churches present at the conventions. First, messengers adopted a resolution on Religious Liberty in 1995 at the Atlanta, GA, convention. The resolution states:
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, By the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, June 20-22, 1995, that the Southern Baptist Convention express its support for all peoples suffering denial of religious liberty, but especially for those who are of the household of faith, and even more particularly for those who share Baptist convictions and commitments…
Taking a Galatians 6 angle of doing good to all people and especially to those of the household of faith, the resolution states that we as the SBC support religious liberty for all people. Yes, our main focus should be upon our Christian brothers and sisters, but not to the denial of liberty for others. If you read the resolution, this attitude is rooted in the desire to help Christians in persecuted countries worship and evangelize freely. In other words, the messengers understood a connection between freedom for all religions and our liberty as Christians to evangelize the nations.
Another resolution, passed at the 2011 convention in Phoenix, AZ, expresses a similar idea. The desire within the resolution is to want people in Islamic countries to have the freedom to convert away from Islam. Yet, with this in mind, the first five resolveds state:
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011, restate our long-standing view that religious liberty is an inalienable human right, rooted in the image of God and possessed by all human beings; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we affirm that this freedom entails the civil liberty to convert to another religion or to no religion, to seek to persuade others of the claims of one’s religion, and to worship without harassment or impediment from the state; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we oppose the imposition of any system of jurisprudence by which people of different faiths do not enjoy the same legal rights; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we deny that any government should use any coercive measure—including zoning laws or permits—to restrict religious speech or worship, based on the theological content of that speech or worship; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we call on the United States government to maintain complete religious liberty for all Americans, as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution; and be it further…
In short, the messengers to the SBC spoke their view that people of different faiths than Christianity deserve the same rights of freedom as Christianity, and the government should not use coercive measures against such freedoms.
So, if the resolutions of 1995 and 2011 speak an opinion of the SBC, it would seem that the view presented by Hall and Prestonwood representatives is out of step with the beliefs and values of many in the SBC. Unless, that is, they are contending that our beliefs and values on religious liberty have changed over the past six years.
As to Moore’s positions against Trump, I point to a resolution adopted at the 1998 convention in Salt Lake City, UT. The “Resolution on the Moral Character of Public Officials” concludes:
“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.”
In the midst of the moral scandals of the Clinton administration, we Southern Baptists spoke firmly on our belief that character matters in politics. We did not expect our politicians to be perfect, but we urged one another and our fellow citizens to vote for men and women of “consistent honesty, moral purity and the highest character.”
With the election of President Trump, some SBC leaders came out in strong support of the candidate despite him not meeting these qualifications. Dr. Moore was not one of these. Yet, despite the voice of the SBC, historically, speaking to high moral standards for politicians, Hall’s article states that it is Moore who was out of step with the view of many Southern Baptists. If so, what changed?
Again, Dr. Graham can lead his church how he sees fit and Prestonwood is free to decide how to contribute to the Cooperative Program. Yet the reasons given for their decision seem spurious. We Southern Baptists have consistently spoken in favor of religious liberty for all people, not just Christians. We have also spoken of the need for high moral character in political leadership, and especially in the nation’s highest office.
Why is it that in 2016-17, we are being led to believe by Baptist news journals, former SBC presidents, and other SBC leaders that stances by men like Russell Moore on such topics are now out of step with many Southern Baptists? If that is true, then what changed?
This is excellent. Thank you, Mike.
Mike is correct. As Southern Baptists we practice church autonomy. Our churches can channel their giving as they choose. However, we should remember that in the Cooperative Program budget the IMB gets 51%; NAMB gets 23%, and the six seminaries get 21%. That adds up to 95%. So, the Ethics Commissions gets a small percentage. Why withhold missions giving to make a point about the Ethics Commission? As a retired missionary I do not speak to the validity of their complaint against the Ethics Commission; I do, however, bemoan any lessening of giving to missions.
No one would bat an eye if they withheld the ERLC’s percentage. But withhold a million dollars from the CP and you’ll get someone’s attention.
I am so sick and tired of hearing that we should not care about the ERLC’s waste because it is really such a small portion of the CP budget. We need to get rid of the ERLC because we do not and never have needed it, especially when the guy heading it up is more interested in ‘schooling’ us than ‘representing’ us. The ERLC is an unnecessary lightening rod tasked with an impossible responsibility. I have said it before an will say it again here. There is NO WAY as single SBC entity can represent the diverse concerns and issues of our increasingly diverse (thank the Lord!) congregations. It is time for the ERLC to go…and for the SBC executive committee and entity heads to quit ignoring the concerns and frustrations of a growing number of pastors and state convention leaders. …I feel better now.
Allen, this is why the waters stay muddy. We could have a good (and perhaps needed) conversation about whether the SBC needs an ERLC. I can see the arguments on both sides of that conversation. But when Russell Moore is attacked for standing for traditional Baptist principles as if he is some closet liberal, it prevents that conversation from happening.
Agreed. I hope these conversations may soon become a reality. And, if “5%” isn’t much, then what small church’s giving matters? I wonder how many missionaries jobs could have been saved with the “5%” that is so small? It probably isn’t small to their families. I know that God can do wonders with even 5%. I am sure someone has posted the $ amount of what the 5% equals. Does anyone here know how much the ERLC receives based on the budget approved at SBC16?
“When Russell Moore is attacked….” Wow.
Just…wow. I realize this is your perspective and all, but many of us feel verbally abused by Russell Moore to a degree I don’t think his fanboys can fathom.
LISTEN, just LISTEN, to what Russell Moore said about me and others like me.
First, he gave us a pejorative, washed up label, calling us “the Old School Religious Right Establishment.” Does he not realize that his salary is paid PRIMARILY by the 81% of Southern Baptists who continue to identify with the Religious Right, in spite of the fact that Moore keeps telling us it is dead?
Second, he dismissed Trump’s evangelical base, which included the vast majority of Southern Baptists, as being “doctrinally vacuous.” I suppose that means we are all SUPPOSED TO EMBRACE Moore’s view of replacement theology eschatologically and AT LEAST be Amyraldists soteriologically. Moore is so much smarter than the rest of us. How can we be so blind not to see it? But is it TRULY smart to tell your financial base of supporters that their understanding of doctrine is VACUOUS? Note the following synonyms for vacuous: silly, inane, unintelligent, insipid, foolish, stupid, fatuous, idiotic, brainless, witless, vapid, vacant, and empty-headed.
Third, he accused Trump’s evangelical base, which included the vast majority of Southern Baptists, of the immoral use of beverage alcohol, IRONICALLY a charge more suited to all the Calvinist craft brewers lampooned in Babylon Bee articles. (http://bit.ly/2m3JFtF) His exact words regarding Trump’s evangelical base stated that they “may well be drunk right now, and haven’t been into a church since someone invited them to Vacation Bible School sometime back when Seinfeld was in first-run episodes.”
And you still maintain that WE are the ones attacking MOORE?
The closest Russell Moore ever came to an apology for unleashing his verbal abuse was here:
// “I remember one situation where I witnessed a handful of Christian political operatives excusing immorality and confusing the definition of the gospel,” Moore wrote. “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. //
ONE SITUATION in which a handful of Christians were talking? IF, IF, IF that’s what we heard? Like it’s OUR FAULT for misunderstanding him…FOR A YEAR AND A HALF? For eighteen months, the person we are supposed to ADMIRE for their ETHICS spewed vile insults at us—calling us old school, doctrinal idiots who “may well be drunk right now” and probably haven’t been to church since the nineties!
Is this any way for our leading ethicist to treat Southern Baptists? Or was Mike Huckabee right when he made the following statement?
“I am utterly stunned that Russell Moore is being paid by Southern Baptists to insult them.”
Exactly. Totally agree.
Excellent word!
Excellent article! Thanks for writing it.
Exactly!
Apparently we only hold those convictions when a Democrat is in the White House…
The ERLC gets all of 1.65% of the SBC allocation budget. Factor in what the state convention keeps in Texas and you are down to less than a percentage point of Cooperative Program gifts. I’m assuming the article meant that the church gives $1m to the CP as a whole.
The church’s contribution to the ERLC would be about $9,000.
We are to believe that Russell Moore has raised enough questions for the church to say that their $9,000 out of the $1,000,000 given is sufficient to escrow the larger amount? Churches don’t have to make sense. They are king. I’d just look beyond the ERLC on this one.
It is the dream of SBC anti-Calvinists that churches will rise up and react by exerting financial pressure on the entities which they see as being increasingly dominated by Calvinists. While this church’s decision is news, former SBC prez and one of the most visible SBC megachurches, I’m not sure it signals any broader movement. Time will tell.
That said, no telling how many otherwise clear thinking SBC brains the triple digit temperatures in Phoenix will bake. I wouldn’t be surprised if a motion is offered aimed at Moore and the ERLC, their work, their funding, their trustees. Who knows? See you there.
I believe most Southern Baptists opposed to the mosque amicus brief would agree completely with the statement: “All Americans should have the freedom to worship any way they choose, and the government should not favor one religion over another.”
Because as Baptists we do believe in this principle, arguments like these give us the impression that you feel the need to lecture us, which is a bit offensive and condescending, since we affirm religious liberty with a totally clear conscience. These resolutions do not “hit us” or “scratch where we are itching,” for we affirm both religious liberty and the need for good character in our political leaders.
We don’t even “hear” rebukes like these, because they do not apply to us, since we affirm both principles.
1. MOSQUE PARTNERSHIP
Until you see that our concerns are truly rooted not in a rejection of religious liberty but in the decision to form a de facto legal partnership in support of a false religion, we will continue “talking past each other” on this issue.
Many Southern Baptists have a tender conscience when it comes to forming 2 Corinthians 6:14 associations, yoking ourselves with unbelievers. We believe one can still defend religious liberty in general for all Americans WITHOUT offering specific legal assistance to a mosque refusing to provide the amount of parking required by local officials.
An argument can be made that Friday mosque services, to which congregants travel directly from work on a weekday afternoon, do indeed result in less carpooling than the Saturday synagogue and the Sunday church. So PERHAPS the mosque WAS treated DIFFERENTLY, yet there is NO religious liberty violation at all.
In any event, we do not see this from the vantage point of a RELIGIOUS LIBERTY issue, but from the perspective of those who would avoid 2 Corinthians 6:14 UNEQUAL YOKING WITH UNBELIEVERS partnerships.
2. CHARACTER OF POLITICIANS
This one is much simpler to explain. While we agree with every word of the resolution on character, we disagree over the implementation strategy, and perhaps the binary nature of American elections.
In short, PRECISELY BECAUSE character matters so much, and given that we harbor moral concerns with BOTH candidates, because of the reality that SOMEONE has to be President, we voted for TRUMP over CLINTON, believing him to be the candidate of GREATER character in our binary political process.
Thus far, the fact that America no longer pays for international abortions, along with improved relations with Israel, along with the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice like Neil Gorduch, would seem to CONFIRM our sense that Trump was actually the candidate whose character would prove to be greater.
To answer your original question, “NOTHING has changed” among those with whom you disagree here, concerning our support BOTH for religious liberty AND for the importance of good character among our politicians.
The fault lines in these conflicts are NOT at the level of our MUTUALLy CHERISHED PRINCIPLES, but RATHER, with the manner of their APPLICATION to specific current events.
* Gorsuch
So, situational application of cherished principles is how we should roll… Got it.
Ding ding ding!
Yep. Situational ethics had taken over.
Please consider that there is more than one way to apply ANY general principle. Take one we all affirm: “Christians should observe the Sabbath Day and keep it holy.”
One person APPLIES this by refusing worldly amusements like restaurants or shopping.
Another person APPLIES this by going to church in the morning and relaxing with family members the rest of the day.
Another person preaches two sermons, attends a senior citizen’s birthday party, leads two committee meetings and provides and impromptu counseling session before collapsing at the end of the day.
You simply CANNOT require that the SPECIFIC WAY that YOU think a general principle MUST be applied is the ONLY way. People can AGREE on a general principle, but DISAGREE on its specific application, WITHOUT being charged with inconsistency, hypocrisy or the embrace of situational ethics.
Or, in this case, Rick, when its a Democrat in office we oppose his immorality. When it is a Republican, we excuse or gloss over it.
Then you should have no problem with Moore’s actions/positions.
As the other guy said… as long as we only apply the principles to one party, we’re ok.
When did Southern Baptists start questioning the power of the Gospel to change lives to the point where we think the government should pick sides?
Rick, So then why are you so upset Dr. Moore and David Platt applied these principles different than you? I’m glad you are finally confessing that they are in line with what Baptists have historically believed. And it’s just that they’ve went about applying these differently than you would.
Mike Leake,
You are correct in your restatement of my point. We all agree with Platt and Moore on the general principles of RELIGIOUS LIBERTY and LEADERSHIP CHARACTER. I don’t know of anyone who seriously argued against these principles in general.
The disagreement is over HOW such concerns were APPLIED, and the reason many of us have expressed concern is that we do not view that APPLICATION as being a minor issue at all, as reflected in your closing statement that it was “JUST [emphasis added] that they’ve went about applying these differently than you would.” You can drop the “just.” This IS the primary issue involved, and people ARE upset about the way we applied our beliefs.
Many Southern Baptists believe that our application of the principle that CHARACTER MATTERS, which undergirded our support of Donald Trump, was harshly and fiercely ridiculed, most notably by one of our own Southern Baptist brothers—a kind of “friendly fire” that we could have done without, and that we regret ever financially subsidizing.
Many Southern Baptists also believe that our application of the principle of RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, in which we might publish an article supporting the rights of ALL religious groups to worship freely in a very general manner, would have been a much more appropriate expression than to entangle ourselves with others in this whole mosque affair, which we might very well have been better off simply to avoid entirely.
To summarize, (1) the fault lines are not over GENERAL PRINCIPLES but PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS, and (2) those practical applications are not viewed as minor issues in the least, but rather as significant concerns.
Isn’t Moore guilty of “situational ethics” by giving advise through the ERLC that is okie dokie to attend the reception of a gay couple, so long as you don’t attend the wedding? I see this as application, thought I believe faulty. Application can and will look different in such a diverse group of believers. As we welcome the growth of a more racially diverse church, the historical voting habits of some of these minority group will bring in different “application” of these historic Baptist Principles. Will we then call it “application” or “situational application”?
‘”You simply CANNOT require that the SPECIFIC WAY that YOU think a general principle MUST be applied is the ONLY way.”
Then you should have no problem with Moore’s actions/positions.’
Mike: The issue is when Moore is being paid with CP funds to speak on an issue and acts contrary to many members within the SBC. That’s what is at issue. Moore has a right to speak on his own behalf. No one is questioning that right. Members do have a right to question his actions on anything he does while wearing the “ERLC hat”. Just as, members have a right to support any actions he takes while wearing the “ERLC hat”. That doesn’t make anyone a bad guy. That is what we should all want and don’t see enough of in the SBC. Members of churches are rarely engaged and thus a group of leaders usually makes the decisions they feel best while unchecked by congregants. I think maybe leadership has become too accustomed to having their way and maybe went too far causing some of this backlash. Kind of like what we saw at the national level in this last election. The little guy is tired of those so far removed claiming to represent their views when speaking on their behalf. I think that many in the SBC “think” they know what their congregation believes. I am here to say, you may be mistaken. I know that for a fact, many I have spoken to in my church are afraid to speak out about some of these issues because our pastor has been so vocal in support of them. They want to keep peace and aren’t sure what to do. It is causing problems that many pastors don’t realize is happening. I tell you, our church is very divided and there is little peace just under the surface. Please consider the peace of your church. Pastors, please don’t lump us all together and assume we are mindless, sinister people who don’t really know all the facts to form a right opinion on this matter. Many of us just disagree with your application, but agree on principle. We too have consciences and I assure you, it is not worth it to sign an amicus brief if it causes such turmoil in your church. Period. Keep peace as much as it is up to you….. Members are keeping peace now, but eventually, leadership may overstep their bounds and I am concerned there will be such a divide as was never seen before. Please, for the love of God and our denomination, not another split like we saw in Texas between what became the SBTC and the BGCT. This is where we are headed. Truly. This is what the devil wants. It will hurt missions. Missions are more important than any perceived benefit from signing a court document.
Oh, come on.
Rick,
I would not be so alarmed if people were only questioning legal strategy (“Hey, at what point should we not join a legal effort to defend religious mushroom smoking or religious mosque building?”). I have an opinion about such matters, but I can see them as edge questions that people of good faith can discuss while all affirming religious liberty.
However, alongside these questions has been the constant drumbeat from leaders in the anti-ERLC movement to state pretty explicitly that religious liberty should not extend to Muslims. In my opinion, your comment makes perfect sense if and only if those comments—those many, repeated comments—are excised from the record.
It was not a religious liberty issue. It was a zoning issue.
Allen, are you suggesting that zoning issues cannot be religious liberty issues?
Also, Allen, is it a religious liberty issue when people repeatedly say that we should withdraw religious liberty from Muslims?
I am suggesting that zoning issues be addressed with those who are in charge of zoning…and Local Associations and SBC churches chime in if there is rel discrimination going on. There is not a need for an SBC response…especially when a local response would be more effective.
Bart, I hope you’ll give serious consideration to a blog post on the topic I suggested you take on (assuming you received my e-mail). Thanks!
Some Southern Baptists, I have recently learned, are now of the opinion that Islam is not really a religion at all—but a geopolitical movement seeking world conquest that merely disguises itself as a religion in order to afford it certain protections, like exploiting religious liberty. Presumably, they believe Islam has ALWAYS functioned in this manner.
I have not looked into this at any length, listening to any speakers or reading any materials, so I may not be qualified to judge the merits of this view. But right now, such a position is a bit of a stretch for me, for they really do seem to be practicing their religion—praying, reading the Koran, meeting together for worship and celebrating various holidays.
Having said that, I DO think it is a different KIND of religion, due to the incontrovertible fact that Islam is associated with abusive practices toward women, Jews, homosexuals and other groups, and that Muslim Extremists are responsible for unleashing greater violence upon the world than, say, Amish Extremists.
What if the government begins treating Muslims differently, NOT because of their RELIGIOUS VIEWS, but because of their ASSOCIATION WITH TERRORISM? At what point does a Religious Liberty concern run up against a National Security concern, both of which are rightfully important to Christians in America, the role of the government to protect its citizens also being a biblical issue?
If anyone just comes right out and says, “Muslims do not deserve religious liberty,” then right now, I have a problem with that. I think they do. But I seriously do not wish to see America become what Europe has become, and I do not wish to sacrifice the security of American lives based on a religious liberty principle that Muslims do not even embrace themselves with regard to OUR faith being practiced in THEIR countries.
I can truly see how you might view such persons as “denying religious liberty” to Muslims. However, I would prefer to say that they were “balancing their religious liberty principles, on the scales of justice, with their overriding concern for the preservation of American lives.”
The reason I do not believe this is a “Religious Liberty Copout” is that I would only apply such special rules to Muslims AND NO OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUP, because thus far, no other religious group has become such a breeding ground for international terrorism.
“Can we treat Muslims differently?” Every time one of their radical extremists cuts somebody’s head off, I am more inclined to say, “Yes, we really can, NOT because of their religion, but rather, because so many of them have seriously never learned how to play nicely in the sandbox with the rest of us.”
I don’t think one has to exclusively be lumped into the category of “withdrawing religious liberty from Muslims” if they don’t think we should be aiding, in any way, the furtherance of their ability to build a mosque. I think that those who support religious liberty can both believe that Muslims have a right to build a mosque and that SBC leadership should not sign any document that gives assistance in any way. I think the argument here lies in what one constitutes as giving assistance to the worship of another God. Perhaps many in good conscience are being lumped together with those who are anti-religious liberty because they differ on what constitutes participating in helping them raise a Ashtoreth Pole. I can’t speak for others, but I know that my conscience is troubled by using money that could go to our mission field to do anything, and I mean anything, that would help in the construction of a mosque. I believe that we can fight to protect religious liberty without using the power of the ERLC through an amicus brief. Those in the SBC who feel in such a way may do well to consider the peace in the denomination above signing a document that does nothing to guarantee religious liberty. Really, it does nothing to help this cause, although many believe it matters. We are to keep peace as much as it is up to us. A large group of pastors could individually sign a document to submit as a group, not and official SBC group, but a group they form paid for and run outside the SBC. I don’t know why this hasn’t been considered except that there are those who believe the SBC wields a large sword and they want to tap into it’s power. For the sake of peace, let those who want to sign any brief in the future get together on their own, for a group and do it apart from the SBC.
Rick,
The filing of an amicus brief, despite how often you and your friends try to describe it as “a de facto legal partnership in support of a false religion,” is patently FALSE. It is no such thing and for you to continue to describe it in such words displays ignorance on this issue. By definition, an amicus brief is an unrelated 3d party offering their thoughts on the matter at hand before the court, providing information that has bearing on the case. To claim that the ERLC or the IMB partnered with a mosque is ludicrous and until you come to this conclusion, it is you who are talking past people.
I know that the amicus brief does not address the “facts” of the case, but merely addresses the “law” and supports the general principle of religious liberty. I also realize that you and others feel that when Southern Baptists file such a brief in a case involving a false religion that we are NOT partnering with them.
I have learned people have different ideas about what constitutes a partnership. For what it’s worth, and this is only an illustration, but when a Southern Baptist Church Plant receives funding BOTH from the North American Mission Board AND from the Acts 29 Network, I believe we have formed a de facto PARTNERSHIP with them—despite the protests of others who SWEAR to me that this is not the case at all.
Jason, I truly CAN see the point some people make when they say, “Southern Baptists were under no obligation at all to file this brief. No one was holding a gun to our heads. Many other religious organizations are having disputes with their town councils regarding parking and zoning issues, that MAY or MAY NOT represent religious liberty violations. We do not at all OPPOSE the mosque’s right to worship. Still, we are not going to file any paperwork at all that MIGHT be construed as IN SOME WAY supportive of this false religion. We CANNOT do that as a matter of conscience.”
Finally, you have called it “ludicrous” for someone to maintain that our involvement in this issue was something of a partnership. All they have to show is that the filing of this brief, in this case, was not a NEUTRAL factor, but actually FAVORED the position of the mosque over against the township’s leaders. Our brief certainly did not aid the position of the town council, but that of the mosque.
You can think people are nuts (or “ludicrous”) all you want for looking at this relationship and saying, “This looks like a type of partnership,” but it won’t change a thing, for this is INDEED how many people look at it, and I see no chance at all that they can ever be persuaded otherwise.
rick: Still, we are not going to file any paperwork at all that MIGHT be construed as IN SOME WAY supportive of this false religion. We CANNOT do that as a matter of conscience.”
You expressed objections in the housing allowance case to the SBC joining with Jews, Muslims, Krishnas and others? Advocating for the free exercise use of peyote by pagan Native Americans?
This is anti-Islam and not much else.
No one is claiming that the ERLC or the IMB were forced to file a brief. But it is not true IN THE LEAST to look at it as any sort of partnership with either the plaintiff or the defendent. If you want to use language of ‘partnership’, then those filing amicus briefs are in partnership with the court and the court alone. So does Jack Graham, Rick Patrick, et. al have a problem with the ERLC and the IMB being partners with the court, because they sure didn’t when they filed briefs concerning religious liberty as it applied to the ACA and Hobby Lobby.
Maybe this is just another case of selectively applying our principles.
William and Jason,
I DO think we should be more selective in advocating for Southern Baptist concerns. Regarding the HOUSING ALLOWANCE, it is indeed a Southern Baptist concern. Regarding Hobby Lobby, MANY Southern Baptists were affected. Again, no problem at all. Regarding parking spaces at a mosque in New Jersey? No real Southern Baptist interest here. Just let them put in a few more parking spaces and continue to practice their religion freely.
Jason Sampler, your comment seems to be at odds with the actual statement of the federal Judge.
“Shipp acknowledged the friend of the court brief joined by the ERLC and IMB, stating it “supports” the ISBR’s arguments that unlawful religious discrimination occurred.”
By the way for those who would deny a local population the ability to establish parking requirements – how do you count “seats” in a mosque? Even if that is true should not the brief have been filed by our SBC church a couple miles away? Also how can a town that has elected a Muslim mayor be a hot bed of discrimination?
Mike,
That quote actually supports Jason’s argument. All it says is that the brief supports the argument that unlawful religious discrimination occurred, nothing more.
“Even if that is true should not the brief have been filed by our SBC church a couple miles away?”
This doesn’t make much sense to me. If the case pertains to religious liberty, then it seems entirely within the mission of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission to file the brief. This claim also seems to miss that this brief wasn’t filed by only the ERLC and IMB. They joined with many other institutions to file the brief.
Stephen, precisely my point. The judge stated clearly the SBC brief supported the claim of discrimination. In a town that had elected a known Muslim mayor! Let that sink in a minute. Mr. Sample implied that the brief was only about religious liberty. The judge is saying that it was specific to this situation.
On the local church I am just a lay person but I though that Southern Baptist were congregation led from the local church up. Is it possible that the ERLC and IMB (and obviously others) have determined that the town is discriminatory and worthy of not only an Islamic lawsuit but an Obama DOJ lawsuit and a brief by the ERLC without even consulting our local church?
Once again, perhaps I am just uninformed but such top down methodology (and lack of Biblical justification) reminds me of a church in Italy.
Rick, so you are saying that Dr. Moore and the ERLC and David Platt and the IMB were trying to bring us into collusion with Islam? Because you’re talking about being unequally yoked with unbelievers. That is an incredibly serious charge – a charge of heresy and of essentially abandoning the faith, or watering it down to the point of nothing. If you believe that, it seems you would be really bold in proclaiming it and you’d be calling for firings.
Perhaps I’m reading you wrong. That is possible, to be sure.
I always saw the amicus brief to be about religious liberty for all, not in any way wanting a mosque to be built, but wanting the freedom to exist for a mosque or any other house of worship, to be built. Religious Liberty for all means also, freedom for us in an increasingly hostile climate. So, I saw the ERLC as working to protect Christian churches in that amicus brief.
As for the character issue, the option to vote for neither always existed. Or for a third party candidate. There was a choice.
I did not CHARGE anyone with anything. I EXPLAINED that the people who do not see this issue like you do are NOT looking at it as a RELIGIOUS LIBERTY concern, because they DO affirm religious liberty for all Americans.
Yes, the brother in Arkansas last summer and the IMB Trustee from Tennessee, among others, view this as an UNHOLY ALLIANCE issue more than a RELIGIOUS LIBERTY issue.
THAT is what I am saying.
YOU used the word “heresy.” I did not. (I am trying to put less in my mouth these days, so please don’t insert any words in there.)
In your penultimate paragraph, I agree with your heart’s intention in the clause, “not in any way wanting a mosque to be built…”
What I am suggesting is that the brethren who are expressing concerns over this amicus brief issue DO INDEED VIEW its filing as—in some way, shape or form—a participation by Southern Baptists in a proceeding in which, if we get what we want and our side wins, the result will actively support the building of a shrine to the false god Allah.
Two points on your last sentence. First, while voting for neither or for a third party DID exist as a legitimate option for people like you who do not view the election process as essentially binary, it DID NOT exist as a legitimate option in the minds of those who view such an action as the moral equivalent of throwing their vote in the trash can. The “greater character of Trump over Clinton” argument only holds once the Binary Philosophy of Elections is embraced—which, for many of us, it is.
Second, and somewhat ironically, the null options with regard to the election (voting for neither or even not voting at all) can also be applied to the mosque case, for some would simply say, “We don’t have to get involved in this at all, from the side of the township and their parking space requirements OR from the side of the mosque and their building construction. Even though all we are saying is that religions should be free to worship, our participation here, if successful, will only serve to support the building of a mosque, an act we simply cannot come alongside with a clear conscience. So, the null option is best. Let us do nothing and let the town and the mosque settle their dispute without us.”
So, are you saying what some believe or what you believe? Your last paragraph confused me.
If it is just what some are saying, it would behoove us all to correct them, no? Because those are serious things. When will perception give way to reality?
Alan Cross: Yes there was a choice. You made your choice to sit this one out, I guess. I made the choice to hold my nose and vote for Trump over Hillary. Who are you to say my choice is less principled than yours? I did not to flip a coin. I made a reasoned choice for reasons that support Christian principles I strongly believe in; the right to life, the support of traditional marriage and the rejection of a redefinition of the sexes.
You’ve said that people who oppose the mosque amicus brief, or even more generally support government restrictions on Islam due to connections with terrorism, still believe the general principle of religious liberty. I believe that this is true, and you are not the only one I’ve seen/heard say this, or know would say it if the issue came up. Most, if not all, of the Christians I know who disagree with the ERLC’s position on this genuinely do believe that religious liberty is important.
However, taking that position is not only inconsistent with religious liberty, but actually undermines it. Simply because a general principle can be applied in multiple ways does not mean that any claimed application of that principle is consistent with the principle.
You’ve said:
“An argument can be made that Friday mosque services, to which congregants travel directly from work on a weekday afternoon, do indeed result in less carpooling than the Saturday synagogue and the Sunday church. So PERHAPS the mosque WAS treated DIFFERENTLY, yet there is NO religious liberty violation at all.”
Even setting aside religious liberty concerns, I cannot accept this as a valid reason for different treatment. I reject it because of what I have seen of the carpooling habits of Christians on Sunday mornings. At the churches I have been a part of, families arriving in more than one car is the norm, not an exception. Arriving in more that two cars has been common. This is most likely the result of different family members needing or desiring to arrive and/or leave at different times. That Friday mosque services would require significantly more parking space than a Sunday morning church service seems so unlikely to me that it would not justify a change in zoning laws even without a religious liberty concern.
But let’s assume it’s true that there is a significant difference in parking needs. Would that mean it is consistent with the general principle of religious liberty to support the government treating mosques differently based on that? No. It would not. Supporting the government in treating mosques differently in this case establishes the principle that the government can treat one religion differently from another. All it will need to do is come up with some non-religious excuse. It gives the government the power to show favor to some religions while discriminating against other religions. That power will be used against Christians. This is a religious liberty issue.
You have also said that filing the amicus brief created a “decision to form a de facto legal partnership in support of a false religion” and claimed that it violated 2 Corinthians 6:14. This is a totally and completely false accusation.
As others have said, filing the amicus brief does not in any way create a partnership with Muslims, let alone a partnership “in support of a false religion.” All it does is reaffirm the ERLC’s commitment to the principle of religious liberty for all religions, and argues that creating different rules for the mosque is a violation of that principle (and the laws based on that principle).
If the ERLC’s effort in this case is successful, it will probably result in the building of a mosque, but that does not mean that the ERLC is trying to help build a mosque. It means that the ERLC is trying to stop the government from creating a different set of rules for one religious community than it has for other religious communities.
Stephen,
Does the Lord’s Word tell us to support or reject high places to a false god? I am sure that you are aware of many more then few listed below.
Exodus 23:13 13 And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.
Judges 6:25 Now on the same night the LORD said to him, “Take your father’s bull and a second bull seven years old, and pull down the altar of Baal which belongs to your father, and cut down the Asherah that is beside it; and build an altar to the LORD your God on the top of this stronghold in an orderly manner, and take a second bull and offer a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah which you shall cut down.”
2 Kings 23:12 ff 12 And the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord, did the king beat down, and brake them down from thence, and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron
Mike,
That is a red herring. Nobody is arguing for supporting high places to a false god. We are arguing against allowing the government to create a different set of rules for one religion than exist for other religions. If we allow the government to do this with Muslims, it will be done to Christians. It is a matter of “when,” not “if.”
Steven, You said,
“If the ERLC’s effort in this case is successful, it will probably result in the building of a mosque, but that does not mean that the ERLC is trying to help build a mosque. It means that the ERLC is trying to stop the government from creating a different set of rules for one religious community than it has for other religious communities.”
Is this not simply a form of appeasement?
“Appeasement,” according to Wikipedia, “in a political context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an enemy power in order to avoid conflict.”
On the contrary, we are not to avoid conflict with the enemy, but to take him head on. In Matthew 10:1 we read, “And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out…”
The Gospel, by its very nature, is authoritative, an expression of Christ Supremacy. He alone is LORD. There is no other. In keeping with Christ’s Authority we are likewise called to act. We are not called to appease.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with government creating rules that favor the community of Truth.
Stephen, what do you think a mosque is? It is a place to worship a false god.
I will repeat the question that I have asked in multiple forums:
Can anyone provide a Biblical justification for any form of support for the building of a mosque which will be used to worship a false god and to teach falsehoods about Jesus? It does not matter whether you call it a high place or not, the purpose of a mosque is obvious.
Mike,
I will not answer the question as phrased because it misses the entire point and purpose of what was done and why we believe the ERLC took the right action in this case. The action was taken in defense of religious liberty for all people, including Muslims. If a government creates different rules for one religion than exists for other religions, it is acting outside the bounds of is authority by restricting religious liberty. If religious liberty does not include Muslims, then that religious liberty is merely a facade.
You could rephrase the question to something like this:
Can anyone provide a Biblical justification for defending religious liberty for all people, including unbelievers?
The answer to that is yes, and you can read a thorough, but not exhaustive, treatment of the subject here:
http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-biblical-case-for-religious-liberty.html?m=1
Mike: This is the United States. This is not Russia or some third country. You cannot take away religious liberty. It will eventually take it from everyone if you start this. How hard is this to understand?
Doug,
That is not even remotely a form of appeasement. The action the ERLC took was not making political or material concessions to Islam in order to avoid conflict. It was an attempt to fight government interference with people’s ability “to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion.”
If the was any appeasement, it was on the part of those who have opposed the ERLC’s actions in this case. That could be construed as making political or material concessions to the government, though I think even that falls short of true appeasement.
As to your other assertion that the authoritative nature of the Gospel warrants the government creating rules favoring Christianity, that is dead wrong. The government will never have that authority until Christ returns (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43).
Until then, “our struggle is not against blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12), and “although we are living in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but powerful to God for the tearing down of fortresses, tearing down arguments and all pride that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” ( 2 Corinthians 10-3-5)
Stephen, I want to thank you sending a Biblical justification. I will read it later today.
I will point out that your message implies that NOT filing the brief in question would affect religious liberty for us also. That is pure speculation. Did I miss briefs by the ERLC on the other six Obama DOJ lawsuits under this particular law? All six were on the behalf of Islamic worship centers.
But thank you and I will respond after reading. Thanks.
Debbie Kaufman, I am glad that you know that we live in the United States. Can you answer the question as to what makes this situation a religious liberty situation? Aside from the fact that Obama DOJ agrees with you? How do you count seats in a mosque? What about the sew issues was it corrected? What about the percentage of ground covered (wet land issue) and the child pickup/drop off issue?
What was the position of our local SBC church less than 2 miles away?
Did the ERLC also file briefs on the other six lawsuits filed by the Obama DOJ under this same law (all were Islamic related)?
And from Acts 17:11 is there a Biblical justification? I thank Stephen for submitting such.
Has anyone thought that their might be real jobs affected by this decision? Jobs of people who had nothing to do with hurting Dr. Graham’S feelings. And why is the Louisiana Baptist Paper reporting on a Texas Baptist Church? Seems like they were all too happy to put that article out there. Did Prestonworld join the Louisiana Baptist Convention.
” why is the Louisiana Baptist Paper reporting on a Texas Baptist Church”
Because the editor is attuned to any news along these lines. Look for the article to be carried on SBC Today as well.
There are agendas being carried out on every side on this.
Because Will Hall schleps for anyone or anything that is anti-Calvinistic. Hence his hit piece against Platt last year and multiple articles about the ERLC.
I think the Louisiana Baptists are considering a similar measure at the state level and that is why they ran this story. There may be something more sinister at play, but I think it is more likely attributed to the fact that this is a very forward question at the state level at present.
I would counter that Dr. Moore does speak for a majority of Southern Baptists, at least the ones I know. If we get rid of the ERLC, aren’t we forfeiting a seat at the table in our government? Do we need to disengage from the political process? Where will our witness be in the halls of power in this country? We should always pay attention to the ERLC, but to withhold funds for missions just because a pastor got his wittle feewins hurt is inapproriate at best and shameful at worst.
Let the states engage on issues with their state politicians at the state and national level…a much better strategy because LOCAL issues of interests to Southern Baptists can also be addressed…and different State Conventions can take the stands that represent THEIR churches.
The “get Dr. Moore ” anti-Calvinist crusade seems to be ramping up. Truth is often a casualty if war – as is decency.
It will be a shame if Rick and his crusaders are able to lead the SBC to abandon religious liberty in the pursuit of this goal.
This comment deserves the insight of the day award.
DAVE MILLER, why do you keep playing the SAME broken record? Who is abandoning religious liberty? Rick is not. I am not. The only truth casualty is the reason why Rick and I are upset with Moore. It is his arrogance and dismissal of people who voted for Trump as sub-Christians.
Allen, Dr. Moore has been the antithesis of what you have accused him of being. Russ Moore has never once accused anyone who voted for Trump as being sub-Christian, and has expressed his understanding for those who voted for Trump because they felt that he was the better choice. Moore criticized those who flagrantly overlooked (and even rationalized) Trump’s continual and unrepentant sinful behavior when they called for Clinton’s head on a silver platter for his moral failures.
On another note, Russ Moore’s courageous stance against the behaviors and divisive words of President Trump have been a catalyst for me to share the gospel with people who felt like right-wing conservative Christians had no regard for them because they were left-wing liberal Democrats. Losing people like Russ Moore because some people in the convention feel that he insulted them is not only a shame, but rather childish in my honest opinion. Did Jack Graham try to talk personally with Russ Moore and sort the disagreements out? Have others in the SBC who feel even more strongly offended than Jack Graham try to do the same? I have not seen an effort to reach a consensus and maintain unity for the sake of the gospel. I’ve only seen divisive language and finger pointing. Perhaps all parties involved should pray and meditate on Matthew 18 and Ephesians 4. And know that in spite of our disagreement on this issue, I do not consider you a sub-Christian.
//It will be a shame if Rick and his crusaders are able to lead the SBC to abandon religious liberty in the pursuit of this goal.// Hardly the insight of the day.
It is a baseless accusation. It would appear that individuals are posting without reading anything Rick says.
This is all happening because Russell Moore refused to kiss the ring. That threatens the status quo of certain SBC pastors who will do ANYTHING to have a seat at the table. This includes Robert Jeffress, Jack Graham, and Ronnie Floyd. Who have all endorsed the President and overlooked and in some cases even defended his actions and statements even when they are indefensible. They are joined by Franklin Graham (who day by day further betrays his father’s non-partisan legacy) and Jerry Falwell Jr. amongst others.
What we are seeing now is a systematic attack on a man who stands for character and Kingdom and Gospel by those who value political power more than Kingdom power. To think that an SBC church would withhold money from the mission field to make a POLITICAL point is unbelievable. Our Baptist forebearers are surely turning over in their graves at such a thought.
This needs to be spoken against. It needs to be challenged. It needs to be shamed. More than anything it needs to be spoken against by others in positions of leadership within the SBC.
The time has come to stop this madness and get back to the mission of the Kingdom.
There are two things Moore and Platt will never be forgiven for, and that is opposing Trump (in the case of Moore at least) and being Calvinist(ic). Calvinists are now being blamed for the lack of evangelism in vacation bible school for crying out loud. I dare say that if we look at the record of the past few years, there isn’t a single ill in the SBC that hasn’t been laid at the feet of Calvinists by the anti-Calvinist blogosphere. It isn’t that these two men can’t or won’t make mistakes, it is that their Calvinism and never-Trumpism make those mistakes intolerable.
I am a Calvinist. I don’t agree with Moore. It has absolutely Nothing to do with him being a Calvinist, I assure you and nothing to do with being against Trump. I reluctantly vote for Trump. I disagree with where the ERLC is going and with his attitude toward those who supported Trump. He did not act this way toward those who were Obama Supporters, although I will give him that he did not hold this position in 2012. But, I can find nothing where he publically spoke out against any Presidential candidate or their supporters. (Perhaps he did so publically, but I cannot find it.) I disagree with his advise that attending a gay marriage is “out” , but the reception celebrating the unholy union is “in”. This has nothing to do with either of the reasons you listed. There may be some who do reflect these concerns, but I just thought I should say it’s not anyone I know of personally, including myself.
The reason speaking out against Trump was so important is that he’s always been a Northeastern Leftist, and he has hijacked what was once a Conservative party, and is now fully a Progressivist party. Trump’s boorish behavior, careless tongue, outright lies about inauguration crowds and Obama wire-tapping, familiarity with Russian autocrats and witless foreign policy statements have ruined the Conservative movement, perhaps for generations. And Christians followed along like sheep because he wasn’t Hillary. Sorry to say but they showed more trust in their own paranoia or hatred than in the God who blesses people who stand on principle.
Fair enough. I don’t even think the ERLC should exist, but as long as it does, I appreciate the efforts Moore made during the election, otherwise the SBC would have gone for Trump without a peep. The advice Trump supporters gave for the shocking inconsistency between what we say we believe and voting for Trump, was to simply not tell anyone who you voted for. Perhaps Moore went too far, but I don’t blame someone for going a little crazy when up is suddenly down, black is white, and Trump is a moral good. But make no mistake, if Moore were not Calvinistic, there would not be the organized hue and cry against him that we’re hearing now.
“But make no mistake, if Moore were not Calvinistic, there would not be the organized hue and cry against him that we’re hearing now.”
Right on. The coordination is clearly Rick’s and the Connect316Gang’s war.
I’d like to know if Rick Patrick or anyone from the leadship/membership of connect 316 outside the membership of Prestonwood knew about or were in any way involved in discussions leading up Dr. Graham’s church announcing this.
Also wonder the same about the trustee resigning.
It’s also somewhat strange that although the resignation happened back in November that somehow the press report of it, Prestonwood decision, and Steve Gaines press conference all came in such rapid succession.
Tarheel,
I remember reading that the trustee, Mr. Haun, asked that his decision to resign not be made public so that the Lottie Moon offering was not affected. I cannot remember which press accounts off hand, but it was reported in this manner more than once. I think that does show something very honorable about his character, regardless of how he may have been portrayed.
But, why did Moore not go after those SBCers who supported Clinton? I think the problem he has is consistency in his application to all equally. If he had spoken about Clinton in the same terms he spoke about Trump, I believe this would be a non-issue. The truth is, most of the Clinton supporters in the SBC come traditionally from black churches, though many did not support her. I am speaking to the matter in the SBC only. Perhaps he was afraid the comments would offend the group he has been trying to unify through his racial reconciliation efforts. I think it unfair to believe that they are so petty he could not speak openly and believe that those who supported her, like McKissick, would have no problem articulating his views on the matter. His approach was not equal. If he really wanted to lead SBCers in their voting decisions, he should have spoken against both candidates equally. We should be embarrassed, in my opinion, for any association with Clinton. By the Never-Trump logic, it too harms our witness. She supports murdering babies up until birth, unbiblical marriages, Christian oppression, and is a known, repeat liar, etc…
HomeschoolFam4,
Yes, there were a FEW high profile Southern Baptists publicly supporting Hillary Clinton… But I contend it was very different than the ones who were supporting Donald Trump… Because not a single one of the people that I read, even including Dr. Mckissic, were going around defending Hillary Clinton as a moral Christian person that should receive our vote… They were arguing on the grounds that they believed her to be a better candidate than trump. I thought they were both absolutely horrible candidates and neither deserved our vote.
Whereas there was a plethora of Southern Baptist “leaders” and “rank-and-file” Southern Baptists publicly touting the “excellencies” (even Christianity) of Donald Trump and totally minimizing/rationalizing the unjustifiable by stumping for him and literally becoming mouthpieces for his campaign.
Therein is the substantial differences explaining once again the Oft touted “but RM wasn’t hard on Hillary Clinton supporters arguments”.
Taking the Galatians 6 phrase “let us do good to all people” and applying it to supporting others in their worship of false gods is a serious abuse of God’s word. Recognize in the opening chapter of Galatians a curse is emphatically pronounced on anyone who would preach an alien gospel. Islam clearly falls in this category. Supporting others in their worship of false gods is in no wise doing them good. The exact opposite is true — it is to do them extreme evil by furthering them in their trek toward eternal damnation. Rather they should be sternly warned.
Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
And those who are staggering to slaughter,
Oh hold them back. — Proverbs 24:11
I am not sure it is big news when a former president of the SBC threatens to withhold cooperative program funds. I was in a meeting of missionaries when former SBC president Jimmie Draper said that his church would withhold cooperative program funds if his favorite SBC presidential candidate was not elected. I have heard many other leaders make the same threat though the years.
If the statement, “Various significant positions taken by the leadership of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission that do not reflect the beliefs and values of many in the Southern Baptist Convention” refers to the case of the mosque in New Jersey, doesn’t correspond to what I observed at the convention in St. Louis when we overwhelming voted in support of the ERLC action.
I lived in a country where the government often denied churches the right to construct houses of worship and would often destroy churches. It would by hypocritical of us to criticize Islamic and communist countries who deny churches the right to construct houses of worship and then say nothing when local government in the US do the same thing.
It looks sbctoday is leading the pack.
http://sbctoday.wpengine.com/russell-moores-erlc-a-compendium-of-concern
“He’s a Calvinist!”
“How do you know he’s a Calvinist?”
“He looks like one!”
Can you say witch hunt?
The thought that there was a binary choice in the election ignores several factors:
1) That in the primaries there were other viable candidates who didn’t carry with the baggage of the current president, yet more than a handful chose to support him early in the process, ignoring the significant issues that followed him. I’m looking at you Jeffress and Falwell Jr.
2) The option of voting down ticket and leaving the presidential blank was an option available as well…I know that personally, because that is the option I took. And by the way, that brought me great pain, because I believe that my vote is sacred and to be earned, not be rataionalized.
If you don’t believe that our witness is affected by the fact that Jack Graham, Jeffress, Falwell, Franklin Graham, Floyd, and the rest of the Spiritual Advisory Board (which whenever they want to start spiritually advising would be Super Dee Duper) have breathlessly and enthusiastically supported this man as candidate, nominee, and president, while ignoring the fact that he is a bragadocious fornicator, who bragged about his sexual assaults…err…conquests, and once described himself has being “very pro-choice”, then you are delusional. You know why you are delusional? Because my dear friends who are either open to a conversation to the gospel, who are agnostic, or atheist call me and ask why these purported Jesus people have supported someone who is completely antithetical to what they’ve stood for in the past, and they support him because…at least he isn’t a Democrat.
Now, they see that a guy like Moore, who stayed intellectually honest and held fidelity to stated values, getting lambasted and punished because he didn’t cowtow to the Republican nominee…because (as Jack Graham said), access is important. And in that statement, Graham tipped his hand in that he in essence said that access is more important than principle.
Evidently, no good deed goes unpunished.
Well said!
Mike, great post and great questions.
Can I just say, this all boils down to “haters gonna hate.” Lol Just kidding, but this has livened up my Friday morning.
In the words of Dr. Moore, “We are Americans best, when we are not Americans first.”
It’s sad that people would rather be seen as a faithful Republican rather than a faithful Christian who is faithful to the Word of God.
And the older generations wonder why the SBC is getting greyer. It’s because younger millennial pastors want to be faithful to Christ more than to a political party. I preach at a multi-cultural SBC church in an inner-city context. If I were to preach politically charged topical messages or if the SBC church keep aiming for a political agenda instead of robust biblical fidelity, we will miss the increasingly diverse country that we live. Souls will miss the gospel. We will be irrelevant forever.
Moore’s quote, in context:
…we ought to remember what a shifting culture might force us to remember, what we never should have forgotten in the first place: that national identity is important but transitory. There will come a day when Old Glory yields to an older glory, when the new republic succumbs to a new creation. We must not shirk from out calling as citizens, but we also must not see our citizenship of the moment as the final word. We are Americans best when we are not Americans first. (160)
I was unfamiliar with this quote. Thank you for posting it to give a bit “Moore” context.
Lance P,
Recognize it is hypocritical and disingenuous for Moore to make the statement “We are Americans best, when we are not Americans first,” and then push his concept of religious liberty which itself is a child of Americanism. One would be hard pressed to make an argument for it outside the American experience from which it originiated. Moore’s concept of religious liberty is no less American than the Bill of Rights. He would certainly be hardpressed to make a clear, concise argument for it from Holy Writ.
Doug,
When I lasted checked my Baptist history books, the concept of religious liberty predates American Baptists. Take a look at Dutch Mennonites living in Amsterdam in the early 1600s who influenced John Smyth and Thomas Helwys before the British set foot in Jamestown, VA and certainly before Roger Williams began advocating for it on American soil in the 1630s. Religious liberty was in full swing (at least in theory) in London by the 1640s-1650s when it was still in its infancy stages in America.
Jason Sampler,
Note that historical, extra-American struggles for religious freedom were almost exclusively struggles for Christian Liberty — a noble aim. What Moores advocates — Polytheistic Religious Liberty — is primarily an American beast.
The concept of religious liberty not only predates the founding of the United States, it predates the founding of the first colony.
As for a biblical argument for religious liberty, see this:
http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-biblical-case-for-religious-liberty.html
Doug,
Your claim is simply false. Are you unfamiliar with Thomas Helwys’ work, published in 1612, “A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity”, wherein he calls for the religious liberty of all, even atheists and (gasp) Muslims?
Here are his words:
“Neither may the King be judged between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks [Muslims], Jews, or whatsoever it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure.”
Doug,
“We are Americans best, when we are not Americans first,” your quote there is lacking context and I would venture to say (bet, if I were a betting man) that what you quoted is NOT even the full sentence from the lips/keyboard of Dr Moore.
I wonder if you might include a fuller context lest readers miss important context in your quoting…..
This should be the natural goal of one who espouses desire to examine the “Holy Writ” – I sure hope you value context there more than you have displayed here.
Jason Sampler,
Honestly I’ve never heard of Helwy. I would venture to guess neither have most Americans. We must consider the primary source of core beliefs. For most Americans, their concept of religious liberty is of American origin.
Steven,
Thanks for the link. I will definitely read the article in full. Note that I have no disagreement with the author’s stated thesis: “We must not fight false belief by appealing to the government or other forms of coercive force; rather, we must fight it by testifying to the truth.” Rather, my argument is that it is well within the God-ordained purview of government to restrain the socially destructive evil of false religion. In fact, it is government’s duty.
Jason,
In your response to Doug, I would just say that there is one glaring point in the quote you posted:
That Helwys was saying that those of different religions should not be punished. That is a far cry from everything is equal to all religions. I am not saying that he did not advocate that elsewhere, but it certainly was not clear in this quote.
Also, I would like to note that while there were some who pressed for religious equality meaning all are truly equally free in their practice, John Cotton was opposed to Roger Williams. There were those who did not agree with Williams version. I would even argue that Williams himself is sometimes attributed with credit for supporting the far lengths of religious freedom for all under all circumstances. I do not believe this to be an accurate reflection of his writings. Most of these writers say they mustn’t be punished. Many do not mention being free to preach hate or treasonous. A government must draw some lines in the sand at times. Often, it intersects something to do with religion. If there is illegal activity, such as the Mormons marrying multiple wives, they intervened. This is not oppression, but it is based on Christian doctrine. No one here would argue that it was wrong. My only point is that lines must be drawn in the sand at times and we may differ on what that may look like. It’s not always oppression to impose rules. For example, someone here argued it was wrong to impose the extra parking requirements because they meet on Friday…If it brings the road to a stand still, that is interfering with policing, ambulances, general traffic, etc. It is wrong to expect special privileges from the government.
Mike, appreciate your appraisal of the situation. Truncating of any religious freedom potentially sets a precedent for the limitation of any religious freedom. Our courts operate on precedent. Moore’s stance on the Mosque was not a stance in support of Islam, but in support of religious freedom. This is a win for Southern Baptists, but also for Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hindus, Native American religions, and the Black Hebrew Israelites, et. al.
Southern Baptists should do what they can to uphold religious liberty. It is a hard sell to say, “We uphold *our* religious liberty.”
Perhaps people should look up, read and understand the implications of the famous words of Martin Niemoller. The simple truth is there are places in this country (to say nothing of the world) where Christians and Christianity are under increasing levels of attack from extreme liberal citizens and politicians. What happens in the very near future when some city council in some liberal bastion like California, denies say an SBC church a permit to expand their building, creating new special zoning codes just for the case, all because the church does not support homosexual marriage and the liberals want the church to leave. Anyone must admit that something close to that situation could happen at any time somewhere in this country. I suppose then, the ERLC filling an amicus brief would be wrong in this hypothetical case as well, correct? I dare say if you say the situations would be different you are a hypocrite.
As for Muslims not deserving of freedom of religion protections because they worship a false god, that is not how freedoms work. And the ones who hold such a position need a serious reeducation in civics. Indeed the same arguments you are now using, many in the past used against the Catholic church. But suppose you keep going down that road? There are many people in SBC life who LITERALLY believe anyone who is a Calvinist worships a false god and is not saved. IF we are going to say “freedom of religion” applies only to those worshiping the True God, then can we not then deny Calvinists the right to worship based on this argument? Can you not see how slippery the slope becomes once you start determining who gets freedoms and who does not?
As for the President Trump issue let me say this. I voted for him proudly, partially because of how dishonest and disgusting some (not all) anti-trump people were becoming. And while I do not regret that decision, I am unnerved by how some of his supporters are now scorched earthing people who did not vote for Trump. As a President, he has every right to hold at arms length people who did not support him, as he needs loyal people around him, not people who would betray him (we already are seeing a little of this with the leaks of Gen Flynn’s telephone calls). But for everyone outside of that government, including all of us who voted for him, using the same tactics and going after anyone who did not vote for Trump, is not right, it is immoral, and it is disgusting.
Finally I say this…
As a autonomous church, Prestonwood has every right to withhold CP funds if they choose. Likewise, messengers at the next SBC convention have every right to choose to remove Prestonwood from good standing within the SBC, remove the credentials from any Prestonwood members in attendance, until such time as they renew their CP giving. Frankly, this “no CP giving until we get our way” is tantamount to blackmail. And frankly the SBC would be better off with out such churches and people among us.
Perhaps Prestonwood’s “no cp giving” isn’t just to get their way. Leadership may be believe it is being the best steward with their money or maybe even they feel it is against their conscience. There is also a level of concern that the church may have become divided on this issue and temporarily, while they decide what to do long term, this keeps peace amongst brothers.
I believe the local church knows what is needed in their body and trust that leadership will do what is right before the Lord. That is also “blackmail”. Threatening to remove them if they don’t give to the Cooperative Program is also a form of “blackmail” and is not the solution.
The fact is, the SBC is made up of autonomous churches. CP giving is voluntary and whoever is most persuasive in this argument and convinces the most churches to participate gets to make the call. It’s the same with passing resolutions. Those who have the most votes get their position approved. This is no different. If the majority of churches wish to continue giving to the CP with the ERLC receiving those funds, they will prevail.
Technically, removing a church from the SBC for failing to give $ through the CP is not blackmail. It’s called following the bylaws of the Convention since giving $ is a requirement for membership.
For the record, Prestonwood is still planning to give $$$. They are not suggesting giving nothing. The last time I read through the bylaws, I don’t recall anything about requiring a church to give to the cooperative program. Am I incorrect? That is NOT a reason to remove a church and yes, it is as akin to “blackmail” to remove a church for this reason and it is “blackmail” for them not to give to the program because some ONLY perceive it as a temper tantrum and not a right of conscience.
You are incorrect, but (technically) so was I. It is not in the SBC bylaws but the SBC Constitution. See the end of page 1 and the beginning of page 2, where the requirements for membership in the SBC are discussed: http://www.sbc.net/pdf/sbc-charterconstitutionbylaws.pdf
1. It does NOT have to be CP. It can be given to the Exec Committee or any Entity.
2. It DOES, however, have to be UNDESIGNATED, so special funds would disqualify.
3. At the $60,000 threshold, a church would be entitled to all TWELVE messengers.
Rick is correct that it doesn’t have to go through the CP; it just has to be given to the SBC or one of its entities. I guess Jack Graham is thankful (now?) for the passing of Great Commission Giving.
“I guess Jack Graham is thankful (now?) for the passing of Great Commission Giving.”
LOL! I guess Rick is too, now that it suits his agenda…..
I wondered why the Connect316 gang has gone quiet in regards to the Great commission giving tactic lately…..now it all makes sense.
I am all but certain there is some serious coordination going on here.
homeschool,
Leadership may be believe it is being the best steward with their money or maybe even they feel it is against their conscience. There is also a level of concern that the church may have become divided on this issue and temporarily, while they decide what to do long term, this keeps peace amongst brothers.”
All the more reason to keep it private and do what they must do as an autonomous church without appearing to be seeking to use their money as leverage….a “benefit” that the vast majority – like 95+\-% of SBC pastors and churches – do not have.
They appear to be using leverage because the announcement of this was done in the secular media (prior to any church vote to do so) and was directly linked, by Jack Graham himself, to specific displeasure with Moore over the Trump issue. If leverage over the ERLC was not the intent, then why is it so public and why was Dr. Moore specifically listed as a reason for the “reconsideration”.
I fail to see how this is NOT a Southern Baptist issue. Are we naive enough to think that as the tide continues to turn against Christianity in our country that local governing officials will not use zoning laws to curtail or prohibit the building of Southern Baptist houses of worship? The ERLC is our agency to defend religious liberty wherever it is under attack and Moore is right to do so (even on behalf of Muslims)!
I don’t think the position of these churches has changed. Rather, I think the application of those resolutions by leadership has pivoted and is causing quite a divide among the membership.
Regarding the resolution about election those with consistently good character, I would think that the resolution did not take into account that both front runners were morally faulted to the degree any believe was seen in this election. I would argue this is why we must be careful when adopting resolution to be either (1) more specific and Germaine to the issue we intend to address and/or (2) Address the issue in it’s fullest possible outcome. This might have included a statement that “If all candidates fail to exemplify biblical character, you must not vote for either” or “must look for another party” etc… The resolution referenced did not address this situation specifically and all the implications. I think it would be wrong to do so since this is not a “sin” issue and the bible does not speak directly to this. It gives principles that can be applied, but not down to vote for this one or that one based on “x”. To tell an entire denomination who they should or shouldn’t vote for would be outside the bounds of scripture and reason. I think that because Dr. Moore did not speak out against Barak Obama as he did President Trump hurt his credibility when it comes to this issue. Had he spoken out against Obama in the same manner, I think there would be less contention.
What would Graham do if some of his wealthy members decided to escrow their tithes and offerings because they didn’t like some decision he made or sermon he gave and then went to the press to announce they were doing so?
Todd, that is an excellent point!
The objections to it though will be “CP giving is not a biblical mandate and the SBC is not a church”…..
While those things are true….the ATTITUDE, mentality, and the abject arrogance of such control tactics is EXACTLY the same.
He would listen to their concerns and at least make some kind of effort to work things out rather than just telling them to keep on paying even though they have profound concerns with what’s going on.
He would not ignore them, scold them or berate them as inferior dolts. He would not speak to them as if they were disobedient children, the way my fellow Pastor from Arkansas was treated on the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in St. Louis.
Rick, my brother, I have to say that our brother from AR made several stereotypical generalizations against all Muslims that were just incorrect and ignorant. Yes, you cannot separate radical jihadism from Islam, but to call all people who are Muslims as those who threaten our very existence and killers is like calling all Christians killers because KKK members call themselves Christians. The pastor who asked that question, in my honest opinion, needed a much stronger rebuke for doing so than the one you say Moore gave him on the convention floor. When it comes to Muslims, instead fighting against them, may we be as Paul was commissioned to be in Acts 26:17-18, and preach the gospel to them so that they may know Jesus as their savior. Russ Moore was not insulting or disrespectful to that brother, but laid down the truth. So I have to ask you: have you sought to receive clarification from the ERLC or sought to maintain unity for the sake of the gospel with Russ Moore and other folks in the SBC you feel have wronged you? What is more important? Getting rid of a brother who maybe ruffled your feathers, or seeking clarification, forgiveness, and unity for the sake of the gospel?
You seem to imply otherwise, so let me assure you that, yes, I have sought the redress of my grievances directly. My phone calls and emails being ignored, there is not much more I can do. That is why I sympathize with Jack Graham. When people turn you a deaf ear, you finally resort to the only language they speak. It may be a secular truism, but money does indeed “talk.” I am told that even one of the ERLC Trustees cannot get Moore to return his calls. What hope do any of the rest of us have?
As for the Moore’s harsh answer to the brother from Arkansas, I suppose this is a case where the bias each of us holds regarding the views themselves may be coloring our impression of the exchange. What I heard was a humble appeal from a faithful Southern Baptist Pastor to view this matter not only as a religious liberty issue, but also as a form of alliance that is unholy and unwise. He spoke for many.
Then I heard a man on a brightly lit stage in a very nice suit (paid for by all the “little people” in the shadows of the convention floor, like the man who asked the question) stand up and unwind a harsh and “rehearsed” speech that began with a line that CAME ACROSS like this to me: “SOME issues we face are gray and questionable and hard to work through in determining right from wrong, but THIS issue is not in such a category in the least, there being ONLY ONE legitimate Baptist religious liberty view, namely mine, such that ANYBODY so ignorant and insubordinate as to question my obviously righteous judgment deserves to be put in his place. Go back to Arkansas, you barefoot hick, and stop trying to tell me how to address religious liberty issues, for you’re just a lowly Pastor who knows next to nothing, and incidentally is probably my elder, so let me violate 1 Timothy 5:1 by rebuking an older man harshly, as I thunder to my conclusion and my fanboys begin applauding, having now successfully beaten down not only the brother from Arkansas, but every other Pastor in the convention with similar sentiments, removing any hope in their minds that we could actually have an open and honest conversation about the deep and principled concerns they harbor.”
I admit that my paraphrase is not verbatim, but it DOES accurately express the kind of METACOMMUNICATION many of us heard from Moore in that exchange, especially as it was relived (and even celebrated!) among Moore’s supporters in the aftermath of the Annual Meeting.
It was JUST ONE MORE INSULT from Russ Moore to those of us in the SBC he has branded as fogeys with the pejorative term “Old School Religious Right,” a group Moore has called “doctrinally vacuous” (where did he learn to insult the people who pay him…is there a special school for this?) and of whom he wrote that we “may well be drunk right now and have not gone to church since we were invited to Vacation Bible School back when Seinfeld was in first-run episodes.”
Brother, if you cannot see my side of this by now, I’m just going to leave that between you and Jesus, and quote Mike Huckabee’s line, that summarizes my view more than any other: “I am utterly stunned that Russell Moore is being paid by Southern Baptists to insult them.” Utterly stunned. That’s a REALLY good way to describe my feelings.
And it’s the “being paid by” part that really rubs us the wrong way. We may not be able to put a muzzle on Russell Moore when he says things that embarrass us and do not reflect what our side believes, and especially when he insults our views. But NOBODY is putting a gun to our heads and forcing us to PAY him to unleash his verbal abuse against us.
Jack Graham is apparently tired of paying. May God bless him for standing up and having the courage of his convictions to speak out on this issue in the only way that can possibly get anyone’s attention. Frankly, he’s not the only one who feels this way, by a long shot.
I do not want to “get rid of” Russell Moore. (That’s the way the mob operates.) I DO want him to be terminated, for cause, from a position for which he is no longer qualified, having verbally abused his employers. He has not merely “ruffled my feathers.” He has berated an entire generation of faithful Southern Baptist Pastors just like our good brother from Arkansas. And we have simply had enough. We do not wish to PAY HIM to insult us any longer.
RM would be foolish to talk to you as your clear bias – which started waaaaaauyyyy before the answer to that pastor from Ark. – and agenda is so set against him – your mind is made up – your blogs are clear – there’s no possible way to make peace you and your gang – you have got one goal – and it’s not unity or peace.
Everyone except, apparently, your 316 posse sees that.
I’m waiting for 316Gang to bring out the placards and chants of “no firing no peace” in the foyer of the convention center.
Wow, Rick. You read a lot into RM’s answer that was neither said nor implied. That may be what you heard, but it is not at all what was said. It’s not even close.
Wait was it Russell Moore that called other Christians “Panty Wastes” or was it someone else?
Rick: Think about it. You along with SBCToday writers twist and rewrite what Moore says in public, in articles, which your misconstruing can be proven by accessing his words. That cannot be done in a phone call with no one else able to corroborate the exchange, or in an email that you could also twist and make public on your blog.
During the election JD Greear did not wish to be interviewed by you as well as Russell Moore and David Platt. It’s a smart move, yet that doesn’t stop you acting as if you are their victim and they are the perps.
Rick,
To Todd’s question.
You said…”He would not ignore…..”
So, Rick. There is never a situation where a person or group is so consistently and aggressively obstinate and wrong that ignoring them and moving on with or without them might not be the best course of action?
There would never be a time when, for the sake of unity and godly church order, “calling out” their bad behavior would not be necessary?
I do not think you really believe that.
Rick,
You said: “I am told that even one of the ERLC Trustees cannot get Moore to return his calls. What hope do any of the rest of us have?”
Is there no end to the spurious accusations you’re willing to make to “bolster” your point???
It seems as if you’ve moved from throwing spaghetti against the wall – to throwing poop in the ceiling fan…
I’m going to handle your ceiling fan antics like ya’ll Trumpeters say that we should handle the news media… “Anonymous sources = fake news.”
After wadding through the vast sea of misinformation in the comments, this simply boils down to one true agenda: the good old boys of the SBC are loosing their grips on control. Jack Graham and a handful of other pastors represent the large, mega church pastors who through financial sway and sheer numbers at SBC conventions held the Presidency and authority for years.
Things are changing. Younger, academically brilliant and theologically conservative leaders are on the rise. Russell Moore, David Platt and Albert Mohler represent a brand of SBC that wants to get back to the Acts church. They study the Scripture and actually want to conform their lives, and we to conform our lives, to what Scripture says. They stood against immoral candidates for president. They stand against this immigration/refugee halts. They do so not for political liberalism, but Christian orthodoxy.
Our own Dave Miller is a part of this movement. He’s certainly not a “young leader,” but as the leader of a coalition of small SBC churches, he is more ably qualified to speak for the “vast numbers” of SBC members than Jack Graham is.
Prestonwood has laid down a gauntlet. Do what we want or will damage this convention’s mission for Missions. That’s very Christian, isn’t it?
It’s rather offensive that you lump together those who disagree with Moore, the ERLC or CP giving into a category of power hungry despots. Wow! I am glad no one on here has judged you motivation.
In order to keep peace, we must be willing to listen and take others at their word. Until the know what motivates their heart, we must be very careful in judging our brother. I am young, intelligent and would like to see the ERLC dismantled, Moore gone from leadership and the 5% funding going to the ERLC given to missions. I don’t like the signing of the amicus brief and I believe that it was especially wrong that the IMB got involved. I hate no one and pledge allegiance to no political or organizational leader. I act according to my conscience, reasoning of scripture and concern for the spread of the gospel. Yet, I am very casually grouped in a category of intellectually, spiritually challenged members. When will people understand we must acknowledge that shared principles can look differently when applied, and that’s okay? It’s okay to disagree on non-essentials when the scripture is silent?
//Younger, academically brilliant and theologically conservative leaders are on the rise.//
Good grief! it would seem that arrogance is on the rise, not scholarship.
So nice to see we are slipping into name calling.
I can’t speak for the person who made that statement…but for me – it’s not that these guys are *more* academically brilliant, theologically conservative but that they too are those things like those who came before…
The “younger” statement – is in fact Demonstrably the case though….
😉
I just looked up Prestonwood’s Annual Church Profile in the 2015 Annual of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. They reported 39,971 members and $87,215,672 received that year. Their Cooperative Program amount is listed as $500,000, the same as the previous year, not $1 million. SBT forwards 55 percent of that to the SBC Executive Committee–$275,000. According to William T., the ERLC gets 1.65 percent of that–$4537.50. Prestonwood’s average attendance is reported as 15,150. That means the ERLC gets a little more than half a penny per week per Prestonwood’s attendee. (I could not find 2016 statistics online. If someone wants to provide the current figures feel free.)
I know that every church, pastor, and individual church member has the right to respectfully voice their concerns about who receives CP dollars and how much. But I don’t think it’s right if a huge, very affluent church with a mega-dollar budget gets a degree of influence in decision-making and getting their concerns heard that exceeds that accorded to small churches that are faithfully serving God and giving sacrificially to the CP but have no visibility or influence outside a two-mile radius.
I do not think the fame of a pastor, the size of a church and its gifts, or the affluence or influence of a congregation should sway decision-making by entities and their boards. The discussion of favoritism in James 2 comes to mind.
For the record, I attend a mega church that gives 10 percent of our budget through the CP, and I think small churches are very much overlooked in SBC decision-making.
I would be very interested in seeing a screen shot or link to those ACP figures.
Adam, I don’t know how to post a link here. I can email it to you, if you share your email.
My email address is pastoradamblosser@gmail.com. If you copy and paste the link here, I can make sure it doesn’t end up in moderation.
Excellent thoughts, Mary Ann. I tweeted your comment, highlighting the send and third paragraphs. Important for people to hear.
This comes from a 2009 article related to members of the Great Commission Taskforce and the CP giving of their churches:
Ruben Hernandez, associate Spanish pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church, Plano, Texas. Church’s CP giving for 2008: $400,000, or 1.44 percent of undesignated gifts/offerings of $27,800,000.
http://www.tciarchive.org/5722.article
Are we supposed to believe that Prestonwood was planning to give twice as much to the CP this year than they gave in previous years?
Mary Ann is right. Something isn’t making sense with the numbers that Prestonwood is spouting off in the media.
The info is on page 76 under Dallas Association. Thanks to Mary Ann for the link.
http://sbtexas.com/am-site/media/2015-annual.pdf
Wonder if they funnel monies in other ways to different institutions and they’re counting that as well?
Still, yeah, that’s half of what the article said. O.o
Maybe. If so, that’s even worse. Not only are the withholding their CP money because some of it goes to the ERLC, but they’re also withholding other SBC gifts in an effort to bully ERLC trustees into submission.
I think that sometimes small churches are overlooked and agree. However, I am a member of a church with Sunday attendance in the 650 category, I think, and our pastor has been given many platforms and is very involved in the SBC. He has held titles on behalf of the convention. While I think that small churches can be overlooked, it is not always the case.
Regarding the giving report, I wonder if it is possible that PW started giving less to CP in light of these issues before they went public about it. Perhaps there is giving in other areas which will be affected. Maybe the numbers were misstated or inflated? Not sure, but the effect will be strong for sure. It is common knowledge that there is a group who will indeed do the same. At some point, whether you agree with their tactics or not, missions come first. Those withholding money can be labeled prideful and wrong. Those ignoring the effects and digging their heals can be called the same. If there is that much of a movement to withhold funds, I think it deserves serious consideration for the sake of the gospel. If Moore has to step down as a result, he will not doubt have a platform somewhere and the gospel will still be proclaimed. It doesn’t have to be only Moore. God can raise up another and perhaps he is paving the way for just such a thing to happen. When we trust to heartily in a person such as RM, I think we are in danger of losing our trust in God’s ways when things don’t go the way we think they should. With or without Moore, the SBC has always been strong and will continue to be if everyone would set their eyes on the end prize, the spread of the gospel. How we get there is uncertain, but get there we must.
“If there is that much of a movement to withhold funds, I think it deserves serious consideration for the sake of the gospel. If Moore has to step down as a result, he will not doubt have a platform somewhere and the gospel will still be proclaimed. It doesn’t have to be only Moore. ”
This would certainly not be the answer. Extortion and then expecting them to cow tow to it “for the sake of the gospel” made me cringe that you would dare to say this. Please, you have no concern for “the sake of the gospel.” It’s just buzz words to be thrown around or you would not even suggest it. We already know the intention. But it’s not “for the sake of the Gospel” or this type of action would never have happened to begin with and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
“for the sake of the gospel” in this context homeschool, means about as much as Trump’s “Let’s make America Great Again.”
Mike Bergman,
You quoted me: “You simply CANNOT require that the SPECIFIC WAY that YOU think a general principle MUST be applied is the ONLY way.” Then you wrote: “Then you should have no problem with Moore’s actions/positions.”
But this does not follow in the least. Both statements must be placed in their proper context.
Regarding the first statement, when I wrote that there is more than one way to apply a general principle, I was arguing against the philosophy of the Original Post suggesting that SOME Southern Baptists are FOR Religious Liberty and Politicians With Character, while OTHER Southern Baptists must be AGAINST Religious Liberty and Politicians With Character. My point was that we ALL affirm these general principles, and therefore the fault lines, which are indeed genuine and substantial and worthy of further exploration rather than being glossed over, are only to be found at the more specific level dealing with the APPLICATION of these mutually affirmed principles.
Regarding the second statement, it seems to me like you are trying to infer that I have claimed that BOTH specific application options are EQUALLY valid expressions of the general principle, when I never said that at all, and do not believe it to be true in the least. As I noted in the previous paragraph, by making the observation that our conflict is not over PRINCIPLES but over APPLICATIONS, I am not at all implying that because there are many such possible applications, that they must all, therefore, be equally valid and praiseworthy.
Perhaps it will help me to clarify my position if I add one more hypothetical application to the mutually agreed upon “Honor the Sabbath Day” principle. Suppose one person says they would like to honor the Sabbath and keep it holy by going to the lake every Sunday and never attending church, since they find the lake to be a place of rest and relaxation where they are able to get close to God through nature. Suppose instead of tithing or giving through any church, they take that money and use it for the maintenance of their cabin and their boat. They would AGREE with our general principle that “we should give Sunday to the Lord.” HOWEVER, unlike in the other examples I gave that were all relatively acceptable, we would DISAGREE with this person’s particular APPLICATION of the general principle.
Just because there ARE several ways to APPLY a general principle DOES NOT mean that all of them are equally valid. But it DOES mean that two Christians can both affirm some truly godly principles like RELIGIOUS LIBERTY and LEADERSHIP CHARACTER without necessarily agreeing on what that looks like when it is lived out. The premise of the original post that something must have changed to cause so many Southern Baptists now to oppose the general principles of Religious Liberty and Leadership Character is simply based on a false assumption.
Rick, traditionally, we Baptists have held religious liberty beliefs that can be summed up in three points:
1) We will fight for your right to freely worship any god, or lack there of, of your choosing.
2) We will fight for our right to freely worship the God we believe is the One True God of all.
3) We will exercise our right by trying to convince you of the Gospel, your need for Jesus, and the truth of our beliefs.
Moore has done nothing but continue to walk that path on this issue like those who went before him. Then on Trump, Moore’s application of rejecting him is the more “literal” (if you will) application of the convictions expressed in that resolution.
You put a lot of verbiage to your ideas, but really, anyone who has read what you write for your own site knows the core issue is this: The specific *applications* were made by Russ Moore.
I mean, come on… you did a post including several links to the despicable (and highly unChristian) Pulpit and Pen to further your anti Russ Moore agenda… That says everything right there.
“I mean, come on… you did a post including several links to the despicable (and highly unChristian) Pulpit and Pen to further your anti Russ Moore agenda… That says everything right there.”
Yep. This witch hunt has made some strange bedfellows.
The inclusion of JD and his minions is ESPECIALLY telling given how JD treated Ergun Caner and his family. Now I am not fan of Ergun, but if I was him, I would be really upset that my “friends” were now partnering with someone who had attacked my family.
Says a lot about the level of outright disdain held by Moore’s opponents for him. Very troubling.
I see that because I have raised questions about the ERLC and/or Russell Moore – I am now part of some alleged “old boys club”, a Trumpster, and so on. It is hard for me to believe that this is an SBC forum, but then perhaps Acts 17:11 does not apply to the ERLC or Mr. Moore.
By the way I am an old fart, I am 68. So I guess I am officially an SBC old boy to some extent.
But let’s try again, can any one provide a Biblical justification for a statement such as: First of all, our Lord Jesus himself was a so-called “illegal immigrant.”
To be honest I have tried and can not, but I am just a lay member of a small SBC church. Note that the rest of the paragraph is OK. But why would someone, who certainly has more credentials than I could even dream of – add such a statement?
In studying the early church fathers there was much effort to “defeat” Gnostics, especially in the Antioch church and area. People where professing to have secret knowledge that placed them above Christians and The Word. I am sure that this question will not be received well here, but if his statements can not be justified by Scripture where are they coming from?
Why hasn’t Mr. Moore taken any of many available opportunities to provide such a Biblical justification for this and other statements and actions?
Mike Crane,
Jesus was not an illegal immigrant.
There isn’t anything in the Word to support that.
Second, though the BF&M and the SBC historically have advocated for the defense of religious liberty /freedom of worship for all peoples and faiths, even for those who wish to worship idols, there is nothing in the Bible that supports that Christians should be doing that either.
As for Dr. Moore’s stands against the godlessness portrayed in the recent presidential election, one can be right in content but be less than properly tactful in their protesting.
parsonsmikeparsonsmike
Thank you for the reply. That statement was of course by Dr. Moore. I do not see where his support is coming from when it can so easily be documented that he is making unBiblical statement to the secular media under our name.
If or when the Johnson Amendment is repealed this denomination is going to be in chaos. By the way, Franklin Graham evaluated both candidates, including some Scriptural references. The difference was very obvious.
Mike Crane,
So many times people see things in this way: This OR That.
I thought that both major party candidates were despicable and that we, as a country running from God, would get what we deserve, or at least what we somewhat deserve.
Better we concentrate on living and proclaiming the Gospel and leave godless politics to others.
I am trying to wrap my mind around who this “Anti-Russ” group really is. The vitriol that comes from their camp (sbctoday) is astounding to me. It seems like they will not settle for anything less than the sacrifice of his “platform and career”.
But who are they really? They seem to all be very homogeneous on a set of certain beliefs, preferences, and characteristics. These are my observations…
-They are mostly from the deep recesses of the Bible Belt.
-They are ardently “Traditionalist”. So much so that Soteriology is elevated above all.
-They support Trump.
-They appose refugee settlement.
-They appose any kind of immigration reform that is not deportation.
-They are offended by the suggestion that cultural Christianity is dying.
Is it a sociological thing? Is it a geographical thing? What is it?
Anyone have any thoughts?
*oppose
Mike,
Thou art quite astute.
You’re spot on!
Really good list, but you forgot one.
– They thought they were the heirs of the leadership of the SBC b/c they supported the old guard. And since they are not, they are angry and trying to keep “power” by identifying new “enemies” to rally against.
Mike, how perceptive you are in ascertaining that the majority of the Anti Russ movement is from the deep recess of the Bible belt. This is usually a snide comment I hear from my liberal secular friends from the east and west coast who wish to slam the “Bible Belt” believers (me) and to them it is a code word for them “stupid redneck”. I infer perhaps incorrectly you have a similar view of those in the deep recess of the Bible belt, what about those on the fringe of the Bible Belt?, wherever that is. Would it be Brentwood Tn., that is 94% white, average home is 500k and is the white flight area of Nashville? It is not an anti Russ movement, it is a pro SBC movement as we are offended with the description of SBC members that have come from ERLC President. The ERLC is to spread the SBC positions and beliefs to the secular world , not vice versa. Would it be fair to say the majority of R. Moore supporters are Never Trumpers? and if so would I be correct in stating they might be in danger of losing their Christian values. I support enforcing our immigration laws and making changes to our immigration and refugee programs, that is my political opinion and viewpoint , is there something wrong with having a difference in a national policy political viewpoint? Cultural Christianity is like beauty , it is in the eye of the beholder. I agreed with Dr. Moore when he wanted to back away from the Moral Majority and disengage from identity politics and then he went right into it with his Rubio/Bush support and Never Trump vendetta. Maybe I am so stupid I thought Mayberry was a real place and it was reality. Dr. Moore has set up so many straw men to knock down he must be out of hay. I am a layman and follow this blog to learn and enjoy the viewpoint from many sources. I firmly believe if the majority of SBC members knew the policy and political course the Dr. Moore endorsed and how he represents the SBC to the secular world there would be some serious questioning.
BTW, Doug W. on his 4.26 p.m 2/17 post nailed one issue that Dr. Moore gets wrong all the time, good job Doug.
I don’t think any of us believe that Russ’ “platform or career” are in jeopardy. He could lead The Gospel Coalition, be a CNN analyst or fill any number of positions for which he is clearly a better fit than he is in his current office, representing millions of people who feel like he truly despises us.
We don’t see this working out badly for him. (At leastI don’t.)
But it WOULD mean that at least WE DON’T HAVE TO PAY FOR THE VERBAL ABUSE.
I hear there are some comment streams where one can get that for free.
Eric, let me see if I can translate the “bible belt” quip that I think you are missing completely. By “bible Belt” read instead, “legacy states”. As in folk in deep legacy states who are out of touch with what it is like to be a SBC church in frontier states. Folk who think their money is more important and should carry more weight than the money sent by out lying SBC churches that are not in those “legacy states”. It has nothing to do with liberal/conservative, but you keep thinking that, and you keep alienating the largest growing portion of the SBC. You have or rather you are, being left behind.
BTW, I voted for President Trump, openly and proudly. I also am a “Moore supporter”. I am NOT the only one. Just FYI.
This whole issue is so sad. I can see how people can have different views of the wisdom of the legal brief or some of the comments made by Dr. Moore, but to withhold funds from the CP seems like an overreaction. It would seem that we have some churches and pastors who are more thin-skinned about their politics than they are committed to the gospel. Tragic!
The best part of this whole thing is Graham’s duplicitousness. In the article cited on this blog post, Graham claims its not just about one person or one entity, but as recent as last December, he announced that Prestonwood was considering holding back their money because of how Moore opposed Trump in the general election:
In the [Wall Street] Journal article, Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas, and a member of Trump’s Evangelical Executive Advisory Board, cited Moore’s criticism of Trump during the presidential campaign for alleged “disrespectfulness towards Southern Baptists and other evangelical leaders, past and present.”
“It’s disheartening that this election has created this kind of divisiveness,” Graham said, adding Prestonwood is “considering making major changes in our support of the Southern Baptist Convention,” presumably a reference to designating financial gifts to specific SBC causes rather than giving through the Cooperative Program, Southern Baptists’ unified channel of supporting missions and ministries in America and worldwide, including the ERLC.
from the article found here: http://bpnews.net/48075/moore-clarifies-comments-on-trump-supporters
Wow! Now we are calling Jack Grahamm “duplicitous”??? This has gone too far. I believe that some are quick to out there with a comment like that questioning his integrity. It is possible that other reason were made by the congregation and leadership as to why they wish to temporarily withhold CP funds. Unless we are part of these meetings, we cannot say for sure. But ouch! This is the type of rhetoric SBC members are tired of. The devil must be pleased when we tear each other down, and so publically and unabashedly. I am sometimes embarrassed to be associated with the SBC. It is becoming more common.
Do you have a better word for the following scenario:
Graham says in December “We’re giving strong consideration to withholding our CP $ because Moore was disrespectful towards Trump.”
Graham says in February “We’re withholding our CP $ but its because of many things; its not just because of Moore”
What ‘other things’ happened between Dec and Feb that would cause him to do the exact thing that he said he would do but now its for a different reason?
Tarheel,
Please elaborate if you feel I am misquoting Moore. I was simply quoting the reader’s comment.
Nice Try, Doug – but you shall remain cigar-less. You put something in quotes and said it was from Dr. Moore – I challenged you to provide the full context of the remark….
The burden is YOURS not mine – you are the one who said that Dr. Moore said that…I was asking YOU for elaboration.
Doug,
I realize you repeated Lance’s quote… and he has responsibility to elaborate – but since you parroted it without verifying it….it also places the burden on you.
Doug and Lance,
I do not read all the comments in a thread before posting my retorts to you and therefore I missed where the austere and august William “plodder” Thornton bailed both you and Lance out….but alas for you….as I suspected the fuller context does not really fit your narrative.
This just in…..for the sake of “tender conscience” and in order to not be “de-facto unequally yoked”
Rick Patrick, Jack Graham, and all the Connect316Gang are now strongly against SBC churches having “Israel solidarity Sundays”, convention and entity leaders speaking of Southern Baptists being “on the side of with Israel” and now strongly object to any and all resolutions passed by the SBC in support of Israel as they are an officially secular nation and devout Jews (absent Messianic ones) are lost and following after false religion.
Right fellas? DOn’t want that unequal yoke getting out of hand do ya?
They also reject Ben Carson as he is a Seventh Day Adventist.
“I will curse those who curse you, and I will bless those who bless you.”
(Genesis 12:3)
Support for Israel is not an unequal yoke with Baal, but a stand for the chosen people if Yahweh. May their eyes be opened to behold their Messiah.
It can be and often is confused with an unequally yoke with false religion.
To hear the confusing language spouted by entity heads and even resolutions about them being “God’s chosen people” lends itself to people thinking that The citizens of the Geopolitical nation of Israel are going to heaven simply because they live there…
I support Israel both as God’s chosen nation and as an American ally. But insofar as Judaism rejects Jesus as the Son of God, the Saviour and Messiah, they are a false religion.
Robert,
Your last sentence is really my main point. They are a false religion and I ask – for serious thought and reflection – does anyone think that we would have such angst if this amicus brief was filed on behalf of a synagogue? Seriously?
The argument is that a simple amicus brief filed in this case is “defacto yoking” us, as Southern Baptists to a false religion…logically and for consistency wouldn’t the same be angst be called for from the corner from which it is coming over the mosque issue if it were a synagogue was embroiled in a case of religious liberty and an Islamic was filed by SBC entities?
I remember reading something about the trustee who resigned regularly hosts “Israel celebrations” days at his church. that seems strange since he says he is so concerned with *perceptions* of “unequal yoking”.
Among other issues I have with these attacks from Rick and the gang is the inconsistency and hypocrisy of it. This issue with Moore is red meat on three fronts of the Connect316 war – Anti-Isalm, Pro-Trump and Anti-Calvinism. its perfect for their agenda.
second paragraph should end with…
“and an amicus was filed by SBC entities?
Don’t think anyone got bent out of shape on the amicus brief filed re the Little Sisters of the Poor case. Maybe others don’t see it the same, but I consider Roman Catholicism a false religion.
Hey nobody likes their intellectual dishonesty being pointed out in public!
Where is our Executive Committee in all this? Isn’t it time to call together Jack Graham, the other pastors threatening to pull funding, representatives from SBC Today, Russell Moore, David Platt, and some people who are somewhat more neutral in this debate, get together, hash this out and pray? Can’t we do better than this constant battling each other over politics, Calvinism, or whatever the causes are that fuel our proxy wars? Good grief! All these people are conservative on almost all the big issues, all agree with the BFM 2000, and all should be working together with more charity, patience, and demonstration of Christian character. Mistakes have been made on all sides, at least with how things were said or done. This controversy is pathetic, disheartening, and inexcusable. To quote Bob Newhart: Stop it!
Tried that a couple of years ago with the “Calvinism task force”.
But alas, the 316Gang is continuining their war and regular upping the ante as we’ve seen with publicity stunts like a resigning trustee and press conferences announcing Prestonwoods extortive tactics.
And 316Gang publishing documents to help churches go on Calvinist hunts!
I would absolutely not offer a place at the table to those threatening to pull funding. It is only rewarding extortion like behavior. Those who are not satisfied with the direction of the SBC have two choices, work to effect change, or leave. This is the complaint I’ve had all along with the Traditionalists who want greater representation in the SBC leadership; they want it without being willing to do the work to make it happen. Non-Calvinists are the vast majority of the SBC. The SBC hasn’t had a Calvinist president in decades (I think), and yet non-Calvinists are powerless to effect change. But it’s not true, they just aren’t willing to go through the process.
As the country continues to spiral downward in unrighteousness, it will not matter how many amicus briefs we signed, or how often we support the secular idea of freedom to worship, for as we stand against the sin of society, we will continue to be marginalized. The less than radical Muslims and the pseudo Christian churches wil kowtow to cultural pressure and will call evil good.
The countries that now persecute the church in their lands do not care what our position is on religious liberty.
This doesn’t mean we should support any secular initiative that seeks to deny ‘freedom of religion’, but neither should we be found lending our name to any endeavor that falls under that secular banner of freedom of religion. Rather our public position should always be that there is no such freedom except through the crucified and risen Lord Jesus.
Where is C. B. Scott when you need him? 🙂
I’ve read with great interest the comments on churches that have decided to withhold money as a result of Russell Moore’s decision to sign the amicus brief. When a pastor from Arkansas tried to question Moore in his decision to sign the amicus brief, Moore was arrogant, condescending, and rude (see video on YouTube). I refuse to stick my head in the sand. Maybe churches are reacting to the fact that SBC doesn’t seem to notice until you hit them where it hurts…their pocketbook. That’s the real shame here. Hidden salaries, appointed positions, liberal minded leaders that surrounds themselves with like-minded employees characterizes our organization. SBC should be about spreading the gospel not an entity of the United Nations (2007). Check it out for yourselves.
As to the uneducated comment about the Bible Belt, please don’t define people and their beliefs based on where they live. I probably live in the buckle of the belt, and you have no clue how I view other churches. Speak for yourself.
In regards to the Bible Belt comment…
I would ask you to go back and read it. I did not insult anyone, I did not call anyone illiterate or unintelligent…
Quite honestly, I am trying to understand the group of people that are “up in arms” over these situations.
One of my observations is that this group seems to be from a similar geographic background. I did not say that everyone in the Bible Belt believes this.
Molly: I thought Dr. Moore answered the pastor quite well. And for Christians to “hit someone in the pocket book” who was doing his job is just something I don’t understand. When someone preaches against sin in the pulpit and it may hit the congregation between the eyes as it is their sin he is addressing should that be the stand the congregation takes? I don’t get it. Especially when this is not a human rights issue, but a Trump issue. Politics. I just don’t get it.
I would also add that I think Dr. Moore was standing for human rights issues as well as moral high ground in his stand. I see that in scripture everywhere as Christ, Paul etc. did the same thing. Would you say it was right to hit Paul in the pocketbook? He was bringing Gentiles and Jews together in the same church for the cause of Christ and welcomed both. Giving both the Gospel.
You probably suppose that he was arrogant, condescending and rude if you disagree with him. Frankly I found the question to be snide, leading and petulant.
SVMuschany, I do not understand the explanation that the Bible Belt description equated to a “Legacy State” description . Legacy is something left behind, passed on by an ancestor or predecessor from the past so if I am from Wisconsin am I in a legacy state? Is Alabama a legacy state. List the “legacy” states for me as I truly do not understand. The Bible belt label is one widely used by many and is well known and understood with both good and bad contentions depending on who you are listening to. Missouri use to be the frontier gateway , is it a legacy state or still the frontier. I do think that “money” from a legacy? state is any more significant than money from a “frontier” state (whatever that is). I guess that I am a traditionalist if you want to label people but that does not mean that I oppose rational , God inspired change to spread the Gospel. Politically I do not like labels but if I had to identify I would certainly have to say I am politically conservative (not George Bush conservative) but why is that important in my core faith beliefs? I have come to the conclusion that Russell Moore for example has a more liberal political viewpoint than I but I would not question his Christian values or demean him. Why do I think R. Moore has liberal political beliefs because he has made it clear in his deeds and written statements. He represents the SBC to the secular world so when he goes into a national forum and talks down the lay people of the SBC for their political views I have concern. Frankly I see no need for the ERLC in this modern world of communication and with the recent performance of the ERLC. Again I will state if the majority of SBC members knew what the ERLC was up to and their political, social positions they would be greatly upset. So please let me know what a legacy state is as I have lived in many places in the USA and have heard the same Gospel message preached and taught no matter where I have lived.
If you claim to be apart of SBC life but have never heard of “legacy state” then boy you have been living in a hole in the ground. Really…I have no idea how to respond to this. It’s like trying to talk with someone claiming to know all about baseball, but they don’t know who the Yankees are.
The lingo is not universally known. If I were not a Baptist, I would bet a large sum that only minority would know what constitutes an SBC legacy state. The SBC is far larger than SBC Voices and other sites.
I’ve been SBC since 1982 and I’ve never heard the term.
I use it a lot…maybe invented it…may license the use of it: “Make the Legacy State Conventions Great Again…make a ton of money and retire in comfort.
svmuschany, Thanks for nudging me into looking up some info I should have before I posted. I did take the post literally due to my ignorance on the subject. To clarify, I am a layman and have come here to learn as it is mostly post from Pastors and SBC seminary educated people and I enjoy the different perspectives , give and take. I see little input from lay people but perhaps I am wrong as I am making a assumption most here are Pastors or full time service. I just never retained or perhaps never knew that the “legacy” states designation existed or if it did why it is germane to any issues of today except clarifying our SBC roots, which is important. . I do not think most layman would identify quickly what a legacy state as most of us layman would just say the Southern States and let it go at that but I am defending my shortcoming. However hopefully you will forgive my ignorance on the legacy state issue. The point I was trying to make is still valid. Are SBC churches and members from the “legacy” aka Bible Belt states known in the “frontier” states as thinking their contributions are more worthy, important or have more sway than the money from the “legacy” state aka the Bible Belt. Do younger people think that people from the legacy states aka Bible belt feel superior, smug or resent the efforts of younger believers who are spreading the gospel. I have lived in different states and never really felt any regional or state superiority issue within the SBC except that of course that are more SBC members in the Bible Belt or as I will call it now the legacy states. This majority of SBC members does make one feel more comfortable in assuming that you have shared values which in some states I did not feel in the secular world. So I have learned something I either forgot or perhaps never knew so my post was personally worth it. Your legacy will be I learned something from you and I appreciate it. I know the Yankees barely but not Abner Doubleday so I would not match baseball knowledge with a baseball historian nor do I equate myself with the learned scholars on this site.
Dr. Moore’s response was not “arrogant, condescending, and rude.” It was a forceful presentation of the historic Baptist position on the issue. A position that would have likely received near unanimous support until a few years ago.
What leaders in the SBC are “liberal-minded?” I am not aware of any.
See y’all in Phoenix! It’s going to be a fun one!
BTW–if this issue is really important to you, you WILL show up at your local Association meetings, your State Convention meetings, and the SBC Annual Meeting in Phoenix. In-person involvement always accomplishes more than online bloviating. Hope to see you there!
I’ll be there. As I have been for many times before and I do participate in my Association and state convention….so there is that.
Since that has been brought up….I did a little survey at an Assoc. pastors breakfast where around 2/3 of our pastors were present and I asked them – “do any of you think Russ Moore stepped over the line in his criticism of Trump” the resounding answer was no. I followed up with; “should he be reprimanded or fired?”
Here are some of the comments made:
“Why would anyone think he had stepped over – all he did is say what the SBC has said for years relating to the character of politicians” .
Another said
“Isn’t it his job to speak to issues dealing with morality and ethics?”
Last quote I’ll share:
“He is doing exactly what he should do. Thank God for Him.”
By the way many of them were “nose holding” Trump voters.
Lastly, I asked if they had to guess, tell me how many how many people in their church would want Russell Moore fired or reprimanded…..the best comment, though others were similar, was: “Man, other than me and possibly few others probably 100% of my church would ask, ‘Who is Russell Moore’?”
I realize this is anecdotal – but I truly do not think the “rank and file” pastors and members are as concerned with this as “we” bloggers are.
Tarheel, I do agree with you that the majority of SBC members do not know, follow or even aware of Russell Moore who job is to explain, defend and present SBC viewpoints to the secular world. It is fortunate for R. Moore that the majority of SBC members are not following his actions. How would the average SBC lay member relate to their spokesman referring to himself as “in many ways a survivor of the Bible Belt”. How would they react if they knew Dr. Moore presented Trump supporters as the “Jimmy Swaggart wing” of SBC, Rubio supporters the “Billy Graham wing” and Ted Cruz the “Jerry Falwell wing. Is questioning the Christian values of someone who disagrees with you politically a good thing for someone in SBC leadership? Are the SBC members aware that R. Moore makes one million dollars a year plus a new car every year and gets 9 weeks of vacation? No there is a lot SBC members do not know about R. Moore . The reason they do not know they trust their local Pastors for sure, they trust that the leadership of the SBC is representative and supportive of SBC values in the Gospel arena . Most SBC members believe that the SBC is neutral in politics now so they must not be following R. Moore. They are trusting the leadership. They would be very upset if they knew the IMB went bankrupt though bad management and many other issues. I became aware of R. Moore and his political activity by reading an article in the Washington Post and starting following his activity. Sadly I have found that it is true, Ignorance is bliss. The more I found out about Moore the more uncomfortable with his leadership in the SBC
The Southern Baptist Convention has become Donald Trump.
As one we all know would say, “Sad!”
What’s the big deal? Who cares if a group of Muslims either do or don’t build a mosque in New Jersey? Who cares whether some guy who heads up the ERLC either does or doesn’t file an amicus brief regarding a construction permit to build a mosque.
Whatever the ERLC does or doesn’t do is second order at best. I don’t think 99.9% of us guys in the pews would even notice if the ERLC disappeared tomorrow. We don’t even know what they are doing except when they start a chain reaction that leads to all of this dirty laundry.
My advice to everyone: turn down the heat a little. Don’t take the bait. Ignore the ERLC; don’t fight them.
The Conservative Resurgence might have been a hill to die on. This isn’t.
Please, SBC leaders. Step up and be statesmen.
Roger OKC
I neither voted for Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton. I wrote in the name of Robert Kennedy on my ballot because I was going to vote for him in the first presidential election I could participate in and they killed him, just like they killed John Kennedy and Martin Luther King, men whom I saw as speaking to vital issues and who, each in their own way, drew a picture of a world that ought to be, not the world as it was. I was young and God was just stirring in me and I wanted it to be so right.
I have voted in every presidential election since because I took my vote as something sacred since I fought for the right of the Vietnamese people to have it. But this election was different. I am 69 and the older I get, and the deeper I grow in Christ, I find myself trying to live as if the Kingdom of God is more important than how I want culture and society structured – although I certainly wish it more like God’s Kingdom. I have positions on various political and cultural issues which are at play in the public arena, but over the years I have grown more temperate and thoughtful in the way I both express these opinions and act on them.
The simple reason is that people are watching us. People in the Sunday School class that I teach are watching me. My wife, sons, and grandchildren are watching me. They know I am a follower of Christ and that I have publicly proclaimed it and told others about living a life where Christ is, indeed, in me.
It is why this election engendered great conflict. At times I was for Trump (e.g. he was going to nominate a conservative Supreme Court Justice which I thought was vital) and against him (e.g. watching the debates I did not want this mercurial, undisciplined, and self-centered man with his hand on the nuclear button). I went back and forth and I was terribly conflicted.
It was during this time that I began to listen to Russell Moore. He was doing something I heard no other Southern Baptist leader say: that we are not voters who happen to be Christian, but we are followers of Christ who have the privilege of voting– followers whom others are watching closely. Although the actual vote we cast is secret, God is watching. It might be one thing to hold your nose and vote for Trump with fingers crossed and pray God in His sovereignty will see things right (an argument I heard in Sunday School was that Trump would be quickly impeached and Pence would then be President), or argue that voting for Trump is an ethical/moral choice because he promised to do things the institutional Evangelical church sought (e.g. Wayne Grudem); it is quite another to use our faith and one’s influence in the Evangelical community to come out in open support of Trump. I heard our leaders (and other evangelical leaders) speak of Trump as a “baby” Christian (whatever that means and without any obvious evidence of that assertion), go into contortions to proclaim him acceptable to Christians in spite of the obvious, and even impugn the integrity of those who struggled with voting for Trump (“namby-pamby Christians”). Only Russell Moore seemed to remind us of who we are and what was really at stake. He helped me.
I also was convicted in a way I had once ignored (I was once a good soldier in the Religious Right) that people, especially the young, listen to what we say – and how we say it. Sam Allberry wrote in a recent article that we older Evangelicals are no longer natives; we are immigrants (or, as Peter would say, strangers and aliens in this world). We live in a world that is going away and the young and “enlightened” are now the natives of this new world. All of the things that surrounded our lives that was grounded in the Christian church are gone or swiftly passing. The young, as natives in this new world, have grown up in a world where authenticity is prized above all. To watch the actions of some of our leaders in their contortions for Trump is self-evident hypocrisy. How can we condemn same-sex marriage and then argue for the election of a man who cannot in any way be judged to be a “good” man? With all of the contortions in support for Trump, we lost a lot in this election. I know because I am seeing it in my church. We are becoming older, whiter, and bitter. Yes, we have young people, but they are, more or less, of our disposition. We simply do not have the kind of church where the native young will come.
At some point we are actually going to have to act and speak as a church (catholic with a small “c”, not local with thousands of members and a really big budget)
As a couple of final notes:
I am an attorney and I have reservations about filing amicus curiae briefs although I understand the thinking and reasons for it. It might be useful to give consideration to more than just “religious freedom” for our participation in appellate cases.
As a final note, I will say that I did not read the pejorative remarks Brother Moore made about our brothers in Christ. Regardless of the intensity of his feelings, such comments were wrong and nothing but an unqualified apology ought to be given – and forgiveness extended.
I do pray for the Kingdom and the church.
On my 2/18 post at 2.18 I added the information about Dr. Moore’s salary, car and vacation time to add shock value. Of course I do not know what Dr. Moore or any SBC leader makes, very few people do by design. I am a layman, I was and am shocked that the expenses, salary, compensation and benefits including book deals, travel are not readily available at the very least to the churches who contribute to the SBC. I am sure the vast majority of SBC members would be shocked and bewildered if they knew about this lack of transparency in the SBC. Local churches require a reporting locally of their salary structure. Why is this so, what possible good can come out of the keeping secret the pay of the people that are supported by contributions? As NBC use to say “the more you know”.
There are so many “bottom lines” in this discussion, it’s almost impossible to summarize it all.
What Graham and Prestonwood has done is nothing new. Ron West correctly mentioned Jimmy Drapter threatening to withhold CP support. Mid-America Seminary exists because of the withholding and redirecting of contributions due to concerns about theology at the seminaries.
I like Russell Moore. I believe he is a good spokesman for the SBC. I don’t agree with this statements regarding Trump supporters. I disagree with some, but not all, of the ERLC emphases and initiatives. For example, I don’t recall the ERLC saying anything about the US allowing the United Nations to pass a resolution condemning Israel. (you guys correct me if I am wrong).
But the way to oppose what you don’t like in SBC life and the ERLC is to say so. Write blogs, go to meetings etc. All of this has an impact.
Withholding contributions is nuclear. It’s like threatening divorce.
Dr. Graham has a big stick and a big pulpit. He and others who agree with him call speak, call trustees, call the SBC President and make sure as much as he can, to select trustees who will help shepherd the ERLC and Dr. Moore.
But having said that, we do have to recognize that we are all in the SBC together to serve. The goal is for all of us to move further together.
I suspect that Dr. Moore and the ERLC as presently functioning have the support of a majority of the voting SBC, so I suspect they are safe. I am glad for that. I don’t think Dr. Graham’s comments and actions will seriously threaten that.
But what is sad to me is that some see the survival of Dr. Moore and the ERLC as some ultimate good. It is not.
What ultimately would be better is for Dr. Moore and the ERLC to take a better measure of all SBC churches and to put forth an agenda that all, or nearly all, can support.
There are ways to do that. Avoid the controversial, and emphasize what we all agree on.
There are enough things that we agree on that if those are the focus, we can do a lot of good.
This will take some patience on the part of those who disagree with Dr. Moore and the ERLC, and it will take some humility from Dr. Moore and the ERLC to accept some necessary correction.
We will see if both sides can do that. If we get more threats from one side, and more snide, straw man attacks from the other, we will be ineffective.
I am a lay member of an SBC church. In this forum and others have asked one or more of the following questions and quite honestly they have not been answered. I see a lot of Pastors that seem quick to speak but slow to listen. Questions about the ERLC have been asked and quite frankly there has been more criticism of those asking questions than answers provided. But Acts 17:11 tells us to check the Scripture to see if what we are being told is true. Biblical justifications have not been forthcoming …
So here are some questions from a lay member of the SBC concerning the ERLC and some questions about what I consider non performance:
Some (but not all) questions that in my opinion need a Biblical justification:
1) Not filing a brief is not an attack on religious liberty. The previous mayor was a known Muslim. When a known Muslim can get a majority electoral vote it is not a discriminatory town! So what Biblical justification is there to claim discrimination to even supply indirect support of a false god.
2) There is a local Southern Baptist church within two miles. How many of the supporters of the brief have asked OUR LOCAL CHURCH what their position is? If this SBC church is opposed to filing a brief in favor, has not the ERLC (and IMB) violated 1 Corinthians 6:1 ff? If they are in favor should it not be that SBC church that filed the brief?
3) The Baptist Faith and Message article on Religious Liberty has an exclusion for: “Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God.” Where in the revealed will of God are we instructed to ever support a false religion or a false god or a high place to a false god? Are such things contrary to the revealed will of God?
4) On immigration Mr. Moore references Deuteronomy 10:18-19. However isn’t the Hebrew word translated stranger – “ger”? Would this point to a foreigner who was a “guest” which would exclude what today we refer to as “illegal immigrants”?
Some questions about lack of performance of duty to provide Biblical guidance on policy issues:
5) Should the “policy” wing of the SBC have made a statement about the UN Security Council Resolution 2334?
6) Should the “policy” wing of the SBC be providing support for Richard Walsh the lay minister who was fired by the State of Georgia for the content of sermons NOT AT WORK?
7) Should the “policy” wing of the SBC be providing information to SBC churches about the commitment of President Trump to repeal the Johnson Amendment? He has stated this in early campaign, in nomination acceptance speech, during campaign after convention and as President. If repealed this will affect every church in the country in some way. With all of the silence are all of the Pastors in this forum prepared to explain to their congregation the pros and cons?
As to your point 5 – it is something well taken.
The defense of Russell Moore has primarily dealt with a Convention Resolution on the Morality of Political Candidates which passed in 1996 (I believe).
The most recent resolution on Israel was passed this past year in 2016.
Where was the defense of Israel in the matter of the UN vote in December by the ERLC based on the commitment to support Israel by messengers in the 2016 resolution?
Your silence is golden and understandable under the circumstances. Russell Moore must be defended at all costs = even in the face of reasonable questions.
Rob
How can a town that elected a Muslim mayor be a hotbed of discrimination? How could a country that elected LBJ in ’64 in a landslide election be a hotbed of discrimination against African Americans? How can a country that elected a black man president in 2008 and 2012 still have racial problems?
Tony, that is a dodge not an answer. The ERLC and possibly yourself have determined that it was a case of religious discrimination — along with the Obama DOJ. How was that determination made?
The permit was denied for 4 reasons, the parking issue was only one. Something about sewer, cild pickup and drop off and percentage of ground cover (wet lands issue).
Was the permit being declined even a religious issue?
What does our local church – less than two miles away say?
I find it funny that the ones saying the trustee system is not a rubber stamp forget not too many months ago that Dr. Platt was forced to come forward with evidence that the IMB had blown through millions of dollars…all these funds were approved by the trustees (no accountability to the SBC, which is another topic entirely) that was news to the SBC. What would happen if pastors tried that in our churches?
If you really think that the Trustee board of most (if not all) SBC entities don’t simply rubber stamp the agenda put in front of them, then you are very naive. Please look at Haun stepping down from the IMB over the mosque issue. Why would a trustee and current president of a state convention just step down from the board if his voice was being heard on the trustee board? Wake up! Things stink within our denomination. Until more answers come to light we will see more people following Dr Graham and Prestonwood.
As a pastor myself I stand before the people God has called me to serve and tell them the money we send to the CP is Missions. I have seen the inner-workings of our denomination first-hand and have seen excesses like crazy. Only a fool would say that 100% of CP dollars are going to Missions….I would be surprised if 60% goes to Missions. But we will never know as we can’t see their expenses and reports (unlike in our churches). Ask Wade Burleson about our Trustee system….Enough said.
So much money in our denomination is wasted. And for the record…we can’t challenge the ERLC, NAMB, or other agencies from the floor over this because their “guys” are stacked on the floor and occupy the question time by asking predetermined questions on topics that can be rambled on and on over until time runs out. If you can’t see this then you are blind.
Jack Graham is a man of integrity and a man who loves the SBC. His heart beat is to see lost people saved. He was a part of the CR as a young pastor and fought to see us move back to the right. Why do you all throw stones at a man who has shared his heart and convictions over issues within the denomination he loves?
Some of you really need to step outside the ivory tower and into the real world for a few moments and realize that the SBC you blindly follow has major issues. Until these are adequately addressed how can we designate tithe money that we tell our flock is being used for Missions….and not the excesses that we all see (if we open our eyes). I guess we shouldn’t question the status quo tho…blindly follow…don’t stand on convictions….continue to be sheep and fall in line….or we will blast you on a blog. We will question your allegiance to a denomination you fought for…and we will bash your integrity. Very Christ-like guys.
The trustee system has weaknesses and has failed us on occasion but I don’t see anything better being proposed.
I never told my churches CP money was 100% missions money but would explain the allocations once or twice a year.
Us being on the celebrity system (i.e. Megapastors drive the bus) has plenty of flaws as well.
I’ll be a cooperating SB until I find something better.
Wesley: The CR is in the past. How long are we going to let wrong pass by because someone led the CR movement. Just as it did not help Judge Presley last year at the Convention it cannot continue to be held up as a reason to bypass wrong doing.
To with hold monies to have one’s way is extortion in my book. At the least it’s bribery. It’s wrong. Then to announce it to the press, that’s bribery with a motive. It’s wrong. And over what? A doctrinal move to liberalism? No, it’s a move to higher moral ground, to hold officials in office morally accountable.
It reminds me of the passage that says paraphrase there will be those who call right wrong and wrong right. I never in a million years would have thought that verse applied to Christians, but it seems to. It’s craziness and beyond my comprehension.
No to withhold monies is every church’s right. Some of you folks are acting as if the CP has a divine right to the money of autonomous churches. Regardless of which side you are on concerning Dr Moore, it is not extortion to withhold money that belongs to you.
John: I think the charge of extortion is not the idea that the church owes that money to the CP, but from withholding funds they would normally give but now will not until they get their way. Their money is their money, but publicly declaring the withholding that money until the SBC fixes whatever they don’t like sounds a little like extortion.
John W.,
It it is blackmail/ extortion to dangle $1 million that you have normally given to them over the head of someone until they do what you want…
To hold a press conference saying we have $1 million and you can have it if you do what we want… Sure seems pretty close to blackmail/extortion.
John W: Please reread my entire comment. I am all for following the lead of God. If one is led by God to withhold funds then quietly doing that is the only way to go. But does it sound like the Father leading someone to withhold a large sum of money, call a press conference and announce that until someone shapes up politically, we are going to withhold this money? Does that move you spiritually to raise your hands to God and praise Him?
“I never told my churches CP money was 100% missions money …”
Exactly. No one I know ever has either….except Lottie and Annie which aren’t CP.
Wait…so is CP Missions or is it not??? If it’s not then why are we discussing it. People on here are attacking Graham as if it’s breaking a Commandment against God to handle money for Missions in a different way instead of blindly writing a check for CP.
Furthermore, we are sold a bill of goods every year that CP=Missions. And everyone judges based on the CP%. The original intent of CP was Missions. It has become a bureaucracy.
Are you okay with all the excesses of CP? Or should we attempt to examine what’s going on and maximize dollars for Missions? Maybe the story we are missing here is why are millions of dollars from many SBC churches being diverted from the CP? Are we all just wrong and going to hell? Or maybe we are raising a bigger issue that needs to be addressed in regard to accountability and useage of funds.
What current excesses Wesley.?That has already been discussed but I have no idea what excesses are being done currently. Giving to the c
Again and for the umpteenth time. When a church leader has a large sum of monies( I don’t think according to the facts that it’s an actual million) and calls the press, telling them he will not give that monies until these demands are met, that is the problem. But I think you know that.
Wesley: I would hardly use the word blindly follow. I know you don’t know many of our past experiences, but if you did this would not be your argument.
You say Jack Graham is a man of integrity. Who loves the SBC. I have to question that based on some of his tactics, this being the most outrageous. His interviews on the subject of Moore have been less than stellar. His statements lack factual backing.
Well Debbie open your eyes. Company cars, lunch meals on a daily basis on CP dime, increased personnel, “vision” dinners where people are flown in and are treated to nice dinners and hotels, refusal to allow us to see budget items and expenses…ridiculous traveling when useage of technology would suffice…I can go on….the CP has become worse than D.C. in some ways. All the above I’ve personally seen. All the while I’m told to give more to cp. give give give. If you don’t give then you aren’t a real Southern Baptist.
If I led the church I shepherd in the way some (and I do mean some) of our agencies are ran with little to no accountability then I’d be fired. Why do you not question these things? Don’t you think that Dean Haun’s resignation from the IMB board speaks volumes to the inner-workings of some of the trustee boards we have? People blindly following is what’s real concerning to me.
Furthermore, you presume to know the intent of Dr Graham. Stop pretending and stop presuming. You don’t know his heart. God has allowed that man to see tens of thousands of people give their life to Christ. Please don’t miss that. Because you see, that’s where his heart is at. And seeing lost people saved (living out the Great Commission IS the litmus test for a real Southern Baptist…not percentage of giving). All these bloggers who pretend to know his heart and intent…. many perhaps, have never led one person to Christ in their life, seem to feel compelled to judge a man who shares Jesus all the time. I take issue with that. I guarantee you the escrowed funds from Prestonwood will be used for Missions and Evangelism. I also guarantee you that people will be saved because of the useage of said funds. Please….seriously PLEEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEE argue with that. I double-dog dare you. Go ahead. Tell me how funding a bureaucracy is more important than a pastor leading a church to follow God’s will.
Debbie, no doubt the SBC does many great things. We have some of the best missionaries, professors, church planters, pastors, seminaries in the world. Many of us have and will continue to support these wonderful people in one way or another (I’m certain in reading Dr Graham’s comments that Prestonwood will also continue to support these people as well). All of my training is thru the SBC, including my PhD. I love our denomination. I affirm we must partner for the sake of the Gospel. However I don’t believe business as usual will cut it anymore. Many of us want accountability. Strike down a lot of the waste and beauracracy and let’s get back to the original intent of the CP. Making Jesus known to the world.
The foundational principle of the “five resolves” listed by the author of this post, and also the root of the ERLC’s mistep in regards to this mosque issue is contained in the first resolve:
“RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011, restate our long-standing view that religious liberty is an inalienable human right, rooted in the image of God and possessed by all human beings;”
Perhaps the ERLC’s actions could be justified as noble if it weren’t for the fact that the fundamental tenet of the first resolve is solidly contradicted by God’s Word. The NT paints a clear picture that we are all born “religious slaves.” We are by nature children of wrath. God owes us nothing but condemnation. We are blind and held captive by the Devil to do his will. It is only through Christ that we receive any “right” to religious freedom: John 1:12-13 “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
It is a serious misrepresentation of Gospel to lead others into thinking they have something that apart from Christ they absolutely do not possess. Therefore, it is only fitting that this action by the ERLC blow up.
The solution is to correct the error of the first resolve. Let the inalienable right talk rot in the grave with Jefferson.
Except there is nothing to correct Doug W. This is where I don’t understand you posting here. You are not Southern Baptist so I am sure you disagree with us, and I am sure you disagree with other denominations. Do you keep posting on their site too. That is like going to a foreign country and expecting them to change their customs. It just isn’t going to happen, so why continue to visit there if you don’t agree.
Debbie,
To paraphrase Paul, “If all were Southern Baptist, where would the body be?”
That said, I am partially Southern Baptist.
Whether we are by our nature children of wrath or by the blood of Christ children of God is neither here nor there in this debate. Religious liberty is not a statement of our moral condition before a Holy God but is a limitation on the power of the state to require, by threat of force, a particular action or belief. Religious liberty is not about being slaves to sin but being free from the imposing power of the state to compel religious belief or practice.
JohnR,
In one sense you are correct, but nevertheless the view of religious liberty espoused by Moore is predicated on the theological error popularized by Jefferson: “Almighty God hath created the mind free.”
I address it from your perspective here: https://christcommonwealth.org/2017/02/20/religious-harm-natural-right/
I read your link. Whether you claim the title or not, you are a theocrat and a foolish one at that. Your position is that the government should use force to ensure correct action on behalf of the Christian faith in the life of its citizens. You are a theocrat because of your belief in using the government to accomplish spiritual and religious aims of the faith ( what ever those exactly are). You are foolish because that time, if it ever existed in America, has long past. Advocating for a Christian Theocracy in America is suicidal if not delusional.
I find your perspective unsupported by scripture, disconnected from the theology almost all orthodox Christians since Calvin’s failed experiment in Geneva, and grossly undermined by history. Now I remember why I signed off of this discussion a couple of weeks ago.
I wonder if Prestonwood Baptist church voted to escrow this money? Or if the decision was made by the “leadership”, announced to the public, and then at some point later will be taken to the membership?
I don’t remember seeing in the statement from Prestonwood – perhaps I missed it – correct me if I’m wrong – that this was done by church vote.
Speaking of tweets from Jack Graham….
It sure was nice of him to shower praise upon the “faith” of Melania Trump yesterday on Facebook.
twitter…not facebook.
I did not see Jack Graham’s tweet.
I heard the First Lady recited the Lord’s Prayer at the event, and I understand people followed along. I did not see this, but only heard about it.
By your use of quotation marks, I take it you are critical of her for doing this, or just critical of Jack Graham?
Debbie K. , I am a layman and am here and monitor other sources gathering information about what is happening in the SBC leadership especially the ERLC. I became aware of Dr. Moore and his viewpoints 10-9-2016 reading an article in the Washington Post which I thought did not represent SBC membership well. The article title was something like”If Donald Trump has done anything , it is to snuff out the religious right”. I went back and started following R. Moore on twitter and his blog. I agreed with him when he seem to indicate the SBC should stay out of partisan politics ( quit the Moral Majority agenda) and stay focused on the Gospel. However the more I followed I saw his absolute contempt and opposition to D. Trump. That trail of opposition and written attacks on Trump is readily available and easy to find so I will not dwell on it. As a Trump supporter I tried to ask a question on twitter, got immediately blocked and my question was “Is H. Clinton morally acceptable as a candidate”. It seemed to me R. Moore position was to bash Christian conservatives (me) for engaging in politics as he opines, writes, appears on national media and on liberal outlets engaging in his view of what is acceptable (Never Trump) liberal politics under the color of his SBC position. R. Moore in his 10/26/2016 Post article referred to himself as “an heir and survivor of Bible Belt America”, not a ringing endorsement for the SBC spokesman. Moore cited as he often does a nameless straw man collection of references such as witnessed “rank hypocrisy among fellow believers, complicity with racial injustice, buffoonish words of Christian leaders and the utter hollowness of cultural Christianity”. Now this is from the man who is to explain and clarify the SBC position to the secular world. I could go on but it is there on his own blog, twitter, New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek , CNN and all the liberal go to places to parade an anti Trump argument under the guise of your SBC leadership position. Another straw man moment was when Dr. Moore opined on his viewpoint on the harmful/hateful broadcast on Christian radio. Again no name, nothing concrete just a opinion piece bashing Christian radio that perhaps Dr. Moore did not agree with politically. According to Dr. Moore I am from the “Jimmy Swaggart arm” of the SBC and there was a firm suggestion that since I supported someone politically I might have lost my Christian values. Top the above off with the legal siding with the NJ mosque lawsuit and I am wondering what is the point of the ERLC and why do I tithe to have my cultural, social and political viewpoints mocked in a national forum by the spokesman for my church organization. We should just stay out of politics as an organization, that is an individual matter. Since following events I have become very concerned about the lack of transparency and naughty attitude of the ERLC and entire SBC national level leadership. I wrote in an earlier post Dr. Moore makes a million dollars a year, a free car and 9 weeks of vacation but the truth is no layman is allowed to know what the benefit package is to our SBC leadership because , maybe that is a lowball. I am thankful for the leaders in the SBC who are stepping forward and taking a rightfully questioning attitude on events. It seems Pastor Graham is a heavyweight and not prone to rash actions. I find Rick Patrick to make sense and ask relevant questions. What would Dr. Moore’s attitude be if Trump had lost and no one in the SBC questioned his political involvement? I am losing confidence in the SBC leadership and trustee system. The IMB went bankrupt. How? Most SBC members are good, trusting and not involved with national level SBC going on but if they knew what I am finding out they would be more questioning. Sorry so long and wordy.
I will be honest here Eric C, in that I don’t believe in blocking someone on social media because their view is different from mine. The question you posed of Hilary is a tiring one to say the least. It’s like little children who when they are disciplined point the finger and say but so and so did….. why don’t you punish them?
Hillary is not something that needed to be addressed in my opinion. It would take endless, endless time to address both issues and the issue was not Christians voting for Hillary, which to be quite honest was no worse than those voting for Trump and more obvious, so no need to address, but the Christians and the Christian leaders who were supporting and holding Trump up as a hill to die on. To hold Trump up as being a Christian that we had to support, even when his moral failings are known and more surfacing. Even when he announced his campaign promises, which quite frankly made me cringe and my stomach drop. The fact that 81 or more percent voted for him shocked me. He was absolutely right in that nothing could stop his candidacy. Now there are possible accusations of Russian involvement in his election. Possible Russian contacts. This should trouble anyone let alone Christians, but any American who truly loves this country and our freedoms. Yet not a peep from Jack Graham, Franklin Graham or Jeffress on any of this.
More is the head of the ERLC. The E stands for Ethics, the RL is Religious Liberty. He did his job and then some. Yet people are screaming. Withholding funds from a Christian organization because they refuse to have political ties to a man who has tried to rid and bankrupt the USA of the press, he himself has told alternative facts, and it will be interesting to see if Melania comes to the White house after the school year. So far she has been little seen from and not heard from.
We have been in an SBC for nearly twelve years now. We started out as a young married couple and now we are raising our three children in the same church. We are active and serve in a variety of lay positions; teaching Bible studies, Deacon and Elder board, Children’s Ministry, etc.
Like many others at our church (average attendance of 650-800) of our age and status in life, mid 30’s with kids, we were conflicted about the most recent election.
Our conflict became null and void though when we heard the tape of President Trump boasting and joking about sexual assault and what he could get away with in his abuse of and degradation of women simply because he is a wealthy man.
As a family who has lived out the issue of rape, assault and sexual stalking of those we love – that became the last straw for us. Knowing the very real and life lasting suffering of our family members having been the victims of the very sorts of abuse President Trump boasted of – we no longer were left with any moral reason to vote for him.
Furthermore, we were greatly disheartened to hear national evangelical leaders making excuses for and rationalizing his comments away as if they didn’t matter or were of lesser consideration than some future hope for a conservative SCOTUS pick.
We could not do so and we also could not vote for Hillary Clinton.
To make matters worse, two families we have been witnessing to and doing life with for over two years will now not return to our church because they saw and heard “too many people at your church cheering on Trump no matter what he said and did.”
We are heartbroken. We invited another family to church a few weeks ago and they turned us down because we are now known as the “Trump” church in our town.
So – yes, obviously there is a large swath of evangelicalism that have become Trump acolytes, but, for the younger ages, mostly under 45-50 – it is simply our experience that all the cheerleading done for Trump has been a turn off and has damaged the name of Christ.
And so. We grieve. And we are searching for a new church where our unsaved friends will be welcomed, whether they voted for Trump or not.
It’s too bad your church is known for being political.
Knowing God and following Jesus has nothing to do with politics!
People who love the Lord can be on both sides of the divide.
Wish you the best.
What is most unfortunate is that our local pastors for the most part remained pretty silent on candidates during the election, though they did speak on religious liberty, abortion, etc. The witness to our unsaved friends was tarnished because there were so many national evangelical leaders regularly on TV promoting Trump and defending his immorality – that our unsaved friends – rightly- saw the blatant hypocrisy and said so.
“We have been in an SBC…” Yes. I just posted on another column here re: our *Jesus* witness in our small and medium towns here when our leadership seems more focused on which “side” is “winning” in U. S. politics. And Mr Louis, Yes. I would invite you to come down to the deep south and stay for a while. But I agree with you 100%. Thank you both for caring enough to write.
J&J Debut:
I commend your pastors for staying silent during the election.
My pastor remained completely silent, as did our Sunday School classes and elders.
We have a fair amount of political diversity in our church, and we want to keep that.
We do speak to issues, but not in disguise so as to bash candidates.
Some issues are pretty clear.
Other issues are pretty murky. The Bible doesn’t give us clear guidance.
We speak only to the issues we believe to be clear.
Debbie, Dr. Moore has insulted and demeaned the majority of SBC members who disagreed with him on political issues, that is very clear and undeniable. He uses many straw man arguments and does not name names such at the radio criticism, the former leaders who are described as “Elmer Gantry meets Elmer Fudd”. There was no need to go involved in a political parties primary race for the SBC especially after rejecting the political aspect of the Moral Majority days. The NJ mosque issue was settled as a zoning issue by the courts. There is only one way communication from the SBC leadership and that is from the top down. My wife and I sacrifice to tithe and after looking into it there is no transparency or salary information for the SBC Nashville leadership. It takes no moral courage to go on CNN and bash Trump using your SBC position to get attention. This was an easy call at the beginning, stay out of partisan politics, but it became a personal issue with Moore. Would Dr. Moore be as conciliatory , humble and apologetic if Trump would have lost as projected? Like it or not money talks and Dr. Graham is correct in my opinion. I truly believe if the majority of SBC members knew the political positions and how Moore wrote about Trump supporters there would be a groundswell asking for his removal. If you go into the political arena in a very personal way expect someone pushback. Personally, I think I thought that R. Moore’s articles, interviews and TV appearances during the election as he worked hard against Trump should have been divulged to the SBC members who voted for Trump in overwhelming numbers. The average SBC member would be shocked and upset at the lack of transparency and accountability at the SBC Nashville leadership level.
Eric,
I’m still genuinely trying to see how Dr. Moore’s position on religious liberty is different than what Southern Baptist have always taught and what Christians of almost every stripe have always believed…
http://www.russellmoore.com/2016/06/08/religious-freedom-non-christians/
Also you said:
“This was an easy call at the beginning, stay out of partisan politics, but it became a personal issue with Moore. ”
First, you’re suggesting that a person who is president of the ethics commission stay out of one of the most visible aspects of our society the deals on a daily basis with ethics?
Also why this new condition on the head of the ERLC? The most recent past President, Richard Land, was deeply involved in politics and if I’m not mistaken was a regular panelist on “Meet the Press” in addition to consistently going on other networks and using his radio show to forward Republican politics…
So one must logically surmise that what you mean by his “staying out of politics” is… Stay out UNLESS you’re going to tout the Republican party line and support the Republican candidate no matter how vile, immoral, and unethical that candidate may be too
Tarheel,
Sadly, Moore does not allow comments on his blog site. I’ve tried to address his incorrect view of Religious Liberty as an inalienable right in my own post.
https://christcommonwealth.org/2017/02/20/religious-harm-natural-right/
The religious liberty argument seems to be a red herring. It seems like the only reason that some are concerned about the religious liberty of others is to insure that they get what they want when they play the religious liberty card. I don’t get the idea that the concern for the religious liberty of others is out of love for them. I am not a traditionalist, and I have been critical of most of Rick Patrick’s positions on the Trad’s vs. Calvinist’s issues. I am in hearty agreement with what he has posted regarding Russell Moore and the ERLC.
Rick
Tarheel, I have written several comments on this blog about my viewpoints so I will not rehash. As I have stated I like a majority of SBC lay members was unaware or did not follow the SBC leadership actions certainly not the ERLC. I went to Church and trusted the leadership was doing the right thing. I do not know much about Richard Land other than he was associated with the SBC and when I did hear him on radio I agreed with him, which is what the average SBC layperson status was, Mr. Land was in the past and I have no input or can change that . As I mentioned earlier I became aware of Dr. Moore by a Washington Post article and I started my following of his actions and writings. As a lay member and I will say “average” SBC member from the Bible Belt that Moore survived I was and am upset of his intemperate remarks , his tone and scornful rancor directed at Trump and people who made a political decision to vote for Trump. Dr. Moore berated and wrote about the folly of getting into partisan politics with the Moral Majority which I agreed with but then when heavy into partisan primary politics. I do not know but I doubt if Mr. Land ever attacked a political candidate and his supporters in the personal, demeaning way Moore attacked Trump and his supporters, again I do not know but this is what I surmise. Again my viewpoint on the Mosque issue was stay out it however that is absolutely the least of my problems with Dr. Moore. My personal view is Dr. Moore has a low opinion to the “rank and file” Baptist members who would dare support Trump which the vast majority did. Looking into his Ferguson Mo. articles before the true facts came out and again the generalizations and straw man, non identified people in articles he writes gives me great concern. Again the lack of transparency (I was not aware of), the lack of financial accountability to the general membership and the haughty arrogant attitude of Dr. Moore gives me great concern. It started with really following what Dr. Moore was up to. Still think the average SBC member would be shocked we do not what we pay the SBC leadership, their total compensation. Why are they different than my pastor? If it ever comes out , I think we will find out it is shockingly generous with many perks. Again I was unaware of any of this until I started paying attention to ERLC activity. His recent hire of the fired Tn. Republican Chairman ( a Never Trumper) gives me concern for instance . The gentleman was fired by the Republican for his absolute anti Trump attitude. He was hired into a “new” position and makes $750,000 a year ( I made that up because no one outside of the inner circle knows what he is paid). I think Dr. Moore has opened the Pandora box into SBC leadership operations need to be explored, explained and presented to the SBC members who support the SBC. The love and support of missions led most of us to not question too much as I truly thought the majority of SBC effort and resources was mission support.
But, he’s apologized for the tone of his rancor – But trust me when I say this if he were to apologize for the substance of what he said in the calling out of a rank and moral, vile, Canada at home garner the support of many many evangelical leaders and laypeople despite repeated calls from the Southern Baptist convention against such types of persons when they were Democrats… So actually for Russell Moore to speak out against Donald Trump was absolutely in keeping with Southern Baptist official thought and resolutions passed at various conventions.
I will not rehash the multiplicity of reasons Donald Trump should not have been supported, in my view, by Southern Baptist… But for you or anyone else to act as if Russell Moore was speaking outside of what Southern Baptist have consistently said for many many years regarding political candidates is a bit disingenuous.
Richard Land was deeply involved in politics – partisan politics – avid republican politics – and it was never a problem until Russell Moore there to speak out against the Republican nominee.
I have numerous disagreements ( so I will say it’s typically more about process and tactic than principle) with some of the stances of Russell Moore – and I have spoken of such on this form and others many times – but I cannot for the life of me understand why there is all the angst against him reLative to his stands for universal religious liberty and opposition to a gravely immoral presidential candidate who was actively courting and bragging about his hold on the Southern Baptist and Evangelical vote.
Clearly and Unequivocally both of these stances Moore took are historically *standard* and *consistent* with Southern Baptist stances.
I actually find a little agreement with some of the anti-more people in that I think his tactics and his demeanor certainly could have and should have been better… But the stances that he took, I agree with them or not, were consistent with what Southern Baptist have officially claimed to believe.
Edit of first paragraph above (2/20 – 12:55)
Russell Moore has rightly apologized for the tone of his rhetoric…But trust me when I say this if he were to apologize for the substance of what he said in the calling out of a rank immoral, vile candidate Who was strangely garnering the support of many many evangelical leaders and laypeople despite repeated calls from the Southern Baptist convention against such types of persons when they were Democrats he would be committing a grave error. So actually for Russell Moore to speak out against Donald Trump was absolutely in keeping with Southern Baptist official thought and resolutions passed at various conventions.
Tarheel:
I note that you said that Dr. Moore “has rightly apologized for the tone of his rhetoric”.
That’s not accurate.
Dr. Moore apologized for wrongfully criticizing Christians who did not deserve it.
Here’s what Dr. Moore said:
“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. ”
“So, if you voted but your conscience wouldn’t allow you to vote for either major candidate, don’t stand in judgment over a Christian who prayerfully came to a different conclusion. ”
“[W]e all owe it to our brothers and sisters in Christ to understand their convictions and be slow to judgment when biblical motivations are the primary motivators. In the heat of an extraordinarily divisive campaign, that is something all of us, myself included, are wise to remember.”
I strongly believe that Dr. Moore’s apology should be accepted. He is young. He has a young staff. The SBC is diverse, and great care needs to be taken to avoid the appearance of telling people for whom they can vote with a clear Christian conscience.
But it is also important to be accurate when we speak of why Dr. Moore apologized.
Dr. Moore did not say it was because of his “tone”.
Dr. Moore’s apology will only have its intended effect if, when repeated, it is repeated accurately.
Without doing so, we run the risk of making Dr. Moore’s apology ineffective.
Some, as you see, are not inclined to accept the apology. We shouldn’t make it harder by making confusing statements about the apology.
Louis: I thought Dr. Moore’s apology ok. You say he is young, as if he doesn’t know what he is saying. He’s 45 Louis. That is quite old enough to have some wisdom and Dr. Moore articulates very well. He chooses his words wisely, so to dismiss him is doing yourself a disservice. He was taking a moral stand, using Christian principles. He got blasted for it. It’s always fine to blast Calvinists, or non-Believers or other groups, but God forbid if the guns turn on them. That’s the height of hypocrisy. Pulling funds if led by God is one thing, but this is not a God led decision. This is a bully made decision from someone used to getting his own way.
My comment about Dr. Moore was complimentary.
Remember the first rule about having a productive dialogue with someone with whom you disagree. Represent your counterpart ‘s views accurately.
I have not said or implied most of what you say I said.
This was Dr. Moore’s first foray into a Presidential election. I am sure the next time will look very different.
We are already seeing a different Russell Moore on the way he reacted to the refugee/immigration executive order. And that is a good thing.
I am still at a loss to see how RM’s articulated view ( and lets assume underlying philosophy of actions) of Religious liberty is not Biblical, appropriate, and thoroughly Baptist??? Can someone show me where this is case?
https://vimeo.com/190441714
Tarheel,
First, i am not against R Moore.
I am addressing what you call the underlying philosophy of religious liberty as being Biblical.
Let us separate two distinct actions. One is Christians using the government to hinder unchristian religious choices [like a zoning committee prohibiting a mosque due to parking]. The other is stepping inland in some way aiding an unchristian religion in any way [such as filing an amicus brief].
The first way is clearly unbiblical for our weapons of warfare are not as the world’s. We are not to use secular means to combat spiritual problems. And a competing religion is a spiritual problem.
But note RM’s reasoning for the second action: stepping into the fray in some way on behalf of an unchristian religion:he doesn’t want to give government the sword to use against religion so that they will not use it against us.
That is not a biblical argument but a secular one. And certainly not a universal argument [which shows therefore it is not biblical]. The Scriptures tell us this in 1st Timothy 2:
“First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.”
Who are we to rely on for a tranquil and quiet life but God. Our we to direct our prayers and petitions to the government? No. Rather to God.
Thus the Word tells us that we are to desire a tranquil and peaceful life and that we are to rely on Him for it. And as we look down through history we see that many times Goad has provided it for His people. And many times He has not. And even today, He is not providing it in some places in this world.
The Scriptural mandate then is to seek such a life from God, but as reality presents itself, not to expect it. But to be thankful for it if we receive that blessing from God.
No where in the Word that I have found are we to use secular means to fulfill this spiritual happening. Do you think the government will care if we have in the past supported religious freedom when they decide to persecute us? uh, No! If God is not commanding us to seek such freedom through secular means, should we seek it that way? Again, No!
What Moore propagated was a worldly wise argument, not a Biblical argument.
Yes he was right that we shouldn’t use secular means to fight spiritual battles, but he was wrong when he uses secular means to gain spiritual blessings.
God commands us to seek Him for those blessings.
Tarheel:
I don’t believe his view is different.
I am not upset by the mosque thing. That’s the ERLC’s job. I didn’t think the IMB should have weighed in, especially without Trustee deliberation. Platt has come around to that view as well.
Mike,
Watch the video again. He didn’t argue we should look to the govt. for blessing.
Louis,
Agreed.
As you stated Moore was absolutely right to involve the ERLC. This is not an issue at all and shouldn’t be.
I’ll also add that RM was ALSO right to speak out as he did during the campaign…
As for Platt – I said before that reasonable people, like you, feel that it was distracting and unwise – perhaps it was -to join the brief – but i contend it was not wrong or inappropriate for the IMB to do so.
I said in another discussion that Dr. Platt has demonstrated to us great humility and leadership in his apology – despite having done nothing wrong and still being willing to work with the board in developing a procedure/protcol so such fall out doesn’t happen again.
Tarheel,
Before i address that, let me point out where conflates two different things.
He says that if we do not stand up for religious freedom we can not witness the Gospel to a people we are trying to run out of town. Those are two different things: [a]not standing up for religious freedom and [b] trying to run them out of town. TWO separate actions. One is NOT doing something and the other is DOING something. We are NOT to using secular means to fight spiritual battles, hence we should not seek to run them out of town. But neither are we commanded anywhere to speak up for anti-christian religions as if there is any freedom whatsoever in their spiritual worship.
That the Muslims [say] should have a freedom to worship is not a Christian idea. It is a secular idea. There is no freedom in the worship of Allah. We should in no way help anyone to be enslaved to false god.
That was around the 1:40 mark.
Right after that he speaks of “self-sabotaging”.
Now granted he isn’t saying the EXACT words that we should be looking to the government for blessing, but what is he saying:
He is saying we should not give the government the sword to coerce the conscience on religious matters. And that if we do that sword will be turned on us. [around the 2:00 -2:04 mark]
BUT we can not give the government that sword, we have not that power [as a church]. That is a secular idea that the citizens of the USA decide of which we as citizens can weigh in on through the political means currently available.
Neither should we fear as a church, and thus as believers, if [and probably when] that sword is turned against us. Thus our actions in this sphere should not be driven by fear, especially since we have not a Biblical mandate to seek religious freedom for others to worship false gods.
In the theocracy of old, it was godly for the Israeli kings and high priests to tear down the altars Baal or any other god. Since we are not in a theocracy, we have no mandate to that but rather we have a mandate to fight spiritual battles with spiritual weapons. The city council nor an amicus brief do not qualify. Those are secular means to supposedly further the Gospel, and thus we have no grounds for using them but rather we do have grounds to shun from using them.
Now RM says that not wanting religious liberty for others is because we think we are a basically Christian nation but we know that we are not but we are a missionary church. [near the end]
Now some just want the government to fight ONLY for Christian freedom of religion and against any other such ‘freedom’. Given those attitudes, he is right in what we are: we are not a Christian nation but pilgrims in the land. But the way to have the blessing of God of religious liberty IS NOT to fight for it for all religions. Again, that is a secular understanding of freedom, and it proclaims we are dependent on the good graces of our government for religious liberty.
Rather, the truth is we are dependent on God ALONE for this blessing. Some need not fear giving the sword to government lest we be self defeating. In God’s own plan and wisdom, He has granted us this freedom for the time being, and our response should not be to seek it for others that we might keep to for ourselves , BUT as the Word of God tells us:
“First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior”
Thus we are to thank Him for the blessing, since He controls kings and authorities, and we are to pray to Him that He would move in the hearts of men to act to continue this blessing, and we should pray that our brothers and sisters around the world also be benefited by this blessing since many are not.
For you know, even as we have seen in the past, that there may be a time when for His glory and for His church and for the unsaved elect that God should remove this blessing from us and allow us here in America to be persecuted for the Name. At that possible time, neither God, nor the government, will care about any amicus brief, even if there are many.
Tarheel,
How does petitioning a secular court concerning a secular law enable us to keep a blessing that has a supernatural origin [its from God]?
Instead of petitioning the secular court, we should be petitioning the heavenly Lord.
Instead we put our name and His on the idea that there IS a freedom of worship to what we say in other places are false gods and a religion that leads one to everlasting fire. On the one hand we call it a freedom to worship Allah, while on the other hand we say there isn’t an Allah. On the one hand we call it a freedom to worship, and on the other hand, a slavery to sin and death.
And on the one hand we say we trust in God alone, and on the other hand we self defeat by fearing the sword of the government may be turned on us otherwise.
It most certainly seems to me that by venturing into the secular field and seeking spiritual blessing through secular means we are NOT promoting the Gospel but confusing the very people we seek to reach with the Gospel. For a huge amount of the USA sees all religions as simply variants of each other. And they see them as psychological constructs and not as spiritual avenues to eternal life.
As a pastor of an SBC church in Alabama, I am deeply grateful for Russell Moore and I support his leadership at the ERLC. I don’t know how this controversy will end, but I hope through patience, prayer, and grace, we can turn down the heat of the anger and retract actions to financially harm the convention because of these political differences. The ERLC has not deviated from affirming a strong pro-life ethic, has stood firm that marriage should be heterosexual, has championed compassion for immigrants while acknowledging the need for improved national security, and has been consistent with historic Baptist principles on religious liberty. Furthermore, Dr. Moore has challenged us to be consistent in maintaining the importance of character and morality in our elected officials. I understand how people are upset because of how these concerns were addressed during the most contentious presidential election I can remember, but this backlash against Russell Moore way over the top. How has the ERLC under Dr. Moore’s leadership contradicted biblical principles? If he started advocating for funding Planned Parenthood, or if he hired Milo Yiannopoulos to the ERLC staff, or if he was carrying banners in an anti-Trump rally, I could understand the reaction. He hasn’t done any of those things! Can we take a deep breath and hit pause on the witch-hunt?
Tarheel:
Platt is doing a great job.
And I will concede that the Trump phenomenon is quite a curve ball for folks to handle.
Pride and arrogance are rampant, and have been for years, in the SBC.
I appreciate the calls to “prayer” from Gaines and Floyd; but how about someone standing up with the guts and calling this denomination to repentance from pride? Calling us to humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God?
God shares His glory with no man.
ParsonMike,
I like the way you stated things….we can talk about freedom of religion all day, but if we Baptists do our part to sustain idol worship that leads to an eternal hell, I can’t imagine we have done much good for the sake of “freedom”.
“we can talk about freedom of religion all day, but if we Baptists do our part to sustain idol worship that leads to an eternal hell, I can’t imagine we have done much good for the sake of “freedom”.”
Do you feel the same about support for allegiance to devout Jews who are practicing false religion?
How about charasmatic churches who pervert the gospel?
The liberal baptist church down the road.
Are any or none of these worthy of religious liberty? They’re paving the road to hell so you’d be fine with zoning laws zoning them out of existence or inhibiting thier expansion?
Tarheel,
No one is WORTHY of religious liberty.
But there is a difference between ACTIVELY seeking to run Muslims or Mormons or Jews or Pentecostals out of town by using zoning issues or some other secular means AND getting involved in calling slavery-in-worship freedom-of religion AND going to bat for such a misnomer.
If the goal of fighting for religious [so-called] freedom is to protect our own freedom of worship here in the USA, then we are as guilty of using secular methods to fight spiritual battles as the Christians who use town councils to zone out Mosques. We are to rely on God for the blessing of freedom to worship in peace and to appeal to Him not a secular court.
The idea that people deserve the freedom to worship the god of their choice is not godly but secular. God alone deserves worship and it is a sin to worship any thing less. We should not be in any way supporting such sin EVEN if it means we ourselves will be persecuted by the world as we seek to worship the One True Lord of all.
Reminds me (true story) of the zealous Christian who was observed on his knees praying by his car which had a flat tire, in the rain no less. Alas, God didn’t change or heal the tire.Someone had to get his hands dirty for the devoted gentleman to get home.
I accept that there are those who for their own conscience decline to actively defend religious liberty. Fine. The rest of us will spend our money, take the criticism, and get our hands dirty.
There isn’t much of a discussion to be had on the subject with the anti-Islam crowd, the super spiritual, the theocrats, or the uninformed, although with the latter one holds out some hope of persuasion.
Moore was right as rain in saying that this case isn’t one of the hard ones.
William,
Agreed.
Mike,
So clearly you feel that we should never be working “in the secular arena” as it relates to our laws and certainly not with regard to
Universal religious liberty.
Ok. Got it.
I disagree.
Respectfully, I can live with our disagreeing.
Tarheel,
Of course you can live with this disagreement brother.
And we can still love each other and keep each other in prayer.
William,
We have a basic disagreement.
You think we should be defending religious liberty.
And you think by seeking to defend it for those who wish to further their bondage to sin and they and others call it [ex: like building a Mosque] freedom to worship is the way [or one way] to do it.
I think that such actions will do nothing to further our religious liberty. Helping fix another flat tire [as they seek to commit a crime] will not aid you when your tire becomes flat. And this is for two reasons: Aiding others in their pursuit of false gods does not give them liberty and thus does not further the Gospel, and second, when [and if] the government or society here in the USA turns against true worship, they will not care how many amicus briefs we have filled for others.
Our religious liberty is not because we invoke it for others or because we are good citizens of the USA but due to God alone. Where in the entire Bible did the people of God seek for the ‘liberty’ of others to worship false gods? No where.
And is it loving my neighbor to aid them in their destruction? Of course not, EVEN if they think they are walking in life.
Since the two great commands are to love God with all and one’s neighbor as one’s self, how is our fighting for the religious freedom to worship Allah fulfilling either of those commands?
William,
Just for the record,
I am not any more anti-Islam then I am anti-Mormon or JW or any other false religion. I am not anti-immigrant nor do I fear Islamic immigrants.
And I think that Christians using zoning laws to keep a Mosque or an Islamic cemetery away as a means of spiritual warfare [or due to their fear] is wrong and unchristian.
Their is a difference between fighting against a people and aiding them in their bondage. I think both are wrong.
Dr. Moore and David Platt got the SBC into this lawsuit against the N.J. town when it was not needed . The Obama justice department was right on the case representing the mosque. It was settled in the court as a zoning issue which is very common no matter what the organization is. Towns use zoning to block Wal Marts, either for or against casinos, shopping centers and the list goes on. So this issue was not one for the SBC to be concerned with except it fits the new, open, liberal, non judgmental, we are not the 1845 slave supporting SBC anymore we are progressive , we even will even defend Muslims if it is only in a symbolic , unneeded way. There are many zoning denials in a year that rules against Christian, Jewish and other religions but they do not have the political agenda the Muslim organizations do. The Sciencetlogist in Clearwater Fl have taken over the local downtown by fighting and winning zoning denials but they did it on their own, with little publicity and absolutely no help from the SBC or any other religious organizations. They wanted to expand their influence and belief quietly and did not want any outside help, they outspent the local city. The Muslims want to create the illusion of anti Muslim actions in America, this was a purposely political ploy and played out the way the CAIR and the other Muslim organizations expected. So R. Moore and David Platt got the SBC into an issue that they decided was important but was it necessary to join an issue that most experienced lawyers knew the small town would lose because of the overwhelming power of the government representing the mosque. Will we support the Sciencetologists when Clearwater Fl has another zoning dispute with them?
In response to the article itself, I’ll tell you what changed. It is really quite simple. The possibility of electing Hillary. Does the writer not understand this? If Satan were running against Trump, and one of the two of those is going to win, would you really not vote or vote for a third party candidate? If you answer yes to either of those two options, then you cannot be reasoned with. That would be the same reasoning why Rahab the Harlot, you might argue, should have told the truth about where the spies were actually hiding. It is the same reasoning, you might argue, that the Egyptian midwives should have told Pharaoh the truth that they simply refused to tell him when the Hebrew wives were in labor. God commended Rahab and the Hebrew midwives. I would argue that God would also commend those who voted for Trump!
I still would have voted Darrell Castle. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and my conscience remains clear.
Castle got my vote.
Tom Johnson, I write this comment not so much to belabor the ongoing and tiresome (IMO) discussion about Trump and the election as to dialogue about your general proposition about the lesser-of-two-evils approach to politics in a democratic society and the supposed parallels to the Egyptian midwives and Rahab.
In 1996, Josh McDowell and Norm Geisler published an interesting book titled Love is Always Right: The Answers to Ethical Dilemmas, Challenging Situations, Difficult Decisions. The basic thesis is that we are not called upon as Christians to choose between the lesser of evils, but are rather guided by overarching principles of acting in accordance with God’s character of love (and not a sentimental, shallow understanding of love, but rather a mature, fully-orbed one).
I believe that the Egyptian midwives and Rahab responded in faith to a special revelation of God’s character (see Heb. 11). It was not, as I understand it, a rationalization for lying based on situational ethics but an act of obedience carried out in response to divine revelation. I see it as analagous, for example, to Abraham’s obedience in his intent to sacrifice Isaac. It is not a choice between two degrees of evil, but rather between obedience and disobedience based on faith or lack of faith.
Personally, I believe a vote for a third-party candidate may well be representative of such a perspective of faith—it is voting for the option one perceives to most closely approximate God’s ideal of love.
Now if you truly believe God is leading you to vote for someone like Trump, that is another story. “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”
(Romans 14:4) By the same token, though, Trump-supporters should not judge third-party voters who are following the dictates of their conscience before God.
I sent Dr. Graham, Pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, TX the following message through his website:
Dear Dr. Graham,
It is with heavy heart that I am contacting you.
I am a pastor. I am a Southern Baptist. I am a supporter of the Cooperative Program.
I recently became aware that your church is escrowing and/or withholding CP funds to political ends. That fact alone saddens me deeply.
I intend to personally contact every pastor that I hear has led their congregation to such a move. I am not endorsing or supporting anything that Dr. Moore or any of our national leaders have said or may have said about then candidate, now President Trump. I am not anti-Trump in any fashion. I voted for Trump.
What I am is conservative pro-SBC Cooperative Program missions. You have the name recognition, and political connections to make whatever point you would like to make with the EC or any of our entities’ trustees without withholding funds from our missionaries and seminary students. I believe that you are smart enough to understand that they are the ones who you are attacking by your withholding. Actions like these are far more hurtful to the Kingdom work than any stupid remark made by a leader. Every dollar you withhold hurts the furtherance of the gospel in places that will never read about or hear about SBC political scuffles.
The small church that I am privileged to serve gives 10% to CP missions. Your church gives 0.005%. That is only one half of 1%. That is the real shame that the dust up has brought to light. I will pray that you all repent from your paltry support of SBC work. A percent is a percent… that is how the CP works. To whom much has been given much will be required.
Use the respect of your name, not the $500,000 that is only 0.00573% to make your point. You’re directly withholding over 98% from the missionaries because you are upset with the ERLC. I am too, but I will not punish foreign missionaries and their families because of it. Why not double your church’s CP giving to 1%? Wouldn’t that accomplish more for the kingdom than withholding?
Pastor to pastor, Southern Baptist to Southern Baptist, It would be so much easier for you to create better news in Baptist Press, Thank you for all of your hard work for the Kingdom. My prayers are with you,
For His glory and the good of His church,
Jeffrey Robison
Pastor
Berkeley Avenue Baptist Church
Turlock, CA
Good letter, Pastor. Very well-spoken.
Pastor Robison, since you are so skilled in breaking down the math what is the % of money of the CP that goes to the salary/benefit cost to support the ERLC? The average SBC member who in good faith is giving to what they think is strictly mission support to the CP would be shocked to learn of the lack of transparency and accountability of the SBC leadership. If the ERLC ceased to exist what would be the harm to our missions program. Of course the Gospel Coalition , B21 and other none SBC groups would miss have ERLC executives attend their echo chamber events urging each other onward. I appreciate the stand of those with the influence to demand some accountability and explanation for ERLC actions. When and if the majority of SBC members become aware of SBC executive leadership there will be a major upheaval.
Keep talking Eric – your true motivations are shining through….
“Of course the Gospel Coalition , B21 and other none SBC groups would miss have ERLC executives attend their echo chamber events urging each other onward.”
Tarheel, Since becoming aware of ERLC/Moore via the secular press I followed him on his website and twitter. It does appear to me based on just his own references that there is a large segment of time and effort meeting with non SBC groups. I do not know what is involved with the arrangements for per diem, expenses, dues and associated cost of meeting/hosting these groups because it is a deep state secret. I believe that R. Moore and all the SBC are sincere in their belief and honest/trustworthy to their core so why the secrecy? I would not go to a church that would not disclose the salary/benefits of it staff. It is why this issue to me goes beyond R. Moore now and why we need more accountability/transparency of the SBC operation. After years of watching Columbo I detect you must think that I harbor anti Calvin views because I do not support the actions of R. Moore. I am a layman and have to admit other than a vague knowledge of Calvinism before I started following ERLC, SBC and Moore on the internet, I knew more about Calvin and Hobbs than John Calvin. It never occurred to me that it mattered. Having said that it does seem that there is a large number of Calvinist who have leadership positions in SBC leadership that is way out of proportion to the general membership but I only know that how because I starting following events. Since following events here and elsewhere it does seem a church seeking a new Pastor would want to know his views on Calvin, other than that I am neutral. The general lay membership of the SBC trust their local pastor, they believe the annual convention of the SBC is for the input of their representative concerns and that there is accountability and transparency in SBC finances. They will be shocked to find out this is not so. They believe that SBC representatives are representing their faith not political views to the secular world and media. I believe that if ever the average SBC in great numbers become aware of the concerns I have there will be some severe questioning.