Remember that joke about a wife riding in a truck and complaining to her husband about the distance between them? She noted how they once rode side by side in the truck and now it seemed like they were hugging their respective doors instead of each other. The punch line of the joke is the witty husbands question, “Who moved?”
I feel a bit like the husband in that joke after this political season. I’ll state it again as clearly as I can. My position and issues have never been with those who held their nose and voted for Donald Trump because he wasn’t Hilary Clinton. My position has always been with those evangelicals who were Trump enthusiasts. I just didn’t see how enthusiastically supporting someone like Donald Trump fit with the gospel. Nor, could I see how changing the gospel in order to slide him in as a “baby Christian” did the church any favors. That is always where my issue has been.
Here we are looking at 2017 when Donald Trump will take office and a certain constituency in the SBC is calling for the head of Dr. Moore, head of the ERLC, mostly because of his position against Donald Trump. The chief argument has been that Moore does not represent a majority of the SBC. He is no longer speaking for us and therefore he needs to go—and I must assume be replaced by someone who more aligns with our support of Donald Trump (supposing that you cannot trust statistics and a majority of evangelicals did vote Trump).
But again I have to ask, “Who moved?” I have two questions I’d like to consider in the case of Russell Moore.
Is “representing a majority of Southern Baptists” the role of the head of the ERLC?
There is a bit of talk about the original intention of the CLC (Christian Life Commission) and what is now the ERLC. So I figured the best place to look for purpose wouldn’t be the present administrations definition of purpose. Instead I went back to 1995 when the ERLC was formed and found this:
- Assist churches in applying the moral and ethical teachings of the Bible to Christian life. (Research and provide resources to help Christians apply biblical principles in our everyday living and public life)
- Assist churches through the communication and advocacy of moral and ethical concerns in the public arena. (Represent Southern Baptists in communicating the moral and ethical positions of the SBC to the public and to the public officials).
- Assist churches in their moral witness in local communities. (Provide resources to inform and equip churches for active moral witness in their communities).
- Assist churches and other SBC Entities by promoting religious liberty. (Represent Southern Baptists in communicating the positions of the SBC on religious liberty issues to the public and to public officials).
So it does appear that at least one of the purposes of the ERLC is to represent Southern Baptists by communicating the positions of the SBC.
How is the ERLC to determine the position of the SBC?
But my next question, I believe gets to the heart of the matter. How is one to know the positions of the SBC? One could look at the Baptist Faith and Message, perhaps the various position statements, or more importantly for our question the history of resolutions. When you look through all the resolutions one in particular stands out to me as it relates to the Southern Baptist position on the importance of the morality of our leaders.
As you might remember Bill Clinton was in office at the time and had come under fire for accusations of sexual immorality. The SBC took a firm stance and said morality matters. Read it and apply it to Donald Trump (forgetting all the spin for just a moment) and tell me what the historic position of the SBC is on the morality of leaders.
Now, I ask “who moved”?
Granted, times are different in 2016 than they are in 1998. There wasn’t a lesser of two evils argument at the time. Things were more black and white. This election season was tricky because for many to not vote for Trump was to pave the way for a Clinton presidency. That was a tough pill to swallow. So I understand those who could say morality matters and also at the same time vote for Donald Trump because in their mind his immorality was less than the immorality of Hilary.
But again, Moore’s position (as he more clearly stated here) was not with those who held their nose but with those who were Trump enthusiasts. He was doing exactly what we had tasked him with doing—representing the SBC position on the character of leaders and not compromise even if it meant economic prosperity. He was following the SBC in her belief that “Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.”
Conclusion
I’m sure there are other issues at play in wanting to oust Dr. Moore. I’d love to hear them. And I’d love to hear a biblical case for them. After all we are supposed to be “people of the book” and not people of “majority rules”. Is it simply that some don’t like the way Moore is doing things? Fair enough. But build your case, but I fear siding too strongly with Trump against Moore is going to reap a whirlwind of consequences down the road.
There might be ways in which Dr. Moore could improve his rhetoric. As he acknowledged in a recent post he wasn’t as clear in areas where he should have been. Perhaps a case could be built that for this reason he has spread more disunity than clarity and should be ousted. I’d disagree—I think Dr. Moore is tremendously suited to be in this position, and we’d do better to give one another grace and stop all this stupid infighting. But I suppose a case could be made against him. But I don’t see the “He doesn’t represent Southern Baptists” to be one of them.
Make resolutions at the SBC that contradict the positions of Moore and then we can go from there. Pass those and then we’ll see what we are dealing with. But as it stands he has done nothing to not represent the SBC position. He hasn’t moved.
I appreciate the article Mike. Here are a few thoughts in response. Russ Moore’s tone has been troubling, but that is not the main problem. If Evangelicals had followed his advice Hillary Clinton would have been elected president. In post-Christian America, Christians are going to have to vote for lost people. We are now a minority. Third party voting is wasted voting. Imagine if Hillary had won. The Supreme Court would have taken away religious liberty and other fundamental rights found in the constitution. His political vision was, to put it nicely, naive. Can the SBC afford to have someone so politically naive leading the SBC? I like Moore and want him to stay. That said, he really made some big mistakes. If you cannot understand the outrage, I politely suggest you open your eyes. Moore made himself a tool of the liberal media. He was more known for criticizing Trump than Clinton. The future of America was on the line in this election. Our liberty was in danger. Moore made a foolish political move, and he is suppose to be our best mind in this arena. I am not shocked that some think we can do better than Moore.
I have no horse in this race, not being part of the SBC, but I do have a few thoughts. Let me state up front, I was not a Trump supporter. I chose the Constitution Party with Darrell Castle as my candidate.
First, Moore’s stance on certain moral issues (gay marriage/LGBT apparent weakness, religious liberty holding hands with heretics (Papists, Muslims, etc) seem to be what is most contested. In fact, most of those I see asking for the ouster of Moore don’t look at his Trump stance at all. I’m not going to go into all the points behind the LGTB and religious liberty arguments. A simple Google search will probably find them.
Second, like many that stood against Trump, he offered no alternative and his silence on Clinton may have seemed like a tacit endorsement. If he, and many other #NeverTrumpers, had offered a legit alternative, the evangelical vote would have been different.
He could have endorsed Castle (though, I’m sure he would have come under fire for endorsing a Catholic), or the American Solidarity Candidate (certainly more in line with his social beliefs). Yet he chose to remain silent.
Perhaps, and this is just a theory, his stance against Trump was merely lip service. He could have swayed the evangelical vote (as could many others) by endorsing a third party candidate…
BUT he knew that doing so would have given us Clinton. By crying out against Trump without giving an alternative he ensured there was a fighting chance against Hillary, even if it was Trump.
Perhaps we would have had Clinton, but at least America might have seen that there were alternatives.
My other theory (and it’s just that) is Moore has more in common socially with Hillary than the Donald but couldn’t openly endorse her due to her stance on LGTBQRSTUV issues and abortion without an uprising in the SBC.
Mike well said.
To TJ and Matthew: So, our goal in post-Christian America must be pragmatism over prophetic voice? Is our seat at “the table” with any party or President worth selling out our convictions? I still have yet to hear a rationale which explains the need for change from 1998 to 2016. If morality matters in the life of our President from our perspective, then it always matters no matter the alternative. When both major party candidates are untenable (a statement Dr. Moore made more than once PRIOR to the November vote) then we need to unify our voice behind another or other candidates with whom we more clearly align.
AND, it is the height of ignorance to assert that Dr. Moore has more in common with Ms. Clinton on social issues than he could say. To say something like that takes a person who has been unwilling to do the requisite research to find out what Dr. Moore has said and done in leading the ERLC in engaging those issues in our culture. I suggest reading his book “Onward” for starters. Then go to the ERLC website and read the articles, watch the videos related to those issues and tell me that Dr. Moore has left the BIBLICAL conviction regarding homosexuality/gender identity issues and religious liberty, et al. He has advocated for a Christ-honoring, Gospel-centered, and redemptive approach which seeks the salvation of the lost rather than solely judgment and condemnation, AND the religious liberty issue, as he has approached it, is right in line with Baptist forerunners such as John Leland.
I guess I just don’t get it. We want to be pragmatic and judgmental as our public face for the SBC engaging our world. Not me.
Sagordon: Please understand, I am not saying be pragmatic. I surely wasn’t. I stood and voted on principles. Personally, even without the moral equation, I don’t believe Trump is fit to lead. I think I made that clear with my first paragraph and stating who received my vote.
I hope what I have written below helps clarify what I meant. I’ve tried to keep it short and sweet. I kid, it’s a long read.
I’ve read much of what Moore has written and am familiar with the beliefs stated by the ERLC (and the Baptist F&M 2000, and other historic Baptist beliefs). I agree with much of what he says and these statements.
My observations about Moore were merely what I’ve seen floating around the Wild West Web and stating that it wasn’t necessarily his stance on Trump that makes some SBCers call for his ouster. Now, I could be 100% wrong, maybe most are calling for his ouster because of his stance on Trump and I’m just not seeing it pop up in my news feed.
As for my two theories, they are just that, theories. I meant them to be something to make people think, not necessarily be taken at face value. I should have made that clearer when I wrote them. Looking at them now I can see how they appear uncharitable and that wasn’t my intention.
My first, and really only, major issue with Moore is that he never gave an alternative to Trump or Clinton. If he did, I certainly never read it. It’s hard to say he didn’t do more to oppose Trump in the run up to the election than he did Clinton, his statements not withstanding. I have no doubt this is because he knew the battlefield. Evangelicals were far more likely to vote for the Donald than for Clinton. This would make opposing Trump a more pressing matter. It was pragmatic, and not in a derogatory sense.
BUT, this was viewed by more than a few as an endorsement of Clinton, or at least something that could be perceived as an endorsement. That is, they didn’t necessarily believe he was implicitly endorsing Clinton, but felt that others could think he was. I don’t believe that, and I certainly don’t believe he supported Clinton, either implicitly or explicitly. None the less, I believe he failed in his duty to inform SBCers, and evangelicals at large, what their options were.
Again, I found that many of us who opposed Trump never offered alternatives. That, to me, is unconscionable. If we truly believed Trump and Clinton were both dangers to our country (they are), then it is our moral duty to give alternatives. I said this in my original post, though not as explicitly. I believe this matches what you said, as well.
I firmly believe this is why we see Trump receiving 80% of the white evangelical vote and Clinton receiving 62% of the black Protestant vote (the latter stat is from the Barna preliminary polls). Had we actually banded together and voted for a principled candidate as a bloc perhaps things would be different.
Let me say this up front, before delving into the social issues: I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT MOORE FINDS ABORTION AND GAY MARRIAGE TO BE ABHORRENT. I DOUBT HE WOULD SUPPORT, IN ACTION, WHAT MOST DEMOCRATS ACTUALLY DO.
Now that that’s out of the way, I believe, had Clinton been a pro-life/Godly family Democrat, he would have supported her. I suppose that would make her a Blue Dog Democrat, and certainly less of an existential threat to our country. I should have worded the theory that way. I would edit it the wording if I were able.
To wit, I have no problem with a Christian who would vote for such a candidate. I encouraged friends that were more socially aware (for lack of a better term) than myself to vote for the American Solidarity Party (basically, a Christian Democrat party, like has been seen in Canada and Europe over the years). You could call them Pro-Life Democrats, if you wish.
As for Moore, his belief in aiding the poor and fighting social injustice (both, as you point out, Biblically sound beliefs) are more in line with what is thought to be progressive than conservative (or again, the current populism).
I believe that because the church has abdicated its responsibility in these areas the world and its systems (i.e. the government) have been able to take its place, and I would hazard a guess that Moore believes a similar thing. I may differ with him on how exactly to solve the issue, but we both believe the Gospel is the answer, not the world.
Hardline SBCers have certainly taken issue with his co-belligerence with those of other faiths. Again, a fact, not an assertion. They feel he has compromised by making faith statements (again, for lack of a better term) with Papists, Muslims and other faiths regarding such things as what a family is. They also believe his holding hands with other faiths to stand for religious liberty is anathema to the SBC beliefs.
I don’t personally have a hard and fast stance on this aspect, much like my belief on what the church should be doing to help the poor, I’m still working this out. I would be, and am, more concerned with a Christian preacher holding hands with the Pope or some Prosperity heretic on doctrinal matters than I am with a Christian working alongside other faiths for social good. That said, there is a very, very fine line on how co-belligerency should be handled.
I’m impressed, I must say. Rarely do I come across a blog that’s equally
educative and interesting, and without a doubt, you’ve hit
the nail on the head. The issue is something that not enough folks are speaking intelligently about.
I’m very happy I came across this in my hunt for something regarding this.
I appreciate the comments Sagordon, but I have a different perspective. Falwell and the moral majority helped fundamentalist Christians engage in politics. Their faithfulness put the abortion issue on the map in politics. This is a good thing. There is a convergence of religion and politics because Christians began to engage in civics during the 1970s. I do not think the church was polluted by getting involved, even though there are always complications in major endeavors. Much good was accomplished by Christians being involved in politics. I would also argue that we were simply following in the footsteps of the puritans. They developed a theology of government in England. This theology was brought to America by the pilgrims. Our constitution embodied many of their complicated theological principles. All in all, I think the church influenced government more than the church was influenced.
The problem with the ERLC and Moore is a lack of wisdom. In post Christian America, the church will often have to choose between two very lost candidates. Third party voting is a wasted vote. If we want to influence the most powerful government on earth, we have to play by the rules of our two party system. If Moore’s advice would have been followed by all evangelicals, Hillary Clinton would have been elected. Roe v. Wade would have survived for another thirty years. Religious liberty would have been threatened. These are no small matters.
Older leaders have a wiser approach to engaging the culture. They want to be relevant, rally voters, and effect policy. Moore advocates a disengagement from the messy world of politics in order to merely speak to matters. I am all for speaking to all matters, but we also need to marshal votes and create policy. Not having a seat at the president’s table is a loss of influence. Again, this is no small thing. We are going to have to work with lost people like Trump in Washington.
Who is more prophetic? Moore who does not have a seat at the table, or Jeffress who does? Jeffress has not applauded Trump’s immorality, but he has said Trump was a better choice than Clinton. Because evangelicals listened to Jeffress and not Moore, we may be able to get Supreme Court nominees that reverse Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, as well as support religious liberty. Wisdom is known by her children.