text:
Moore, who heads the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and has been relatively quiet since the election, declined to comment for this article. Page declined to discuss the plan for Monday’s meeting, but he indicated that he would not rule out the possibility that he could ask Moore to resign. He said he hopes Moore and his opposition will agree to pursue efforts toward reconciliation.
This is both not surprising and stunning. It’s not surprising, because the old-guard conservatives in the SBC have had it out for Moore over his criticism of Donald Trump and Evangelical support for him. After the Trump victory, Moore’s job status has been up in the air. Judging from the Post story, it could all be coming to a head today in the meeting with Frank Page.
What’s stunning about this is the blow Moore’s firing, if it comes to that, will be to Southern Baptist credibility and witness. I’ve made no secret of my admiration for Russell Moore, whom I also consider a personal friend (I have not talked to him since reading the Post story). He’s a theological and social conservative in a new mold, and whether or not I agree with him on specific policy positions, I believe he is a model for Christian conservative public engagement. If the Southern Baptist Convention removes him from the presidency of the ERLC, it will signal a dramatic win for the old-guard Religious Right within the nation’s largest Protestant denomination. It will also spark the biggest war within the Southern Baptist Convention since the 1990s fight between conservatives and liberals.
I had read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and its sequels as a child, and found something solid there. As the other Inklings knew, the Narnia series wasn’t great literature or a carefully constructed myth such as Middle Earth was. My experience was similar to that of science fiction writer Neil Gaiman: “The weird thing about the Narnia books for me was that mostly they seemed true,” as if they “were reports from a real place.” So when, in the middle of my spiritual crisis, I saw the name C. S. Lewis on the spine of a book called Mere Christianity, I was willing to give him a chance—and he saved my life. Mere Christianity is not the City of God or the Summa Theologica or the Institutes of the Christian Religion. It didn’t need to be. All I needed was for this drinking, smoking, probably dancing and card-playing man on another continent to tell me the truth, to point me to a broad, bustling Church that took serious questions seriously and could be traced all the way back to an empty hole in the ground in the Middle East.
Most faiths that persist are tested and questioned and tempted along the way. But for me, the question was whether I was a beloved son or a cosmic orphan. It seems to me that my spiritual crisis is similar to a larger one that threatens to engulf religious conservatism in America. The religious right—whether we trace it to the school prayer skirmishes of the 1960s or the segregation academy controversies of the 1970s or the response to Roe v. Wade and the sexual revolution—was always a multifaceted coalition. After all, Jerry Falwell adopted Paul Weyrich’s language of a “moral majority” because the movement encompassed not just born-again Protestants but also many traditional Roman Catholics and Latter-day Saints and Orthodox Jews. But while the movement was in many ways informed by sources such as John Paul II’s theology of the body and Richard John Neuhaus’s The Naked Public Square, the entrepreneurial energy almost always came from Evangelical Protestantism. For that and other reasons, American Evangelicalism is enmeshed with the religious right psychologically, institutionally, and in terms of reputation in ways the Catholic bishops, the Mormon apostles, and Orthodox rabbis just aren’t.
The fate of religious conservatism is important, though, and not merely for its own sake. Ross Douthat is quite right that America—left and right—needs a strong religious conservative movement. The religious right, at its best, modeled the kind of civic engagement and civil society that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wanted for this country. At its best, the religious right reminded all of us that there are realities more important than political or economic success; that we are a nation under God, one that can be weighed in the balance and found wanting. At its best, the religious right kept the focus on a vulnerable minority that easily becomes invisible to those with power: unborn children. Douthat is correct that without some form of religious right, the space left behind can all too easily be filled by European-style ethno-nationalism or Nietzschean social Darwinism. The religious right must, in some form, be saved. But how and in what form? That question, of course, brings us to the 2016 presidential election.
We know how that turned out. And we now see that that result could have serious consequences for Russell Moore. Read the entire lecture, and you will be able to understand the battle lines within the Southern Baptist Convention — if Moore is fired, that is. There are a lot of younger Southern Baptists who are not willing to return to the Republican Party at Prayer mode of public engagement. I hope the SBC leadership pulls back. This conflict, and its resolution, will have a serious impact beyond the SBC. It will determine the future of Christian conservatism in America.
Posted in Christianity, Culture war, All Things Trump. Tagged Christianity, conservatism, Russell Moore, Southern Baptist Convention.
Atlantic & Scientology: What Did They Do Wrong?
Even if you voted for Trump, for whatever your reasons, playing the doxxing game is as bad whether you’re SJW or SBC.
I don’t appreciate being blacklisted, and I’m not going to support doing it to anyone because he had trouble with voting for the President and outlined the reasons why, especially to a person with the theological integrity of a Russell Moore.
Not wrong, but nuts, so dismiss them.
Remember this when people (e.g. RHE) dismiss you as a bigot or whatever, and don’t bother engaging with your ideas.
If you want to pretend that to be a Southern Baptist, you first have to be a rock-ribbed Republican, and a flag-waving, gun displaying Son of the Confederacy with faith in Christ optional or even out of the question, then you might think so. But that’s nuts.
To Mr Wells and others: I’m sure that Southern Baptists are glad to be shown the way to repentance for their true sins (as defined by the Bible). But being told that you’re a bad person because you want control of the borders (‘cuz after all, Jesus was an immigrant) is silly, that’s liberal Christian stuff.
That is one powerful lecture.
Will Stephens, thank you so much for pointing out the Janet Mefferd article.
She makes a great case for why Russel Moore is what we need. Whoever she is, she’s a great example of all the worst aspects of the religious right. Moore is theologically conservative and if you take the Bible seriously you won’t fit into the American right/left spectrum.
It is silly to think that this is about Moore not liking Trump or about Trump’s “cult of personality.” Moore’s position on immigration made him very disliked by most evangelicals long before Trump was considered as a presidential candidate. I know you are aware of this, because several of us have been bringing it up since at least 2013.
The fact of the matter is, the schism between Moore and many rank-and-file Baptists was already underway before Trump came onto the scene, and to the extent that people were offended by his revulsion to Trump, it was because they saw Trump as being on their side on this existential issue, and Moore as being on the other side. That is, they had reason to dismiss Moore’s views beyond his mere disapproval of their candidate.
Except that Moore also spoke out against Trump on issues regarding immigration and Islam, and Moore has already staked out a position that it is borderline heretical to have restrictionist views on immigration, and he offers no sympathy to, or desire to understand, those who disagree. That is going to color people’s perception of any criticism he gives Trump.
Fosdick denied essential teachings of the Christian faith such as the virgin birth. Moore has done nothing of the sort. Equating Moore’s political views on immigration to the rank heresy of Fosdick is either a gross and unfair exaggeration or is a form of idolatry e.g. elevating views on immigration to the same level as key Christian doctrines.
While this comparison with Fosdick is probably the worst example, most of the criticism of Moore on this thread illustrates why even if the SBC old guard manages to fire him, as one person has said, they will win the battle, but not the war. The fact of the matter is that most young pastors coming out of SBC seminaries today, as well as most active young lay people, see men such as Al Mohler, Russell Moore and David Platt as role models. This means they are a lot more interested in the SBC proclaiming the Gospel than being the Republican party at prayer. The people out to fire Moore have little appeal to doctrinally conservative young people in the SBC. The may well manage to fire Moore, but doing so will hardly help turn their current situation around.
Wrong. Moore was pointed in his condemnation of Trump’s stances on immigration primarily, along with foreign affairs.
Moore is being retained. He’s a good man who unwisely engaged in personal criticism on social media and elsewhere of denominational pastors. Hopefully he will learn from this and be a bit more respectful of his fellow Baptists going forward. Judicious criticism isn’t as much fun to read as scorched earth rhetoric, but it tends to convince more people and make less enemies.
If they fire him, I lose all respect for the Baptist Church.
Russell Moore is a mountebank and an appeaser. If Southern Baptists have any self-respect left, they will stop paying this narcissist to trash the very people who pay his salary in the pages of the New York Times.
I am a deacon in a tiny, irrelevant, SBC church. In a congregational meeting last July/August (or so), I had to help walk people back from the edge of going independent. It had nothing to do with black/white racism (not enough local diversity to even be a topic of discussion), nothing to do with Trump (not mentioned, even though 90% likely voted for him). It was about open borders, and the use of tithes that might help Muslims defend themselves in 1st amendment cases. They want their tithes going to Christian orgs or mission fields. They want to support their own religion, directly. They don’t like their own leader calling them racist (they’re not), and they don’t like…his politics. His ‘gospel centered’ approach is very political. The 1st amendment is about American politics. It isn’t found in the gospel. Open borders is about American politics. That policy preference isn’t outlined in the gospel. And those things are key elements of his platform.
His supporters do themselves a disservice by refusing to listen to these legitimate complaints. This is a first-hand account, and it is not atypical (just read this comment board). The unwillingness to listen is not that different from what happened in the GOP primary with guys like Jeb and Rubio. And by failing to listen to legitimate complaints (as they did), Moore and his followers will find themselves shown the door (as they were). Which is a shame, because he’s not all bad.
Now, he may not be willing to alter his politics, which is fine. But he should just admit that his politics are just as important to him as the politics of the old guard was to them. And, he should admit his politics are just as tenuously derived from the gospel itself, as were their own. He is human, just as they were. He only harms himself by claiming otherwise.
Seems to me that Moore is just a political as those he condemns*, its just that he is, as someone says above a good-thinker (oh, I get the phrase was ‘right thinking’).
‘Mere Christianity’ says nothing about immigration (the HF fled to Egypt, but then went home!). It says nothing about gun control (in fact, Jesus orders his guys to get weapons). It doesn’t even say anything about religious tolerance — ritual tolerance perhaps (the Kosher vs. non-Kosher factions), but not religious tolerance.
So Moore may think his is on the side of the angels. But he is just as political as they are.
*Aren’t Xians supposed to avoid judging others?
Well, immigration is a mere secular issue.
The most painful of the persecution that Christians will have to endure will not come from non-Christians but from their fellow Christians.
I won’t compare Moore to someone who is a heretic (or tolerates heresy) like Fosdick, nor would I call him a “total progressive.” I also do not know whether he actually is “liberal on everything else” and do not think he ought to be let go on that basis.
My problem with Russell Moore is that he is using his position to advocate for a position that I think is wrong and destructive. If he emphasized “this is my personal opinion and I am not representing the SBC on this” that would be one thing, but he seems to be presenting his position on immigration as if it is the Southern Baptist position.
I don’t want him excommunicated. At the same time, I do not want Russell Moore in a position where he is seen as a public representative of the SBC.
Rod Dreher is a personal friend of Russell Moore. As such, he is incapable of approaching this issue impartially.
The backlash against Moore long pre-dates Trump’s presidential campaign. Moore incorrectly insists that Christians *must* support the establishment’s policy (invade-the-world/invite-the-world). Moore’s position is unscriptural heresy.
Rod, you cold not be more incorrct. Baby faced rusty’s job is to REPRESENT Southen Baptists to the world. Every time I see him on TV or read his quoted in newspapers he is giving the left wing media attacking points against us. Its like the Urban League hiring David Duke to represent them to the media. What organization has a spokesperson that attacks its members? Why should we put money in the collection plate on Sunday to pay for his salary to trash us in the media? You are wrong and Russell Moore has to go. YESTERDAY!
This is a very valid comment/criticism, thank you. But this is another reason I oppose RM. As someone else here commented, he practically worked for the Rubio campaign. You remember Rubio, right? The ultimate neocon warmonger.
Leaving aside the immigration issue aside, if one accepts Rod’s view that religious liberty is dying seriously, to argue that “1st amendment is about American politics” is myopic, at best. If true believers are a tiny minority, or destined to become one, then defending even tinier minorities when they still they have have the power to do so seems like a strategically necessary move. And one could even argue that if the rank and file can’t see the logic in that stance- than it’s the leadership’s job to do the right strategic thing. Let’s phrase is simply: if religious liberty struggles are the most important thing on the political arena of orthodox Christians, how can they engage in them while supporting restrictions on mosque construction, and not be laughed out the room?
I like Dr. Moore and I hope he keeps his job.
In terms of his critics, I think there are two camps. There’s the camp that wants to support Donald Trump no matter what and firm lash the Southern Baptist Convention to the mast of the Republican Party, in order to protect religious liberty and the unborn. I think they’re ridiculous, because it reduces your moral credibility to excuse Trump’s personal failings, but more importantly because you want to put yourself in a position where a politician has to earn your vote. We all know the type of D.C. Republicans who snicker at religious conservatives but don’t have to bat an eye to earn their vote. You don’t want to give those people the whip hand.
The other camp are the people who don’t like Moore’s positions on immigration, race relations, an ecumenical understanding of religious liberty, etc. I think there’s some legitimate criticism there. It’s not that Moore is wrong for tackling those issues, it’s that I think some of his answers have been just as simplistic as those on the left.
He does have a point, but my question is, what would Dr. Moore’s reaction be if I got up as a SBC pastor and said Yes, we know that African-Americans are disproportionately subjected to police overreach, and that must change. But we also know that the rate of family breakdown in the African-American community not only has left many black children without fathers, but has also increased crime and thus increased exposure black individuals face to the bad things some police officers do. That must also change.?
That’s a legitimate issue which we know feeds the racial disparity. But I know what the response would be from the Michael Eric Dysons of the world would be: You’re racist! You’re blaming the victim! Would that be Moore’s response? Because if it is, you’re not treating this with the seriousness and nuance that the issue deserves, and you’re not putting all the issues on the table. But my gut feeling is that these are issues Moore doesn’t want to bring up, because they may be “lacking in empathy” and that wouldn’t be “the Christian thing to do.” Part of that gut feeling is based on the fact that I haven’t heard Moore himself talk much about this when he brings up the issue of race.
My sense is that in Moore’s attempt to bring these issues into the fold, there may be some unease within the SBC in a way that people may not be able to articulate, but they’re at unease because with these issues comes some liberal assumptions that they recoil at. And if Moore is going to bring these issues into the fold, he has to do it in a way that encourages honest discourse, not PC discourse that doesn’t really address anything.
“appeaser”, one of the most ridiculous go-to slurs out there. I’d say he is standing up to the majority view in his denomination on issues where he feels they are being unbiblical. Whether he is right or wrong, what he is doing is principled. I guess it would be more macho to conform with conservative inc.
Also, it is true that Moore is guilty of conflating support for Trump with endorsing Trump’s behavior.
Good example of that: http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/10/10/the-lead-trumps-comments-russell-moore.cnn.
I take the point that as an evangelical leader, putting your name to Trump and calling him a “baby Christian” is ridiculous. But if a Christian leader went out there and said, “Look, Donald Trump is a cad and not at all a Christian, but either Hillary or Donald will be President, and the Supreme Court is at stake,” I doubt Moore would have thought much of that. In fact, that was Eric Metaxas’ argument, and he was attacked for it, including by you Rod.
And I’m not defending Trump by the way. In the end, I couldn’t vote for him. But there was a rational defense for a devout Christian voting for Trump, but Moore seemed to discount that as borderline un-Christian, and I think resentment over that posture is legitimate.
This reveals basic lack of familiarity with scripture and the inability to read in context. Perhaps it’s inevitable that those with a prior uninformed agenda will search scripture for single verse that can be wrested from the whole, in order to cite proof texts for their own human bugaboos. This is the essence of how the devil is said to recite scripture in his own favor against God. Twisting the meaning of others’ words has a long pedigree that reaches back to the original rebellion.
What is true, is that where your treasure lies, is where your heart is also. If your heart is set upon the world’s treasures, then the means that will be needed to defend it will sometimes be the world’s ways of violence, also often used to obtain that wealth. It seems that before Jesus went to the garden, that the disciples discovered a sword among their effects. It’s not known who actually owned it, but there was one of them who wasn’t there. That was the disciple who found thirty pieces of silver more attractive than a heart set upon the Lord. Jesus tells them, “Enough,” hardly calling them to arms. But it seems that for Peter, an object lesson as to how the Kingdom is to spread is in order. Later when Jesus is to be taken, without waiting for consent, on his own Peter slices the ear of a centurion. Our Lord’s response? An order to Peter to put up his sword – the one he had assumed ownership of. And then the power of persuasion by miracle – healing the soldier, returning only good for evil. What lesson do you think Peter was to take from this – and what lesson did the soldier himself take from it?
Jesus explains later to Pilate the nature of his Kingdom, and that it is not established by force of arms, for if it were, he would have ordered it. It is the revolutionary Barrabas that the crowd demands freed, instead of Jesus, to Pilate’s chagrin.
No, Jesus did not order his guys to stock up on the weapons of violence. It’s clear that if earthly treasure is your priority, though, then you will necessarily defend that using the same means associated with accumulating it. Is that where our treasure lies?
As an outsider, I find Isadore the Farmer’s position a valid argument for a member of a church, or a local congregation to make, about the institutions of the church itself. I am a big fan of the body of First Amendment jurisprudence called “church autonomy in matters of faith and doctrine.” It doesn’t matter whether I agree with Isadore, or his fellow congregants, its their church, not mine.
The unfortunate thing, for churches such as Isadore’s, is that SOME of the arguments being made against Moore ARE racist or pro-Trump. I take his word that his own are not. No doubt some of Moore’s defenders are refusing to listen to these legitimate complaints. But what’s necessary to find some semblance of the truth is to sort out that some illegitimate arguments don’t make all pro or con arguments equally illegitimate.
That said, I note that while a church might wish to keep its tithes and offerings in mission work for its own faith, a church might also find some merit in defending the First Amendment, on principle. It may benefit that church, even if the current cases in the courts have members of other faiths as plaintiffs. Muslims and Jews in Germany suddenly found they had much in common when secular German politicians proposed that if female genital mutilation was banned, then perforce male circumcision should be banned also. (Both faiths circumcise males. Neither mandates mutilation of females — although most, not all, the practitioners of the latter tend to be in areas that are now Muslim).
So he should shut up and not speak about the glaring hypocrisy that undermines the integrity of the Church. Riiiiight. How about this? Tolerate that he has a different opinion and move on with your lives. If people have other complaints, which I see from comments above that there are, then that is a different issue.
That a church leader can’t do other than pander to some members’ politics and isn’t allowed to disturb anyone’s comfort, is the day that denomination heads towards perdition.
That has happened in churches that allowed themselves to be captured by either the politics of the left or the right, instead of speaking truth to power.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the important part of Alan’s description is disdains the common folk, not the social status or salary per se. His status and salary are relevant largely because they suggest that can insulate himself from the problems that the common folk worry about. Preaching that love should cause us to be okay with bringing in hundreds of third-world immigrants means a little bit less from someone who can afford to live in a high-price community.
As someone else here commented, he practically worked for the Rubio campaign.
I think that is an important point; it’s not that people oppose Moore because they want the SBC to be the Republican Party at prayer and he does not, it’s that they see him as fine with the SBC being the Republican Party at prayer as long as it is the party of Bush and Rubio.
Except that he isn’t a church leader in the pastoral sense. His position is an explicitly political one, so how he stands on political issues is quite relevant. If he were an expositional preacher, an apologetics scholar, or a missions co-ordinator, this would not be relevant. But he is there to deal with political issues facing the church, so his political positions matter.
Moreover, as others have pointed out, he is not particularly understanding toward the concerns of people who disagree with him. He simply dismisses them and their concerns, rather than addressing them and then saying why he thinks that they are wrong.
Great…so you agree he is deeply engaged in tactics and strategy that are political, by their very nature. Now, please talk Moore into admitting this about himself, and the grounds for a productive discussion might start to form.
This is my point: anyone who follows his tactics is able to recognize that his actions (his role) have a significant political component. This is just as true of his predecessors as it is of him.
All that has changed are the policy preferences and the strategies / tactics he is advocating.
Yet, those that disagree with him are presumed to be less ‘gospel centered’ and quite possibly racists.
This is a very uncharitable approach for him to take towards his own members. He shouldn’t be surprised at the backlash that has resulted.
I’m not asking him to change his politics (though like Glaivester, and any normal human, I would prefer someone in the position aligned with my own). I am asking him to cease being condescending and admit that this is the nature of the situation. By failing to do so, he is harming the faith of people that have been devout, ‘gospel centered’ SBC members for decades.
If, over the next 12 months, Moore continues to refuse to be honest about the political nature of his position and tactics / strategies, I believe member churches will have been more than patient enough to justify a powerful response.
If instead, he begins to interact in a more frank, honest way with the people he was hired to represent, I believe he is very capable of doing good in his role*. There are good things about him.
*The one caveat is that he needs to get out of bed with George Soros and open borders orgs – at an absolute minimum stop using SBC funds / marketing power for this political endeavor.
This is indeed debatable. But the point is that it has very little to do with the gospel itself, and a LOT to do with politics, specifically American politics. Moore needs to be frank about this. He is not. His predecessor, themselves with an imperfect set of policy preferences, were at least usually honest that they were indeed engaging in politics, in full support of x,y,z.
Also, there are always plenty of 1st amendment causes that could be funded without also having to fund other religions.
Regardless, even if it would be considered prudent / wise to do such a thing for political reasons (I think the argument in favor of it does perhaps grow stronger as the group considering such funding becomes an ever smaller minority), it is impossible to do so while framing oneself as simply ‘gospel centered’, much more focused on Jesus than those that came before. That is laughable, and people are growing increasingly angry at Moore for refusing to admit this very simple (and obvious) point.
The longer he goes without admitting it, the more likely people will begin to suspect his obstinance is something closer to deception. And that is very, very unhealthy within any kind of organization.
Pragmatic, balanced differences of opinion on border control is all well and good, but the *attitudes* toward “strangers” so many conservatives have displayed (as Moore aludes in his essay), whether they are blacks from the ghetto, refugees from the Mid East, or “someone else’s babies” is contrary to the love of Christ (which I belive does make one a bad person).
There are ways to protect a nation/community without being so damn angry and self-obsessed all the time.
Well it would certainly be an odd form of racism against blacks, considering just about every left-leaning black figure of note (and otherwise), from Al Sharpton, to President Obama, to even M.E. Dyson himself have acknowledged this basic phenomenon (with varying degrees of nuance), for decades, sometimes in stronger language than you have.
I imagine Moore would make the point that Christians ought to be the solutions to both problems and not a prop for the tribal honor politics of one group or the other. If that makes SBC leaders “uncomfortable” maybe they need a safe space?
I have no problem with a man who changes over time. Russ certainly has changed since we were in Seminary together back in the 90s. That’s fine. But what I’m taken by is his tendency to suggest he was always skeptical about that whole Religious Right movement, or Culture War Christianity, or that he always had a soft spot for Catholicism. While I didn’t run in Russ’s circles, I can assure people that these things were not what he was known for. In fact, just the opposite. In that day he was very much about pushing adherence to Calvinist theology and calling out Catholicism for the heretical tradition it is. He did soften toward that by the early 00s, mostly in the name of ecumenism for the greater cause of fighting the Culture Wars. But by 2008, he was abandoning, and even belittling, those same Christians who were obsessing about the silliness of the Culture Wars.
So the problem isn’t that he changes. People change. But his recollection of where he stood years ago and what we saw in his stances years ago don’t match. And his tendency to dismiss those he identified with as he changes, joining the latest movement in denigrating those with whom he once associated, appears to be the problem.
“Moore responded by arguing that religious liberty applies to those following all beliefs.
“What it means to be a Baptist is to support soul freedom for everybody,” Moore answered — while people in the audience applauded.
The Christian leader under fire then addressed the crowd to make his point.
So he is making one argument from baptist tradition, and another, stronger one, from political and legal expidiency. Nowhere does he call his opponents non-Biblical or anything.
Now we are getting closer to a healthy debate over profound differences.
Isidore is right that Moore is engaged in politics. In the same sense, the Danbury Baptist Church that wrote to Thomas Jefferson was engaged in politics — because they saw the political aspirations of the Episcopalian and Congregational churches as an imminent threat to their own free exercise of religion.
One reason the First Amendment reads as it does was to shut the door on the aspirations of the former Anglicans and the Puritan descendants to become the officially established Church of the United States.
So there are times and ways when churches might intervene in political debate for the purpose of assuring that the state (in which all of us citizens, including church members, theoretically have a voice) does not shape its jurisdiction in a manner that infringes on the church.
What are known as “dissenting sects” in Great Britain, including Baptists, have even more worries about politics, since a court can weigh and construe what IS the true doctrine of any sect, in resolving legal controversies. (That is prohibited in the United States).
Questions of Establishment and Nonestablishment are inherently political. They involve, at least in the negative, issues of what the politics of the state may be.
When it comes to immigration, that’s a different kettle of fish. I think it could plausibly be said that Moore detects some fundamentally anti-Christian sentiments within the various strands of opinion on immigration policy. I think it could also be plausibly argued that he exceeds mere criticism of these specific strands.
When I was fourteen, the Presbyterian Church to which my parents belonged (we were living for a year near Chicago) held a public forum on the proposed Open Housing Law. There were some men, members of the church, hanging out in the parking lot but not participating. I asked my mother as we left what they were doing. She explained that excluding some people from equal access to housing based on race is not a Christian thing to do, so the men hadn’t come into the meeting to say what they were thinking.
One can oppose an Open Housing Law and still be a Christian. But many of the reasons people opposed the law were definitely not.
The line about “disdains the common folk” is a bit of a stretch. There are some powerful elites behind the things Moore criticizes. I haven’t read that he has spoken disdainfully of any manner of “common folk.” I do recall that Moore has cheerfully said in the teeth of liberal elite attitudes ‘We believe much stranger things than that. We believe a dead man is going to come back to life riding a horse through the sky.’ That wasn’t parody. He believes it.
There is a long history in this country of conservative elites wrapping their wolf selves in the sheep’s clothing of Jeffersonian democracy, starting with the presidential campaign of William Henry Harrison. Log cabin my foot, he was the son and grandson of Virginia aristocrats.
It would be amusing as well as enlightening to watch Russell Moore debate Peter Brimelow on the subject of open borders. http://www.vdare.com/articles/brimelow-on-canada-us-we-may-see-boundaries-redrawn-across-north-america?content=to%20a%20racist.
With all due respect, I think it is you that have mangled the scripture with that long convoluted exegesis.
That’s pretty direct. Now it is true that a few verses latter your god-man says that two swords are enough…you maybe he says ‘that’s enough’ to the disciples who are back talking him. But Jesus wanted at least some of his posse armed.
Re: We believe a dead man is going to come back to life riding a horse through the sky.’ That wasn’t parody. He believes it.
I hope not, because that;s not the story. Christ is already Risen– he is not going to come back to life at some future date, but is already alive, transcendently so. I also do not recall any horse being associated with his return, unless we are talking about those four unpleasant Horsemen who precede it.
m_young, Fran did not mangle anything, but has pointed out the error of proof-texting (which, yes, is a temptation for all Christians, including liberal ones). “Buy swords” cannot be read in isolation– one must also square it with “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword”.
I fail to see where Moore is “disdaining” anyone. He is criticizing what he perceives to be an error, perhaps even a sin, in their ways. This is what preachers do– and should do. If he were criticizing common folk partying in two-stepping honky-tonk bars on Friday night would you say he was “disdaining” them? A preacher who always agrees with whatever his flock does is quite the example of what Rod calls “MTD”.
M. Young, once again, you quote scripture out of context. That is called eisegesis, essentially, looking for what you already want affirmed. I, too, would prefer God, guns and guts, because it’s in my own nature to do so. I want to keep my Smith & Wesson Model 67 and my Winchester 30.30, which acquisitions dated early in my Learning Christ’s way. I can identify with Peter, who trusts his own gut instincts first.
I suggest doing with scripture, the following approach. Pray for God to teach you what is right, not to simply have your gut check confirmed, asking to be led into all truth through the Holy Spirit. Have a teachable spirit yourself, so that you are not inadvertently right, but for all the wrong reasons.
Then as Rod is often wont to advise, Read the Whole Thing. That means at least as a start, beginning before the chapter in question where your “proof text” occurs, and past the end of that chapter. Be aware of context – how the meaning is consistent.
There is no doubt that Jesus leaves it up to us whether to follow His example, or not. If your treasure is in money, then you’re going to need to be armed if you mean to defend it in a time of turmoil. For that purpose, it’s good advice. But it’s clear that what is good practical advice for those who have those priorities, is not to be the same for those who would take up Jesus’ cross. You must take into consideration, as well, the entire context of the New Testament, particularly Matthew 5, 6 and 7.
As Americans, we are always anxious to have posses, and make sure they are well armed. Look around the world, and at home, and tell me how well that worldliness has worked out for building God’s Kingdom, or even for basic Christian liberty. On the contrary, it is leading to destruction, as it always does – living by the sword, leads to dying by it, too.
To directly answer your question, becuase I stand opposed to the elites in our society who have gotten filthy rich at the expense of the rest of us. If they had the decency to just say “thank you” it might go down easier. But when they openly disdain us, especially under the guise of being moral, religious leaders, it’s especially grievous. And when said folks operate as trojan horses, yah, I’m done. If you count that as a character flaw for me, so be it.
I hope not, because that;s not the story. Christ is already Risen– he is not going to come back to life at some future date, but is already alive, transcendently so.
I agree, but many of my fellow Protestants find all manner of lurid images in the Revelation to St. John. I imagine that’s where Moore got it from. Anyway, he said it, I didn’t. It is possible he was being facetious, with the general intent being, we believe some things that make no sense at all based on material science, but only if something transcendent is at work. Or maybe be meant it literally — he is SBC after all.
And my point was, Moore in not a liberal agnostic wrapping himself in a Southern Baptist mantle. He believes what the SBC proclaims to be its theology and catechism.
Fair point. I know of a congregational church (not UCC — I think its part of a loose coalition trying to restore orthodox congregational worship) that had trouble building a church in a conservative leaning suburb, because the city fathers wanted a more lucrative, tax-producing use for remaining open land. The church prevailed by use of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
The real problem today is their are so many fakes , heretics (false teacher) prosperity flakes, So called Christian dominion crazies, socialist infiltration to purposely destruct churches, crooks & the like now, real Christians are becoming more wary every year.In fact i figure most biblical Christians will be back in house churches. Denominational churches have turned out to be retirement insurance benefit homes for clerics. Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Congregational, Catholic, Episcopalian, Anglican, with a raft of others, have all lost their salt or even meaning. Most are just inter changeable Deists now with some cultural quirks.You see this pattern even in the New testament warnings about all of this. Yup every vice you see today in the so called emergent church is found there with warnings. Evangelical means nothing these days, just a term for nominal Christians or ecumenists to use. The fact some don’t even believe in a basic doctrine like the resurrection is your clue here. For Bible Christianity home Church is the future as it was for 400 years before churches where built when joined to the Roman empire. Most denominations don’t outlive their beginnings after 3 generations ( The calvary chapel movement is a modern example, its falling apart with internal struggles), its why there are so many, its how Christianity in its basic form has always spread since the first century. As the old loses it fervor with any belief in its doctrines for fads or false teachings, the new begins with persecution usually by the older denominations, or at the behest of the State church, secular & always atheist polities that drives the seeds of its original basic teachings into the winds to start again in more fertile regions, or resisted to death by those who stay.

lowercased:
moore, who heads the sbc’s ethics and religious liberty commission and has been relatively quiet since the election, declined to comment for this article. page declined to discuss the plan for monday’s meeting, but he indicated that he would not rule out the possibility that he could ask moore to resign. he said he hopes moore and his opposition will agree to pursue efforts toward reconciliation.
this is both not surprising and stunning. it’s not surprising, because the old-guard conservatives in the sbc have had it out for moore over his criticism of donald trump and evangelical support for him. after the trump victory, moore’s job status has been up in the air. judging from the post story, it could all be coming to a head today in the meeting with frank page.
what’s stunning about this is the blow moore’s firing, if it comes to that, will be to southern baptist credibility and witness. i’ve made no secret of my admiration for russell moore, whom i also consider a personal friend (i have not talked to him since reading the post story). he’s a theological and social conservative in a new mold, and whether or not i agree with him on specific policy positions, i believe he is a model for christian conservative public engagement. if the southern baptist convention removes him from the presidency of the erlc, it will signal a dramatic win for the old-guard religious right within the nation’s largest protestant denomination. it will also spark the biggest war within the southern baptist convention since the 1990s fight between conservatives and liberals.
i had read the lion, the witch, and the wardrobe and its sequels as a child, and found something solid there. as the other inklings knew, the narnia series wasn’t great literature or a carefully constructed myth such as middle earth was. my experience was similar to that of science fiction writer neil gaiman: “the weird thing about the narnia books for me was that mostly they seemed true,” as if they “were reports from a real place.” so when, in the middle of my spiritual crisis, i saw the name c. s. lewis on the spine of a book called mere christianity, i was willing to give him a chance—and he saved my life. mere christianity is not the city of god or the summa theologica or the institutes of the christian religion. it didn’t need to be. all i needed was for this drinking, smoking, probably dancing and card-playing man on another continent to tell me the truth, to point me to a broad, bustling church that took serious questions seriously and could be traced all the way back to an empty hole in the ground in the middle east.
most faiths that persist are tested and questioned and tempted along the way. but for me, the question was whether i was a beloved son or a cosmic orphan. it seems to me that my spiritual crisis is similar to a larger one that threatens to engulf religious conservatism in america. the religious right—whether we trace it to the school prayer skirmishes of the 1960s or the segregation academy controversies of the 1970s or the response to roe v. wade and the sexual revolution—was always a multifaceted coalition. after all, jerry falwell adopted paul weyrich’s language of a “moral majority” because the movement encompassed not just born-again protestants but also many traditional roman catholics and latter-day saints and orthodox jews. but while the movement was in many ways informed by sources such as john paul ii’s theology of the body and richard john neuhaus’s the naked public square, the entrepreneurial energy almost always came from evangelical protestantism. for that and other reasons, american evangelicalism is enmeshed with the religious right psychologically, institutionally, and in terms of reputation in ways the catholic bishops, the mormon apostles, and orthodox rabbis just aren’t.
the fate of religious conservatism is important, though, and not merely for its own sake. ross douthat is quite right that america—left and right—needs a strong religious conservative movement. the religious right, at its best, modeled the kind of civic engagement and civil society that james madison and alexander hamilton wanted for this country. at its best, the religious right reminded all of us that there are realities more important than political or economic success; that we are a nation under god, one that can be weighed in the balance and found wanting. at its best, the religious right kept the focus on a vulnerable minority that easily becomes invisible to those with power: unborn children. douthat is correct that without some form of religious right, the space left behind can all too easily be filled by european-style ethno-nationalism or nietzschean social darwinism. the religious right must, in some form, be saved. but how and in what form? that question, of course, brings us to the 2016 presidential election.
we know how that turned out. and we now see that that result could have serious consequences for russell moore. read the entire lecture, and you will be able to understand the battle lines within the southern baptist convention — if moore is fired, that is. there are a lot of younger southern baptists who are not willing to return to the republican party at prayer mode of public engagement. i hope the sbc leadership pulls back. this conflict, and its resolution, will have a serious impact beyond the sbc. it will determine the future of christian conservatism in america.
posted in christianity, culture war, all things trump. tagged christianity, conservatism, russell moore, southern baptist convention.
atlantic & scientology: what did they do wrong?
even if you voted for trump, for whatever your reasons, playing the doxxing game is as bad whether you’re sjw or sbc.
i don’t appreciate being blacklisted, and i’m not going to support doing it to anyone because he had trouble with voting for the president and outlined the reasons why, especially to a person with the theological integrity of a russell moore.
not wrong, but nuts, so dismiss them.
remember this when people (e.g. rhe) dismiss you as a bigot or whatever, and don’t bother engaging with your ideas.
if you want to pretend that to be a southern baptist, you first have to be a rock-ribbed republican, and a flag-waving, gun displaying son of the confederacy with faith in christ optional or even out of the question, then you might think so. but that’s nuts.
to mr wells and others: i’m sure that southern baptists are glad to be shown the way to repentance for their true sins (as defined by the bible). but being told that you’re a bad person because you want control of the borders (‘cuz after all, jesus was an immigrant) is silly, that’s liberal christian stuff.
that is one powerful lecture.
will stephens, thank you so much for pointing out the janet mefferd article.
she makes a great case for why russel moore is what we need. whoever she is, she’s a great example of all the worst aspects of the religious right. moore is theologically conservative and if you take the bible seriously you won’t fit into the american right/left spectrum.
it is silly to think that this is about moore not liking trump or about trump’s “cult of personality.” moore’s position on immigration made him very disliked by most evangelicals long before trump was considered as a presidential candidate. i know you are aware of this, because several of us have been bringing it up since at least 2013.
the fact of the matter is, the schism between moore and many rank-and-file baptists was already underway before trump came onto the scene, and to the extent that people were offended by his revulsion to trump, it was because they saw trump as being on their side on this existential issue, and moore as being on the other side. that is, they had reason to dismiss moore’s views beyond his mere disapproval of their candidate.
except that moore also spoke out against trump on issues regarding immigration and islam, and moore has already staked out a position that it is borderline heretical to have restrictionist views on immigration, and he offers no sympathy to, or desire to understand, those who disagree. that is going to color people’s perception of any criticism he gives trump.
fosdick denied essential teachings of the christian faith such as the virgin birth. moore has done nothing of the sort. equating moore’s political views on immigration to the rank heresy of fosdick is either a gross and unfair exaggeration or is a form of idolatry e.g. elevating views on immigration to the same level as key christian doctrines.
while this comparison with fosdick is probably the worst example, most of the criticism of moore on this thread illustrates why even if the sbc old guard manages to fire him, as one person has said, they will win the battle, but not the war. the fact of the matter is that most young pastors coming out of sbc seminaries today, as well as most active young lay people, see men such as al mohler, russell moore and david platt as role models. this means they are a lot more interested in the sbc proclaiming the gospel than being the republican party at prayer. the people out to fire moore have little appeal to doctrinally conservative young people in the sbc. the may well manage to fire moore, but doing so will hardly help turn their current situation around.
wrong. moore was pointed in his condemnation of trump’s stances on immigration primarily, along with foreign affairs.
moore is being retained. he’s a good man who unwisely engaged in personal criticism on social media and elsewhere of denominational pastors. hopefully he will learn from this and be a bit more respectful of his fellow baptists going forward. judicious criticism isn’t as much fun to read as scorched earth rhetoric, but it tends to convince more people and make less enemies.
if they fire him, i lose all respect for the baptist church.
russell moore is a mountebank and an appeaser. if southern baptists have any self-respect left, they will stop paying this narcissist to trash the very people who pay his salary in the pages of the new york times.
i am a deacon in a tiny, irrelevant, sbc church. in a congregational meeting last july/august (or so), i had to help walk people back from the edge of going independent. it had nothing to do with black/white racism (not enough local diversity to even be a topic of discussion), nothing to do with trump (not mentioned, even though 90% likely voted for him). it was about open borders, and the use of tithes that might help muslims defend themselves in 1st amendment cases. they want their tithes going to christian orgs or mission fields. they want to support their own religion, directly. they don’t like their own leader calling them racist (they’re not), and they don’t like…his politics. his ‘gospel centered’ approach is very political. the 1st amendment is about american politics. it isn’t found in the gospel. open borders is about american politics. that policy preference isn’t outlined in the gospel. and those things are key elements of his platform.
his supporters do themselves a disservice by refusing to listen to these legitimate complaints. this is a first-hand account, and it is not atypical (just read this comment board). the unwillingness to listen is not that different from what happened in the gop primary with guys like jeb and rubio. and by failing to listen to legitimate complaints (as they did), moore and his followers will find themselves shown the door (as they were). which is a shame, because he’s not all bad.
now, he may not be willing to alter his politics, which is fine. but he should just admit that his politics are just as important to him as the politics of the old guard was to them. and, he should admit his politics are just as tenuously derived from the gospel itself, as were their own. he is human, just as they were. he only harms himself by claiming otherwise.
seems to me that moore is just a political as those he condemns*, its just that he is, as someone says above a good-thinker (oh, i get the phrase was ‘right thinking’).
‘mere christianity’ says nothing about immigration (the hf fled to egypt, but then went home!). it says nothing about gun control (in fact, jesus orders his guys to get weapons). it doesn’t even say anything about religious tolerance — ritual tolerance perhaps (the kosher vs. non-kosher factions), but not religious tolerance.
so moore may think his is on the side of the angels. but he is just as political as they are.
*aren’t xians supposed to avoid judging others?
well, immigration is a mere secular issue.
the most painful of the persecution that christians will have to endure will not come from non-christians but from their fellow christians.
i won’t compare moore to someone who is a heretic (or tolerates heresy) like fosdick, nor would i call him a “total progressive.” i also do not know whether he actually is “liberal on everything else” and do not think he ought to be let go on that basis.
my problem with russell moore is that he is using his position to advocate for a position that i think is wrong and destructive. if he emphasized “this is my personal opinion and i am not representing the sbc on this” that would be one thing, but he seems to be presenting his position on immigration as if it is the southern baptist position.
i don’t want him excommunicated. at the same time, i do not want russell moore in a position where he is seen as a public representative of the sbc.
rod dreher is a personal friend of russell moore. as such, he is incapable of approaching this issue impartially.
the backlash against moore long pre-dates trump’s presidential campaign. moore incorrectly insists that christians *must* support the establishment’s policy (invade-the-world/invite-the-world). moore’s position is unscriptural heresy.
rod, you cold not be more incorrct. baby faced rusty’s job is to represent southen baptists to the world. every time i see him on tv or read his quoted in newspapers he is giving the left wing media attacking points against us. its like the urban league hiring david duke to represent them to the media. what organization has a spokesperson that attacks its members? why should we put money in the collection plate on sunday to pay for his salary to trash us in the media? you are wrong and russell moore has to go. yesterday!
this is a very valid comment/criticism, thank you. but this is another reason i oppose rm. as someone else here commented, he practically worked for the rubio campaign. you remember rubio, right? the ultimate neocon warmonger.
leaving aside the immigration issue aside, if one accepts rod’s view that religious liberty is dying seriously, to argue that “1st amendment is about american politics” is myopic, at best. if true believers are a tiny minority, or destined to become one, then defending even tinier minorities when they still they have have the power to do so seems like a strategically necessary move. and one could even argue that if the rank and file can’t see the logic in that stance- than it’s the leadership’s job to do the right strategic thing. let’s phrase is simply: if religious liberty struggles are the most important thing on the political arena of orthodox christians, how can they engage in them while supporting restrictions on mosque construction, and not be laughed out the room?
i like dr. moore and i hope he keeps his job.
in terms of his critics, i think there are two camps. there’s the camp that wants to support donald trump no matter what and firm lash the southern baptist convention to the mast of the republican party, in order to protect religious liberty and the unborn. i think they’re ridiculous, because it reduces your moral credibility to excuse trump’s personal failings, but more importantly because you want to put yourself in a position where a politician has to earn your vote. we all know the type of d.c. republicans who snicker at religious conservatives but don’t have to bat an eye to earn their vote. you don’t want to give those people the whip hand.
the other camp are the people who don’t like moore’s positions on immigration, race relations, an ecumenical understanding of religious liberty, etc. i think there’s some legitimate criticism there. it’s not that moore is wrong for tackling those issues, it’s that i think some of his answers have been just as simplistic as those on the left.
he does have a point, but my question is, what would dr. moore’s reaction be if i got up as a sbc pastor and said yes, we know that african-americans are disproportionately subjected to police overreach, and that must change. but we also know that the rate of family breakdown in the african-american community not only has left many black children without fathers, but has also increased crime and thus increased exposure black individuals face to the bad things some police officers do. that must also change.?
that’s a legitimate issue which we know feeds the racial disparity. but i know what the response would be from the michael eric dysons of the world would be: you’re racist! you’re blaming the victim! would that be moore’s response? because if it is, you’re not treating this with the seriousness and nuance that the issue deserves, and you’re not putting all the issues on the table. but my gut feeling is that these are issues moore doesn’t want to bring up, because they may be “lacking in empathy” and that wouldn’t be “the christian thing to do.” part of that gut feeling is based on the fact that i haven’t heard moore himself talk much about this when he brings up the issue of race.
my sense is that in moore’s attempt to bring these issues into the fold, there may be some unease within the sbc in a way that people may not be able to articulate, but they’re at unease because with these issues comes some liberal assumptions that they recoil at. and if moore is going to bring these issues into the fold, he has to do it in a way that encourages honest discourse, not pc discourse that doesn’t really address anything.
“appeaser”, one of the most ridiculous go-to slurs out there. i’d say he is standing up to the majority view in his denomination on issues where he feels they are being unbiblical. whether he is right or wrong, what he is doing is principled. i guess it would be more macho to conform with conservative inc.
also, it is true that moore is guilty of conflating support for trump with endorsing trump’s behavior.
good example of that: http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/10/10/the-lead-trumps-comments-russell-moore.cnn.
i take the point that as an evangelical leader, putting your name to trump and calling him a “baby christian” is ridiculous. but if a christian leader went out there and said, “look, donald trump is a cad and not at all a christian, but either hillary or donald will be president, and the supreme court is at stake,” i doubt moore would have thought much of that. in fact, that was eric metaxas’ argument, and he was attacked for it, including by you rod.
and i’m not defending trump by the way. in the end, i couldn’t vote for him. but there was a rational defense for a devout christian voting for trump, but moore seemed to discount that as borderline un-christian, and i think resentment over that posture is legitimate.
this reveals basic lack of familiarity with scripture and the inability to read in context. perhaps it’s inevitable that those with a prior uninformed agenda will search scripture for single verse that can be wrested from the whole, in order to cite proof texts for their own human bugaboos. this is the essence of how the devil is said to recite scripture in his own favor against god. twisting the meaning of others’ words has a long pedigree that reaches back to the original rebellion.
what is true, is that where your treasure lies, is where your heart is also. if your heart is set upon the world’s treasures, then the means that will be needed to defend it will sometimes be the world’s ways of violence, also often used to obtain that wealth. it seems that before jesus went to the garden, that the disciples discovered a sword among their effects. it’s not known who actually owned it, but there was one of them who wasn’t there. that was the disciple who found thirty pieces of silver more attractive than a heart set upon the lord. jesus tells them, “enough,” hardly calling them to arms. but it seems that for peter, an object lesson as to how the kingdom is to spread is in order. later when jesus is to be taken, without waiting for consent, on his own peter slices the ear of a centurion. our lord’s response? an order to peter to put up his sword – the one he had assumed ownership of. and then the power of persuasion by miracle – healing the soldier, returning only good for evil. what lesson do you think peter was to take from this – and what lesson did the soldier himself take from it?
jesus explains later to pilate the nature of his kingdom, and that it is not established by force of arms, for if it were, he would have ordered it. it is the revolutionary barrabas that the crowd demands freed, instead of jesus, to pilate’s chagrin.
no, jesus did not order his guys to stock up on the weapons of violence. it’s clear that if earthly treasure is your priority, though, then you will necessarily defend that using the same means associated with accumulating it. is that where our treasure lies?
as an outsider, i find isadore the farmer’s position a valid argument for a member of a church, or a local congregation to make, about the institutions of the church itself. i am a big fan of the body of first amendment jurisprudence called “church autonomy in matters of faith and doctrine.” it doesn’t matter whether i agree with isadore, or his fellow congregants, its their church, not mine.
the unfortunate thing, for churches such as isadore’s, is that some of the arguments being made against moore are racist or pro-trump. i take his word that his own are not. no doubt some of moore’s defenders are refusing to listen to these legitimate complaints. but what’s necessary to find some semblance of the truth is to sort out that some illegitimate arguments don’t make all pro or con arguments equally illegitimate.
that said, i note that while a church might wish to keep its tithes and offerings in mission work for its own faith, a church might also find some merit in defending the first amendment, on principle. it may benefit that church, even if the current cases in the courts have members of other faiths as plaintiffs. muslims and jews in germany suddenly found they had much in common when secular german politicians proposed that if female genital mutilation was banned, then perforce male circumcision should be banned also. (both faiths circumcise males. neither mandates mutilation of females — although most, not all, the practitioners of the latter tend to be in areas that are now muslim).
so he should shut up and not speak about the glaring hypocrisy that undermines the integrity of the church. riiiiight. how about this? tolerate that he has a different opinion and move on with your lives. if people have other complaints, which i see from comments above that there are, then that is a different issue.
that a church leader can’t do other than pander to some members’ politics and isn’t allowed to disturb anyone’s comfort, is the day that denomination heads towards perdition.
that has happened in churches that allowed themselves to be captured by either the politics of the left or the right, instead of speaking truth to power.
i am going to go out on a limb here and say that the important part of alan’s description is disdains the common folk, not the social status or salary per se. his status and salary are relevant largely because they suggest that can insulate himself from the problems that the common folk worry about. preaching that love should cause us to be okay with bringing in hundreds of third-world immigrants means a little bit less from someone who can afford to live in a high-price community.
as someone else here commented, he practically worked for the rubio campaign.
i think that is an important point; it’s not that people oppose moore because they want the sbc to be the republican party at prayer and he does not, it’s that they see him as fine with the sbc being the republican party at prayer as long as it is the party of bush and rubio.
except that he isn’t a church leader in the pastoral sense. his position is an explicitly political one, so how he stands on political issues is quite relevant. if he were an expositional preacher, an apologetics scholar, or a missions co-ordinator, this would not be relevant. but he is there to deal with political issues facing the church, so his political positions matter.
moreover, as others have pointed out, he is not particularly understanding toward the concerns of people who disagree with him. he simply dismisses them and their concerns, rather than addressing them and then saying why he thinks that they are wrong.
great…so you agree he is deeply engaged in tactics and strategy that are political, by their very nature. now, please talk moore into admitting this about himself, and the grounds for a productive discussion might start to form.
this is my point: anyone who follows his tactics is able to recognize that his actions (his role) have a significant political component. this is just as true of his predecessors as it is of him.
all that has changed are the policy preferences and the strategies / tactics he is advocating.
yet, those that disagree with him are presumed to be less ‘gospel centered’ and quite possibly racists.
this is a very uncharitable approach for him to take towards his own members. he shouldn’t be surprised at the backlash that has resulted.
i’m not asking him to change his politics (though like glaivester, and any normal human, i would prefer someone in the position aligned with my own). i am asking him to cease being condescending and admit that this is the nature of the situation. by failing to do so, he is harming the faith of people that have been devout, ‘gospel centered’ sbc members for decades.
if, over the next 12 months, moore continues to refuse to be honest about the political nature of his position and tactics / strategies, i believe member churches will have been more than patient enough to justify a powerful response.
if instead, he begins to interact in a more frank, honest way with the people he was hired to represent, i believe he is very capable of doing good in his role*. there are good things about him.
*the one caveat is that he needs to get out of bed with george soros and open borders orgs – at an absolute minimum stop using sbc funds / marketing power for this political endeavor.
this is indeed debatable. but the point is that it has very little to do with the gospel itself, and a lot to do with politics, specifically american politics. moore needs to be frank about this. he is not. his predecessor, themselves with an imperfect set of policy preferences, were at least usually honest that they were indeed engaging in politics, in full support of x,y,z.
also, there are always plenty of 1st amendment causes that could be funded without also having to fund other religions.
regardless, even if it would be considered prudent / wise to do such a thing for political reasons (i think the argument in favor of it does perhaps grow stronger as the group considering such funding becomes an ever smaller minority), it is impossible to do so while framing oneself as simply ‘gospel centered’, much more focused on jesus than those that came before. that is laughable, and people are growing increasingly angry at moore for refusing to admit this very simple (and obvious) point.
the longer he goes without admitting it, the more likely people will begin to suspect his obstinance is something closer to deception. and that is very, very unhealthy within any kind of organization.
pragmatic, balanced differences of opinion on border control is all well and good, but the *attitudes* toward “strangers” so many conservatives have displayed (as moore aludes in his essay), whether they are blacks from the ghetto, refugees from the mid east, or “someone else’s babies” is contrary to the love of christ (which i belive does make one a bad person).
there are ways to protect a nation/community without being so damn angry and self-obsessed all the time.
well it would certainly be an odd form of racism against blacks, considering just about every left-leaning black figure of note (and otherwise), from al sharpton, to president obama, to even m.e. dyson himself have acknowledged this basic phenomenon (with varying degrees of nuance), for decades, sometimes in stronger language than you have.
i imagine moore would make the point that christians ought to be the solutions to both problems and not a prop for the tribal honor politics of one group or the other. if that makes sbc leaders “uncomfortable” maybe they need a safe space?
i have no problem with a man who changes over time. russ certainly has changed since we were in seminary together back in the 90s. that’s fine. but what i’m taken by is his tendency to suggest he was always skeptical about that whole religious right movement, or culture war christianity, or that he always had a soft spot for catholicism. while i didn’t run in russ’s circles, i can assure people that these things were not what he was known for. in fact, just the opposite. in that day he was very much about pushing adherence to calvinist theology and calling out catholicism for the heretical tradition it is. he did soften toward that by the early 00s, mostly in the name of ecumenism for the greater cause of fighting the culture wars. but by 2008, he was abandoning, and even belittling, those same christians who were obsessing about the silliness of the culture wars.
so the problem isn’t that he changes. people change. but his recollection of where he stood years ago and what we saw in his stances years ago don’t match. and his tendency to dismiss those he identified with as he changes, joining the latest movement in denigrating those with whom he once associated, appears to be the problem.
“moore responded by arguing that religious liberty applies to those following all beliefs.
“what it means to be a baptist is to support soul freedom for everybody,” moore answered — while people in the audience applauded.
the christian leader under fire then addressed the crowd to make his point.
so he is making one argument from baptist tradition, and another, stronger one, from political and legal expidiency. nowhere does he call his opponents non-biblical or anything.
now we are getting closer to a healthy debate over profound differences.
isidore is right that moore is engaged in politics. in the same sense, the danbury baptist church that wrote to thomas jefferson was engaged in politics — because they saw the political aspirations of the episcopalian and congregational churches as an imminent threat to their own free exercise of religion.
one reason the first amendment reads as it does was to shut the door on the aspirations of the former anglicans and the puritan descendants to become the officially established church of the united states.
so there are times and ways when churches might intervene in political debate for the purpose of assuring that the state (in which all of us citizens, including church members, theoretically have a voice) does not shape its jurisdiction in a manner that infringes on the church.
what are known as “dissenting sects” in great britain, including baptists, have even more worries about politics, since a court can weigh and construe what is the true doctrine of any sect, in resolving legal controversies. (that is prohibited in the united states).
questions of establishment and nonestablishment are inherently political. they involve, at least in the negative, issues of what the politics of the state may be.
when it comes to immigration, that’s a different kettle of fish. i think it could plausibly be said that moore detects some fundamentally anti-christian sentiments within the various strands of opinion on immigration policy. i think it could also be plausibly argued that he exceeds mere criticism of these specific strands.
when i was fourteen, the presbyterian church to which my parents belonged (we were living for a year near chicago) held a public forum on the proposed open housing law. there were some men, members of the church, hanging out in the parking lot but not participating. i asked my mother as we left what they were doing. she explained that excluding some people from equal access to housing based on race is not a christian thing to do, so the men hadn’t come into the meeting to say what they were thinking.
one can oppose an open housing law and still be a christian. but many of the reasons people opposed the law were definitely not.
the line about “disdains the common folk” is a bit of a stretch. there are some powerful elites behind the things moore criticizes. i haven’t read that he has spoken disdainfully of any manner of “common folk.” i do recall that moore has cheerfully said in the teeth of liberal elite attitudes ‘we believe much stranger things than that. we believe a dead man is going to come back to life riding a horse through the sky.’ that wasn’t parody. he believes it.
there is a long history in this country of conservative elites wrapping their wolf selves in the sheep’s clothing of jeffersonian democracy, starting with the presidential campaign of william henry harrison. log cabin my foot, he was the son and grandson of virginia aristocrats.
it would be amusing as well as enlightening to watch russell moore debate peter brimelow on the subject of open borders. http://www.vdare.com/articles/brimelow-on-canada-us-we-may-see-boundaries-redrawn-across-north-america?content=to%20a%20racist.
with all due respect, i think it is you that have mangled the scripture with that long convoluted exegesis.
that’s pretty direct. now it is true that a few verses latter your god-man says that two swords are enough…you maybe he says ‘that’s enough’ to the disciples who are back talking him. but jesus wanted at least some of his posse armed.
re: we believe a dead man is going to come back to life riding a horse through the sky.’ that wasn’t parody. he believes it.
i hope not, because that;s not the story. christ is already risen– he is not going to come back to life at some future date, but is already alive, transcendently so. i also do not recall any horse being associated with his return, unless we are talking about those four unpleasant horsemen who precede it.
m_young, fran did not mangle anything, but has pointed out the error of proof-texting (which, yes, is a temptation for all christians, including liberal ones). “buy swords” cannot be read in isolation– one must also square it with “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword”.
i fail to see where moore is “disdaining” anyone. he is criticizing what he perceives to be an error, perhaps even a sin, in their ways. this is what preachers do– and should do. if he were criticizing common folk partying in two-stepping honky-tonk bars on friday night would you say he was “disdaining” them? a preacher who always agrees with whatever his flock does is quite the example of what rod calls “mtd”.
m. young, once again, you quote scripture out of context. that is called eisegesis, essentially, looking for what you already want affirmed. i, too, would prefer god, guns and guts, because it’s in my own nature to do so. i want to keep my smith & wesson model 67 and my winchester 30.30, which acquisitions dated early in my learning christ’s way. i can identify with peter, who trusts his own gut instincts first.
i suggest doing with scripture, the following approach. pray for god to teach you what is right, not to simply have your gut check confirmed, asking to be led into all truth through the holy spirit. have a teachable spirit yourself, so that you are not inadvertently right, but for all the wrong reasons.
then as rod is often wont to advise, read the whole thing. that means at least as a start, beginning before the chapter in question where your “proof text” occurs, and past the end of that chapter. be aware of context – how the meaning is consistent.
there is no doubt that jesus leaves it up to us whether to follow his example, or not. if your treasure is in money, then you’re going to need to be armed if you mean to defend it in a time of turmoil. for that purpose, it’s good advice. but it’s clear that what is good practical advice for those who have those priorities, is not to be the same for those who would take up jesus’ cross. you must take into consideration, as well, the entire context of the new testament, particularly matthew 5, 6 and 7.
as americans, we are always anxious to have posses, and make sure they are well armed. look around the world, and at home, and tell me how well that worldliness has worked out for building god’s kingdom, or even for basic christian liberty. on the contrary, it is leading to destruction, as it always does – living by the sword, leads to dying by it, too.
to directly answer your question, becuase i stand opposed to the elites in our society who have gotten filthy rich at the expense of the rest of us. if they had the decency to just say “thank you” it might go down easier. but when they openly disdain us, especially under the guise of being moral, religious leaders, it’s especially grievous. and when said folks operate as trojan horses, yah, i’m done. if you count that as a character flaw for me, so be it.
i hope not, because that;s not the story. christ is already risen– he is not going to come back to life at some future date, but is already alive, transcendently so.
i agree, but many of my fellow protestants find all manner of lurid images in the revelation to st. john. i imagine that’s where moore got it from. anyway, he said it, i didn’t. it is possible he was being facetious, with the general intent being, we believe some things that make no sense at all based on material science, but only if something transcendent is at work. or maybe be meant it literally — he is sbc after all.
and my point was, moore in not a liberal agnostic wrapping himself in a southern baptist mantle. he believes what the sbc proclaims to be its theology and catechism.
fair point. i know of a congregational church (not ucc — i think its part of a loose coalition trying to restore orthodox congregational worship) that had trouble building a church in a conservative leaning suburb, because the city fathers wanted a more lucrative, tax-producing use for remaining open land. the church prevailed by use of the religious land use and institutionalized persons act.
the real problem today is their are so many fakes , heretics (false teacher) prosperity flakes, so called christian dominion crazies, socialist infiltration to purposely destruct churches, crooks & the like now, real christians are becoming more wary every year.in fact i figure most biblical christians will be back in house churches. denominational churches have turned out to be retirement insurance benefit homes for clerics. lutheran, presbyterian, methodist, baptist, congregational, catholic, episcopalian, anglican, with a raft of others, have all lost their salt or even meaning. most are just inter changeable deists now with some cultural quirks.you see this pattern even in the new testament warnings about all of this. yup every vice you see today in the so called emergent church is found there with warnings. evangelical means nothing these days, just a term for nominal christians or ecumenists to use. the fact some don’t even believe in a basic doctrine like the resurrection is your clue here. for bible christianity home church is the future as it was for 400 years before churches where built when joined to the roman empire. most denominations don’t outlive their beginnings after 3 generations ( the calvary chapel movement is a modern example, its falling apart with internal struggles), its why there are so many, its how christianity in its basic form has always spread since the first century. as the old loses it fervor with any belief in its doctrines for fads or false teachings, the new begins with persecution usually by the older denominations, or at the behest of the state church, secular & always atheist polities that drives the seeds of its original basic teachings into the winds to start again in more fertile regions, or resisted to death by those who stay.


text:
Dr. Litchfield has served as a consultant, professor, researcher, lecturer, and entrepreneur in the fields of healthcare and human performance for more than 40 years. He extensive experience includes the design, planning, development, production, management, and delivery of academic and professional education curriculum in psychology, behavioral medicine, and health education: workshops, seminars, short-courses, certification programs, competency programs, specialty programs, MS degree programs, and Ph.D. degree programs in healthcare and human performance fields.
Since earning his Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology from the University of Portland in 1971, Dr Litchfield has lectured extensively on behavioral physiology, respiratory fitness, self-regulation science, and business planning throughout North America and in Asia, Australia, Europe, and Latin America to diverse audiences, ranging from medical schools to corporate groups. Coincident with his entrepreneurial enterprise in education, he has for 25 years been involved in the design and development of self-regulation physiological monitoring instrumentation systems for use by healthcare practitioners, human service professionals, educators, and researchers.
Dr. Litchfield is the founder and current President (2000-present) of Better Physiology Ltd., a Santa Fe based company that manufactures educational capnography instrumentation for identifying dysfunctional breathing habits and learning new ones. He is co-founder and a Director of Behavioral Physiology Institute, also located in Santa Fe, which provides webinars to professional audiences worldwide on the subject of respiratory physiology and breathing psychology.
His specialty areas lie within the fields of behavioral medicine, behavioral physiology, behavioral health, applied psychophysiology, behavioral pharmacology, and research design. Specific areas of expertise include placebo effects, conditioning theory, drug addiction, biofeedback, and respiratory behavioral physiology. Other areas of expertise include business planning/development for healthcare professionals, and software design/development of educational, clinical, and research protocols for physiological monitoring and recording.
Dr Litchfield is a behavioral physiologist, currently specializing in respiratory physiology and breathing psychology. He and Sandra Reamer together developed CapnoLearning®, a learning program for helping people to restore good respiratory fitness through the application of the principles of behavioral analysis, behavior modification, cognitive learning, biofeedback, awareness training, and phenomenological exploration to breathing behavior.
Dr Litchfield is a current instructor and an Institute of BioEnergetic Medicine (IBEM) Board Member.
Optimal Breathing Development Work integrates ancient teachings, modern science and technology, touch, non-touch, and self-help approaches. It is compatible with ALL forms of therapeutic, religious, spiritual, and stream of consciousness expressions. Breathing mechanics are essentially the same for every normal human body but many of us lose good breathing or never had it. We need to inhale oxygen to live but we also need to exhale our breath to rid our bodies of toxins and disease. The way a person breathes will determine one's health and who they are.

lowercased:
dr. litchfield has served as a consultant, professor, researcher, lecturer, and entrepreneur in the fields of healthcare and human performance for more than 40 years. he extensive experience includes the design, planning, development, production, management, and delivery of academic and professional education curriculum in psychology, behavioral medicine, and health education: workshops, seminars, short-courses, certification programs, competency programs, specialty programs, ms degree programs, and ph.d. degree programs in healthcare and human performance fields.
since earning his ph.d. in experimental psychology from the university of portland in 1971, dr litchfield has lectured extensively on behavioral physiology, respiratory fitness, self-regulation science, and business planning throughout north america and in asia, australia, europe, and latin america to diverse audiences, ranging from medical schools to corporate groups. coincident with his entrepreneurial enterprise in education, he has for 25 years been involved in the design and development of self-regulation physiological monitoring instrumentation systems for use by healthcare practitioners, human service professionals, educators, and researchers.
dr. litchfield is the founder and current president (2000-present) of better physiology ltd., a santa fe based company that manufactures educational capnography instrumentation for identifying dysfunctional breathing habits and learning new ones. he is co-founder and a director of behavioral physiology institute, also located in santa fe, which provides webinars to professional audiences worldwide on the subject of respiratory physiology and breathing psychology.
his specialty areas lie within the fields of behavioral medicine, behavioral physiology, behavioral health, applied psychophysiology, behavioral pharmacology, and research design. specific areas of expertise include placebo effects, conditioning theory, drug addiction, biofeedback, and respiratory behavioral physiology. other areas of expertise include business planning/development for healthcare professionals, and software design/development of educational, clinical, and research protocols for physiological monitoring and recording.
dr litchfield is a behavioral physiologist, currently specializing in respiratory physiology and breathing psychology. he and sandra reamer together developed capnolearning®, a learning program for helping people to restore good respiratory fitness through the application of the principles of behavioral analysis, behavior modification, cognitive learning, biofeedback, awareness training, and phenomenological exploration to breathing behavior.
dr litchfield is a current instructor and an institute of bioenergetic medicine (ibem) board member.
optimal breathing development work integrates ancient teachings, modern science and technology, touch, non-touch, and self-help approaches. it is compatible with all forms of therapeutic, religious, spiritual, and stream of consciousness expressions. breathing mechanics are essentially the same for every normal human body but many of us lose good breathing or never had it. we need to inhale oxygen to live but we also need to exhale our breath to rid our bodies of toxins and disease. the way a person breathes will determine one's health and who they are.


text:
Warm Blood is an ongoing web comic by Josh Tierney. It features the art of Saskia Gutekunst, Joysuke, Jane Bak, Naomi Franquiz, Winston Young, Marina Julia, Leiana Nitura, Oliver Pichard, and many others. The story follows Penny in her first year at Greenwood High and a murder that coincidentally occurred the same day.
At a glance, the comic is very overwhelming. Between the constantly changing art style, choppy conversation, and confusing storytelling, the comic takes a little getting used to. Though the story and cast are very compelling, I found it hard to push past the first, few pages. However, after getting used to the complexities of the comic, I found myself itching to find why everyone is so indifferent to the murders.
For the few chapters already published, Warm Blood has a surprising amount of re-readability. There are barely enough clues to make sense of what is going on that I couldn’t help but to go over everything multiple times. There are also an enjoyable amount of pop culture within the dialogue and art. Most surprises come out the most innocent of panels. The amazing character design from Afu Chan, is also worth a mention seeing that the characters are still recognizable across the always changing art style.
With what’s published so far, Warm Blood is definitely worth reading. Though it takes a little something out of you just to get through the first few pages, the payoff of noticing something beyond the foreground is worth the time. You can start reading the web comic here.

lowercased:
warm blood is an ongoing web comic by josh tierney. it features the art of saskia gutekunst, joysuke, jane bak, naomi franquiz, winston young, marina julia, leiana nitura, oliver pichard, and many others. the story follows penny in her first year at greenwood high and a murder that coincidentally occurred the same day.
at a glance, the comic is very overwhelming. between the constantly changing art style, choppy conversation, and confusing storytelling, the comic takes a little getting used to. though the story and cast are very compelling, i found it hard to push past the first, few pages. however, after getting used to the complexities of the comic, i found myself itching to find why everyone is so indifferent to the murders.
for the few chapters already published, warm blood has a surprising amount of re-readability. there are barely enough clues to make sense of what is going on that i couldn’t help but to go over everything multiple times. there are also an enjoyable amount of pop culture within the dialogue and art. most surprises come out the most innocent of panels. the amazing character design from afu chan, is also worth a mention seeing that the characters are still recognizable across the always changing art style.
with what’s published so far, warm blood is definitely worth reading. though it takes a little something out of you just to get through the first few pages, the payoff of noticing something beyond the foreground is worth the time. you can start reading the web comic here.


text: For sale, this cane sword made with a sharpened foil blade made in Solingen. This cane probably dates from the mid 19th century. The shaft is of bamboo, which is split in some places. The blade does not go completely in the scabbard, but this could be fixed with a bit of work, hence the low price. A chance to own an iconic Victorian weapon.

lowercased: for sale, this cane sword made with a sharpened foil blade made in solingen. this cane probably dates from the mid 19th century. the shaft is of bamboo, which is split in some places. the blade does not go completely in the scabbard, but this could be fixed with a bit of work, hence the low price. a chance to own an iconic victorian weapon.


text:
Our maximum delivery time is 3 Business days after your order is being confirmed. We shall contact your to confirmed delivery date and timing.
Delivery Days (Saturday - Thursday) Fridays off.
We provide quick and efficient delivery and installation service within the U A E free of charges.
It is accepted to change the provided address while placing an order, within the same emirate and it will be free of charge. If you wish to change it to another emirate when shipment has delivered you (first point of delivery), there will be additional charged shipping and installation cost to the new location.
In case of our shipping team cannot reach your location address, they will try as many times to reach you by sms or call, after these attempts done, the product will be returned back to our warehouse and the customer will be charged for failed shipping cost.
For orders outside U. A. E, all associated shipment charges would be quoted by a shipping agent and must paid via any money exchange or direct transfer to our company account. This cost is not included in the sale price, estimated by your country Customs, and should be paid by you on delivery. Once the payment has been received, we shall confirm with you and process the shipment as per given address. We do not handle international installation, an installation instruction manual is attached in the package, installation videos are available on YouTube .

lowercased:
our maximum delivery time is 3 business days after your order is being confirmed. we shall contact your to confirmed delivery date and timing.
delivery days (saturday - thursday) fridays off.
we provide quick and efficient delivery and installation service within the u a e free of charges.
it is accepted to change the provided address while placing an order, within the same emirate and it will be free of charge. if you wish to change it to another emirate when shipment has delivered you (first point of delivery), there will be additional charged shipping and installation cost to the new location.
in case of our shipping team cannot reach your location address, they will try as many times to reach you by sms or call, after these attempts done, the product will be returned back to our warehouse and the customer will be charged for failed shipping cost.
for orders outside u. a. e, all associated shipment charges would be quoted by a shipping agent and must paid via any money exchange or direct transfer to our company account. this cost is not included in the sale price, estimated by your country customs, and should be paid by you on delivery. once the payment has been received, we shall confirm with you and process the shipment as per given address. we do not handle international installation, an installation instruction manual is attached in the package, installation videos are available on youtube .


text:
Where selecting fine art is an experience to savor.
Welcome to the Historic River Guild Gallery Center and home of J. Petter Galleries. The Galleries are the combined Petter Art Gallery and Petter Wine Gallery. We are an unusual find for art enthusiasts, collectors, and designers, plus a beautiful destination for wine lovers.
J. Petter Galleries is located in a unique 12,500 square foot fine art gallery building that first housed area artists in the 1930s. It was reintroduced as the Joyce Petter Gallery in 1993. The Art Gallery, located on The Art Coast of Michgian, now features an eclectic collection of fine paintings, sculpture, glass, and more. The galleries are also home to Petter Wine Gallery where you’ll find boutique wines and artful foods at both the wine/small plates bar and wine shop. The Wine Bar/Shop is also known for its private collection of unique cheeses and hand poured chocolates. Of course, you may walk the galleries with a glass from our wine bar.
In Michigan Blue Magazine's feature: Michigan's "Lakestyle"
Looking for someone or *something* specific? Browse through our artists currently showing in the gallery space.
Sip by the taste or by the pour at our very own wine bar. Enjoy a glass as you browse through our collection of exclusive wines imported from all over the world and from right next door.
If folks think they have to drive to the big city for quality art and quality wine–they are mistaken. They should visit J. Petter Galleries. This place is a gem. Whenever we have out of town guests we bring them to see this gallery.
It is always a must stop. It has such a variety of unique things that you can't find elsewhere.
Whether you're just in the neighborhood or would like to get more information on our current wine and art, we would love to hear from you! Walk-ins are encouraged (and we hope you stop by), but our hours of operation fluctuate with the seasons. The best way to reach us for specific questions is by phone or email.

lowercased:
where selecting fine art is an experience to savor.
welcome to the historic river guild gallery center and home of j. petter galleries. the galleries are the combined petter art gallery and petter wine gallery. we are an unusual find for art enthusiasts, collectors, and designers, plus a beautiful destination for wine lovers.
j. petter galleries is located in a unique 12,500 square foot fine art gallery building that first housed area artists in the 1930s. it was reintroduced as the joyce petter gallery in 1993. the art gallery, located on the art coast of michgian, now features an eclectic collection of fine paintings, sculpture, glass, and more. the galleries are also home to petter wine gallery where you’ll find boutique wines and artful foods at both the wine/small plates bar and wine shop. the wine bar/shop is also known for its private collection of unique cheeses and hand poured chocolates. of course, you may walk the galleries with a glass from our wine bar.
in michigan blue magazine's feature: michigan's "lakestyle"
looking for someone or *something* specific? browse through our artists currently showing in the gallery space.
sip by the taste or by the pour at our very own wine bar. enjoy a glass as you browse through our collection of exclusive wines imported from all over the world and from right next door.
if folks think they have to drive to the big city for quality art and quality wine–they are mistaken. they should visit j. petter galleries. this place is a gem. whenever we have out of town guests we bring them to see this gallery.
it is always a must stop. it has such a variety of unique things that you can't find elsewhere.
whether you're just in the neighborhood or would like to get more information on our current wine and art, we would love to hear from you! walk-ins are encouraged (and we hope you stop by), but our hours of operation fluctuate with the seasons. the best way to reach us for specific questions is by phone or email.