What are we going to do about Dr. Russell Moore and the ERLC?
It seems that the main question has been answered, at least for now. The Board of Trustees of the ERLC has spoken forcefully that they are behind Dr. Russell Moore and a chastened Moore has announced his intention to go forward as president of the ERLC. The appeal for unity from Moore and the ERLC seemed to hit the right chords and most people seem ready to move forward, closing the curtain on this act and seeing what drama might exist in the next.
Dr. Russell Moore has been the most discussed, most targeted, and most vilified figure in the SBC over the last couple of years. Can we at agree that Southern Baptists do not agree about Dr. Moore’s leadership at the ERLC? I love to categorize and sort things and I have done some work sorting the opinions I have heard about the good Dr. Moore. I believe they fall along a continuum between two extremes.
I love to categorize and sort things and I have done some work sorting the opinions I have heard about the good Dr. Moore. I believe they fall along a continuum between two extremes.
The Poles
Of course, there are the poles – the ends, the extremes. Let’s establish those end points on the continuum before we identify the points along the way.
I apologize in advance for the corny labels, but I am an Iowan, after all. My backyard empties into a cornfield, though no baseball players have walked out and inquired if they are in heaven. Corny is what I do.
There are two poles, two extremes.
1. The Mooredolaters – No one is going to admit to being one of these, but you and I both know someone to whom we’d attach this label. A Mooredolater thinks every word that comes from Dr. Moore’s mouth is a golden nugget of truth. Their mantra is “Moore said it, I believe it, that settles it.” Critics of Dr. Moore may be saved by grace but will find all their works burned as wood, hay, and stubble – no reward for you!
5. The Mooredurers – No one admits to this, but there are those who stand opposed to Moore unalterably, infinitely, and eternally. Nothing but his head on a platter will satisfy them. He can apologize daily, wear sackcloth and ashes, but until the SBC house lands on him and they can sing, “Ding, dong, the Moore is dead” they will not stop.
Hyperbole? Yes. But within the inflated rhetoric is there a nugget of truth? I believe there is. On one extreme are devoted fans of Moore and on the other, fanatical opposition.
For these two groups, the apology had little effect. The Mooredolaters didn’t need it and Mooredurers won’t accept it. For them, the problem is not tone, but content. Dr. Moore can be more humble and gracious all day long, but until he recants his views and adopts theirs, they will not be satisfied. While they criticized how he spoke, their real quarrel is with what he said, what he advocates. Until they either do away with the ERLC or get someone in the office who will parrot their views, the fight will continue.
The Great Between
Here is the truth that is often forgotten in the middle of our discussions.
Most of us do not fall into either of these groups.
I have been accused of being a Mooredolater, but I’ve disagreed with Moore and have stated it publicly at times. Often, because I’ve not wanted to feed the furor of the Mooredurers, so I’ve kept my disagreements to myself or shared them with close friends. The environment is so toxic right now that giving a simple critique of a Moore statement is nearly impossible. But we must remember this.
Not every person who speaks a word of criticism against Dr. Moore is a Mooredurer.
It is important that Baptists maintain a level of accountability with our leaders, giving people the freedom to disagree with them (hopefully in a respectful way), to criticize them, and to express dissatisfaction with the direction of an entity. A healthy, godly leader gives freedom to the people he lead to disagree, even to dissent. It is never disloyal to disagree with a person in charge. This is not
Of course, in this toxic environment, the disagreements have often gone nuclear. Grace has been abandoned and we drop h-bombs on one another while spraying cover fire from our anathematization guns. Supporters go into defense mode and healthy interaction becomes impossible.
The binary syndrome is everywhere. People define everything as black and white, with no gray in between. It is essential, as we go forward, that we who support Moore listen to the reasonable critics. Not all of them are Mooredurers and they don’t deserve to be treated as if they are. Those who have set themselves beyond reason and reconciliation should be ignored by all people of good will. Titus 3:10 commands us to ignore the divisive. But we need to stop casting every person who expresses a qualm about Dr. Moore as if he or she is a full-fledged, bloodthirsty Mooredurer. It’s not fair, it’s not right, and it’s as divisive as the Mooredurers themselves.
So, what are these categories in the Great Between? I started to set out 5 categories here, but combined the middle three into one and so I have three total.
2. The Russporters – That’s what I am. I support Russell Moore and I’m thrilled that he is going to be staying on as the head of the ERLC. He has one sterling quality which endears him to me. He tends to express views that coincide with mine. I have never formed an opinion based on WWRMD (What Would Russell Moore Do), but we tend to see the world in similar ways. That speaks to Dr. Moore’s insight, intelligence and character, does it not?
I liked what Dr. Moore said about Trump because I agreed with it – nearly every word he spoke registered deeply inside me with a loud amen. I agree with him about racism and immigration and refugees and religious freedom. I’m not sure I’m fully on board with his environmental views – I’ve got to study that a little more. But most of the time, when I hear Moore speak, my spirit whispers an amen.
3. The Moorenoyed – This was the category that started as three, but has been compressed to one. It includes people who would define themselves as supporters of Moore and those who would in general not be part of the fan club but aren’t strongly opposed to him either. What this group has in common is that they were annoyed with Moore but did not necessarily want to see him lose his position at the ERLC. Some disagreed with positions he advocated while others thought his tone and attitude were sometimes lacking.
Some found fault with Moore’s positions.
- Trump voters – whether enthusiastic or reluctant – often found his anti-Trump rhetoric offensive.
- The ERLC amicus brief in the SCOTUS case about the mosque, in which the ERLC supported the principle of religious freedom, rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.
- Moore’s views on immigration and refugees do not scratch everyone where they itch.
- Moore was shaped by growing up in Baptist churches where Jesus was loved and racism was tolerated. He views racial reconciliation as not only a high priority but a “gospel issue” and that has ruffled some feathers.
- Moore believes that the SBC should not too closely identify with the religious right, the GOP, and civil religion. He wants to lead the SBC into a new approach to engaging culture.
Others were less bothered by the content of Moore’s positions than his tone. Some who share Moore’s positions questioned his tone.
- They felt that he could have done a better job of stating his views while also honoring those who disagreed.
- They felt he was overly and unnecessarily aggressive in responding to questions at the annual meeting, especially the one about the mosque.
Whether prone to support Moore or not, the Moorenoyed were provoked by his views or his tone, but not to the point they wanted him gone.
4. The Russponents – Like the Mooredurers, these folks wish someone else had his name on the door of the president’s office at the ERLC, but they are not implacable. Jack Graham would likely fit this category. He publicly and dramatically made his displeasure with Moore and the ERLC known, but seems to be willing to accept Moore’s apology and move forward. I certainly hope so. That’s the difference between a Russponent and a Mooredurer. Both wish someone else were leading the ERLC but the Russponent is willing to seek reconciliation and to apply grace in the situation. The Mooredurer is not. Nothing but Moore’s ouster will satisfy.
There are Baptists at both poles but the majority are in the Great Between.
Responding to Moore’s Unity Statement
Dr. Moore and the ERLC have taken a bold and helpful step with his appeal to unity. Now, each of these groups are responding to Moore’s appeal for unity.
- For my group, the Russporters, Dr. Moore’s apology was unnecessary but gave evidence of the character of the man we already respected.
- The greatest effect of the plea for unity might be on the Moorenoyed. Of course, Dr. Moore does not plan to repent of or apologize for his convictions, and I am thankful for that. But he has shown a desire to seek a more affirming tone in engaging those with whom he disagrees. There will always be challenges here. Donald Trump is still going to use his twitter account. The immigration and refugee issues are not going away. But if we honor one another instead of railing against one another, we do better than we did in 2016. Every person I have talked to who was in this category has been
- It’s not easy for the Russponents, and frankly, they are being asked to make a sacrifice. Dr. Moore did. He humbled himself and apologized, something that is never easy. Now, they are being asked to accept him as the leader of the ERLC even though he is not the man they would like to see at the helm. At this point, only two options exist. The ERLC has made it clear that Dr. Moore is not going away. So, we can find a way to make it work or we can blow things up. I think the majority of us would rather work together than tear down the house.
A Word to Dr. Moore
I have no idea if you ever read SBC Voices, Dr. Moore – we have never discussed anything I’ve written here. But I want to tell you that I thank you for taking the step you took. Part of me wanted to fight and seek a “win” but that way was a loss for all of us. Taking this step was not simply best, it was right.
I am grateful for your stands and your convictions and I look forward to your voice being raised to call Southern Baptists to apply God’s word in this world for many years to come.
Even on those occasions in which you fail to agree with me!
If this seems a bit “dated” – I wrote it two days ago bit we had a traffic jam of posts submitted.
Moore’s latest apology (very well done, though a bit long in length) was absolutely needed because the last one was poorly worded. Maybe he will display a more unifying tone going forward, but I think his convictions will ultimately lead to more criticism about both him personally and the supposed need for the ERLC.
He said last year that someone referred to him as the “evangelical pope”. Unfortunately, I think a lot of his supporters (unintentionally) see him in that way. Is this what’s best for the SBC? If the ERLC leader continues to effect divisiveness throughout the denomination (regardless of intention or person leading), I think eliminating the ERLC should be an option on the table.
Option #5 illustrated.
Long?
It wasn’t half the length of most of my posts.
A year or so ago I was in the moorenoyed camp – disagreeing with some of the positions he took but no where near the point of desiring to see him moordured.
I’m more in the Russporter camp now though – while I still do not see eye to eye with him on several issues (or at least his application) I greatly appreciate his conviction and willingness to say unpopular things.
RM makes me think. He leads me to consider and reconsider not just what I think about issues of ethics, RL, and cultural engagement – but WHY I believe it – that’s important and necessary. Not just for me but, I think for everyone.
Sometimes such reconsideration leads me to change or adapt my views…other times the reconsideration actually ends up reinforcing what I think that’s different than what Dr. Moore thinks. That’s OK – actually, as I said, a good thing.
I’d say if Moore can get Tarheel to reconsider his views, what more evidence do we need??? 😉 Appreciate you Tarheel and I feel the same way. I’ve been challenged by Moore before, sometimes adjusting my position, sometimes not, but I need that.
LOL.
Good article, Dave. I would love to have open discussion about Islam and the SBC position articulated by Russell Moore, and seemingly agreed to by you. This is one of the areas in which I have the most disagreement with Moore. It appears to me that Moore and others like him are completely naive in their approach to Islam. It seems that he, and others like him, completely ignore the voices of those who know Islam best. My church is located 15 minutes from Dearborn, MI, which has the highest concentration of Muslims in the North American hemisphere. We have specific ministries designed to reach our Muslim neighbors. We have missionaries attending our church who live in Dearborn for the express purpose of evangelizing Muslims. I have former Muslims, who are now Christian apologists, attending my church. We offer regular classes regarding understanding Islam and how to engage with Muslims for the purpose of the Gospel. In short, we have spent considerable time on this subject due to our location and proximity to Muslim neighbors. Having said all that, I would like to ask you this question. Would you be OK, if America eventually became a nation dominated by Islamic culture and law? Would you be OK with sharia eventually overcoming our Judeo-Christian based system of laws and cultural ethos? Now, I’m not suggesting that this is going to happen tomorrow as I ask you this question. I’m just asking you if, in your opinion, Christians ought to be OK with this eventually happening here in America? Ayaan Hirsi Ali once said, “Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a theory of political conquest that seeks domination by any means it can.” I mention this quote because, as I’ve already stated, there is an incredible ignorance and seeming naivety to the uniqueness of Islamic doctrine and goals. And, In my opinion, Russell Moore as well as those who tend to agree with him, seem to continuously ignore the voices of those who know Islam best – those who were once in it and have come out of it. Never, ever… Not even ONCE have I seen Moore quote Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dr. Zudhi Jasser, and others like them who have been warning America about the true nature and intentions of Islam. Honestly, I’m trying to see if we could have this conversation by starting at some point of… Read more »
First, let me say I appreciate your work in reaching your community. No criticism there. Thanks for being on the front line in your area.
To your question about Ali and Jasser specifically, I wonder if it has to do with the fact that Ali is an atheist and Jasser does not contradict what the amicus brief was attempting to do.
Jasser in particular seems to differentiate between the political Islam and the Islamic religion.
In my area of the country, I see no move amongst the Muslim community to want or advocate for Sharia law. That would require a takeover of the US government. I don’t see that happening so no I am not afraid of that happening
Thanks for the response.
I agree with you that at this point there is no move to take over the US govt. But, once again, you must understand the nature of Islam. What I’m about to say isn’t conspiracy theory, it is known by all who do a deep-dive into Islamic theology, culture, and jurisprudence.
Islamists will NEVER make this type of a move until they have sufficient population in place FIRST. This is why there is an actual Islamic doctrine called “Hijrah” which is the doctrine of migration. It parallels the journey of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Yathrib, later renamed by him to Medina, in the year 622. It is still taught in Madrassas and Mosques all across the globe. Once there is sufficient population in place the pressure will mount on the host population.
This is why I asked the specific question I asked of Dave and I’ll ask it of you as well. I’m not asking if you see at this time the Muslim population advocating for Sharia law. Why? Because they will not do so at this time because they know they don’t have the numbers in place to do so.
However, in the future, they fully intend to have those numbers in place, and once they do so, you can be sure that pressure will mount to make those types of changes. Any nation that allows the Muslim population to get to 20% of total population will eventually be overcome and become dominated by Islam after a great deal of turmoil and unrest. This is simply a historical reality.
Should Christians be OK with this as an eventuality in our nation? Should we only use Evangelism to attempt to thwart this type of eventuality? Or, should Christians fight, through the laws and courts, to protect America from this becoming a reality in the future?
I’m sincerely asking you where you fall on these types of questions because I think these questions are at the heart of the disagreement among Christian brothers on this subject. Unfortunately, nobody seems able to discuss it openly and honestly without people immediately becoming defensive, angry and accusatory.
That’s not my goal in these questions at all.
With the terrorism in the UK and the rape by an undocumented immigrant, these issues are going to be back on the front burner.
[Should Christians be OK with this as an eventuality in our nation? Should we only use Evangelism to attempt to thwart this type of eventuality? Or, should Christians fight, through the laws and courts, to protect America from this becoming a reality in the future?]
I agree with the latter; evangelism shouldn’t be considered the only solution in this case.
I was disappointed in Moore’s views on this…both his puzzling response at the annual meeting last year about the amicus brief and also his criticism of Gerald Harris’ article that correctly labeled Islam as a geo-political movement.
Was the United States Constitution meant to serve as a cultural and societal suicide pact with those whose worldview will enable them to use your own laws and freedom to demolish your civilization and replace it with their own?
Baptists, you REALLY need to wrestle with the question.
Dan McGee: For me personally, there is nothing to wrestle with. I agree with Bart, Dave, Allan Cross, and Dr. Moore who have all written on this.
We are not called to fear, we certainly are not called to fear for our own lives and frankly this kind of scenario has been pained about all Muslims for over 10 years, at least since the 9/11 attack. It has proven false then and I believe it is false now. And I do believe evangelism to be the end answer. To love at the least. But to pain all Muslims in the light you are painting with so called “experts” is fear mongering and I refuse to live this way.
Debbie,
With all due respect, you’ve just illustrated quite well why these conversations are difficult to have. You’ve just accused me and others of being motivated by fear. But you couldn’t be more wrong. I’m not afraid of Muslims at all. We have them in our church on a regular basis where we teach them English, free sewing classes, and we offer citizenship classes to immigrants in our area. To be blunt, you are clueless about this matter.
This is not a matter of fear but this is a matter for Christians to be called to wisdom. To put your head in the sand and not be willing to face reality is to live life as an abject fool. Proverbs has much to say about being a fool. I don’t want to be a fool and neither should you.
My guess is you know absolutely nothing about actual Islamic doctrine. I’m not talking about Muslim people which happened to be very nice in my area. And we love their food and we enjoy friendships with many of them. I’m referring to the dogma. The actual teachings that are being given in various mosques. I’m talking about the actual teachings of the Prophet Mohamed himself has taught in the Koran as well as the various Hadiths.
Frankly, if you had to look up the word “Hadith” just now, then you have no business participating in this conversation because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Dan: In my opinion this has nothing to do with Christian wisdom. It is based on conjecture and uses fear as the motivator to believe.
BTW: Your guess would be wrong. Very wrong. There are numerous variations of interpretations by Muslims of the Koran just as there are numerous interpretations of the Bible by Christianity and to paint all Muslims with the same brush is wrong and irresponsible. It has nothing to do with Christian wisdom as Christian wisdom tells us not to bear false witness and to not fear but to love, give the Gospel and keep our eyes on Christ.
The exact same rhetoric has been used to oppose the immigration of the Irish, the Chinese, and others over the course of 200+ years of the American experiment. The fear mongering against Muslims is just the latest version.
Once again I appreciate the work you are doing, but your interactions you have detailed with Muslims speaks AGAINST the people you keep referencing as “experts.”
Just like most Christians are not hyper-fundamentalists or theonimists, most Muslims are not seeking to impose Sharia law, or to change societies to follow Islamic law. Yes there are disturbing passages in the Koran. There are also disturbing passages in the writings and histories of Calvin, Luther, etc.
To assign the political/sharia aspirations of a small ministry to ALL Muslims is logically inconsistent.
Well said Abaslom.
Dan,
Let me take you at your word- is not about fear.
But then what is it about? You cite Christian wisdom, but that doesn’t say what it is about.
Let me guess: is about preserving America as a Christian nation. Just a guess. Forgive me if I am wrong and then correct me.
Well that ship had sailed. The churches are turning ever more liberal, the people spend more time watching sports than reading the Word and going to church, and many who call themselves of Christ, engage in divorce, pornography, and agreed with abortion. That’s just too name a few.
The reality is that this not a Christ honoring country. So seeking to preserve it in name only is a farce.
So what in your wisdom do you think it is about since you claim it isnt about fear?
I posed this question earlier…
“Having said all that, I would like to ask you this question. Would you be OK, if America eventually became a nation dominated by Islamic culture and law? Would you be OK with sharia eventually overcoming our Judeo-Christian based system of laws and cultural ethos?
Now, I’m not suggesting that this is going to happen tomorrow as I ask you this question. I’m just asking you if, in your opinion, Christians ought to be OK with this eventually happening here in America?”
Only one person has answered it. Others accuse me of fear or lacking love. OK. This is actually quite a typical response from those who refuse to think deeply through the issue.
I can love my neighbors as myself and still lock my doors at night before I go to bed without being accused of living in fear, can’t I? Why is this? Because we understand the nature of the fallen, sinful, world in which we live. This is called “wisdom.”
I can open my eyes to what is happening in France, Germany, Sweden, and other European nations and gain wisdom from what I see occurring there as a result of unfettered immigration policy. Or, I can keep my head in the sand, call others around me fearful and unloving, and go on my merry way.
I can recognize that what we are discussing has more to do with ideology than it does race, though many want to make this a matter of race, when it really isn’t. The fact is that Islamic doctrine is just as supremacist (if you read the writings of its founder and other source materials) as any white, nationalist, supremacist, organization that has ever existed. It has Jew-hatred built into its very fabric. It has as stated goals the domination of the world and it has specific doctrines that advocate the actual means of this world-wide domination. It is a Satanic ideology that has an evangelistic strategy just as central to it as Christianity’s evangelistic emphasis.
So again, does anyone want to actually answer my above question? If not, that’s OK. I’ll just move along and not waste any more time here.
Dan,
Our concern above all others should be the proclamation of the Gospel.
Now I wish all countries were Christian but none are. America isn’t Christian, it’s hedonistic. Why is that better Muslim?
Of all the false god Idol worshipping ways of man, why do you single out Islam?
You ask questions but you won’t answer them,
Dan,
A few thousand years ago or so, most Israelis would have thought it wrong for Assyria to invade and conquer their land. But God had it done and with good reason: the people claimed to be of Him but were living rebellious lives in much soon and Idol worship.
God, in righteous judgment, had the heathen horde come and overcome the land.
If Islam were to come to America and overthrow the land, it would also be a judgment of God on our sin. No amount of amicus briefs unfiled or immigrants turned away can stop God’s will from being carried out.
So Dan, no wants to see Islam take over America. But what letterpress us safe, and keeps our freedom to worship unhindered is NOT politicians or judges or anything secular at all, not even the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, but God alone.
This the efforts to secure either or both the future of America and our freedom to worship openly without hindrance by secular means is unfounded and not in line with the Word of God. (Although it is in line with SBC thought).
Dan McGhee and Mike Crane pose a lot of questions relative to religious liberty and Islam. As Southern Baptists both, they represent a growing strain of religious liberty critics in our denomination. I have no issue with their commenting here even if the drive by nature of their stuff gets tedious and repetitive; however, their questions are framed and IMO unworthy of answers until either or both of them are willing to state exactly how the religious liberty of Muslims in America (or any other religion which in their legal, constitutionally protected practices runs afoul of government) should be restricted.
The question is deemed unworthy by me as it is being asked on a ‘what if’ basis.
Muslims have been in America since the 1880’s. None of what he has predicted has happened. The way Dan thinks has the Muslims damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they do nothing but keep doing what they are doing, owning businesses, abiding by the law etc. then they are still dangerous because they are just waiting until there are enough of them to cause massive terrorism.
If there is another bout of terrorism then he claims he was right and all Muslims are responsible. This is why no one, or at least me, has not answered the question. It’s hyperbolic and a rumor that is being spread that is simply not true. Thus the fear mongering to those who buy it.
I ignored you in another thread when you were insinuating that I need to butt-out of the convo if I’m not SBC by asking if our church is SBC or not. Unfortunately, I ignored my better judgment and engaged you in this thread. I won’t do so any further.
Dan: I am not telling you to butt out. I am simply saying that your question is hypothetical and this is why I did not answer it.
I also think William has a good point. Of course I usually think William has good points.
Dan, I didn’t insinuate anything. I asked you a couple of times if you were SBC, a legitimate question to ask when there is a discussion about an SBC entity and the firing or retention of an SBC entity head. It shouldn’t offend anyone on *SBC* Voices to be asked if they are a part of a Southern Baptist church. Had you not been SBC (I’ve since learned, I think, that you are) I would have asked why you feel the need to have an opinion on it. I’ve never asked anyone to ‘butt out.’
You are free not to answer what I ask of you and Mike Crane. I doubt you have thought it through…but who knows?
“Would you be OK, if America eventually became a nation dominated by Islamic culture and law? Would you be OK with sharia eventually overcoming our Judeo-Christian based system of laws and cultural ethos?”
Emphatically, NO.
Speaking out for religious liberty for Muslims who are here legally, however, does not constitute advocacy for Sharia Law. The question appears to be framed in a manner so as to conflate the two.
If our government is allowed to dispense with the First Amendment in relation to Islam, it may just as easily dispense with the First Amendment in relation to Christianity. And given that we are most assuredly NOT a Christian nation, there are many who would happily do so.
The Mooredurers who oppose Dr. Moore on this issue seem woefully unaware of the rather sordid history of the relationship between government and religion–and even less aware of the historic Baptist position on religious liberty.
There are a number of very good reasons the First Amendment is the First Amendment. And most of those reasons are very Baptisty.
^ Well said.
Good OP, Dave. Put me down as a Russporter.
The fact that he often agrees with you sealed the deal for me.
One of the true marks, unmistakable, of high intellect and wisdom.
I have to agree with Dave here.
Although I largely agree with the Daveicism of Trump, I still voted for him. But I also agree with the Millerpinion in support of Moore.