New Orleans Baptist Association calls for censorship of Baptist state paper

On July 12, a group of eight Baptist leaders from the New Orleans Baptist Association (NOBA) who were apparently fed up with what they called "buzzard politics" from The Baptist Message, wrote, signed, and posted an open complaint on the NOBA website. Entitled "Which Way Forward: Unity or Division?" the eight men noted specifically, "We are troubled by the critical editorials in our state Baptist paper against SBC agency heads David Platt and Russell Moore."

Making the complaints into a call for unity, the associational article indicated what appears to be an anti-Calvinistic bias they perceive behind the so-called negative editorials. "Within the past few years, Louisiana College was often in the news with stories about professors who were 'let go' because they were Reformed-leaning… A few in our state have developed a reputation for being inhospitable toward Reformed pastors, professors, and denominational leaders, with assertions that they are prepared to split our Convention over this issue."

One gets the impression that the signatories believe The Baptist Message may be posting stories "against" Russell Moore and David Platt not so much because of legitimate criticism of their respective leadership roles, rather because Platt and Moore are Calvinists. Unfortunately, the NOBA leaders cite no specifics from which to infer any tangible conclusions.

Even so, after describing the kind of "positive leaders" they desire, the NOBA article makes a bold demand: 'We tire of "buzzard" politics and editorials directed against our agency presidents. We want them stopped.'

Take careful notice of the last sentence: We want them stopped.

Consider.

Eight leaders within a major Baptist association definitively call on a denominational state paper to stop publishing news and editorial stories they find objectionable. I remain unaware of a clearer example calling for absolute censorship of a news agency in my lifetime.

What is more, this call for censorship comes on the heels of a five-minute exhortation at the 2016 Southern Baptist Convention by Russell Moore pleading with Southern Baptists about the freedom of speech and religion that belongs to us all, including advocates of the Islamic faith.

So let me see if I am understanding this correctly.

Muslims have freedom of speech and religion but The Baptist Message editor does not? We want them [him] stopped?

Where's Bart Barber, the three ERLC fellows, and even Russell Moore who in unison went crazy bananas a few weeks ago over a piece in The Christian Index they perceived as threatening the historic Baptist conviction of liberty of conscience when now Baptist leaders of a major Baptist state association call for censorship of a Baptist newspaper? We want them stopped. Where is the passionate, convictional concern over Baptists now demanding Baptist journalists cease publishing articles they perceive objectionable?

Also know the eight members who signed the article calling for censorship of the Baptist Message are hardly neutral voices. Jack Hunter, Executive Director of NOBA, hosted Russell Moore as the leader of 2015 Spring Meeting of the association (see graphic above).

The other seven signatories make up the Administrative Committee of the New Orleans association.

Consider.

Is this more top-down-rule shenanigans at play among Southern Baptists?

Are these men representative of Louisiana Baptists? Of even New Orleans Baptists? We don't know. We only know the statement represents the Administrative Committee of the New Orleans Baptist Association.

Even more, two signatories merit a special note--Fred Luter and David Crosby. While Fred Luter's resources are readily available on the ERLC website, David Crosby has been an ERLC Leadership Council member since January 15, two weeks before Crosby personally wrote a critical piece against Will Hall, Editor of The Baptist Message, wherein he accused Hall of "maligning" Dr. Moore. "We should resist the temptation to regard with suspicion those who differ with us on political and social issues. Russell Moore is faithful to the gospel. He speaks and writes with clarity and conviction. He is one of us, and he deserves our continued support and engagement."

Two ironies remain striking pertaining to Crosby's criticism toward Hall.

First and most obvious is, if Hall was wrong to publicly criticize Moore or "regard" him "with suspicion," what makes Crosby right to publicly criticize Hall regarding him with suspicion? Hall also is a public denominational leader. If Crosby thinks leaders of entities are immune to criticism and rather should be supported with positive affirmation, why should he have freedom to criticize a denominational leader with disparaging remarks instead of positive affirmation? Shouldn't the leader of a state entity (i.e. news agency) be as immune to criticism as the leader of a national entity (i.e. IMB or ERLC)? Apparently, not according to Crosby.

The second irony concerns the questions Hall raised in his piece which "troubled" the New Orleans leaders. Hall's questioning of Russell Moore had little to do with Moore's views on politics and certainly nothing to do with Moore's Calvinism. Rather Hall questioned Moore's behavior and cynical attitude toward those who disagreed with him on politics and politicians; indeed, a similar, if not identical, concern the NOBA leaders raised against Hall! Hall cited examples of Moore "disrespecting" others, "disdaining liberty," snubbing Southern Baptists, and using a "double standard" in the way he treated different politicians. But rather than challenge Hall's examples as claims about Moore not well-taken, they simply ignore Hall's evidence and categorically declare him a hostile witness.

Nor does the signed article from Moore's close circle of friends demonstrate either Will Hall or The Baptist Message is publishing articles that are needlessly divisive, negative, or unworthy of a Baptist news agency rather than articles they personally find objectionable. Unless Dr. Moore's supporters can show the Baptist Message is publishing falsehoods, innuendo, or worthless gossip having no basis in reality, Louisiana Baptists should stand up to the mic and tell Dr. Moore's friends to back down. We have no personal moral authority, sound ethical basis, or legitimate biblical mandate to demand that our journalists only publish information that is universally perceived as positive, up-building, and unobjectionable.  

Make no mistake.

The article written and signed by the Administrative Committee of the New Orleans Baptist Association remains little more than Russell Moore's close friends and ERLC council member(s) circling up around him for support.

Please know that's surely acceptable so far as it goes.

However, it means nothing so far as Louisiana Baptists as a whole is concerned.

And, the truth is, it may mean nothing so far as New Orleans Baptists are concerned. The article is the opinion of the Administrative Committee of the New Orleans Baptist Association all members of whom are personal supporters and friends of Dr. Moore. 

But be assured.

It makes a heck of a difference so far as freedom of the press is concerned when associational leaders demand they want the press censored.

We want them stopped.

Let that sink way, way down.

Comments

[Dr. Kyle B. Gulledge]

I am reminded of Dr. Adrian Rogers great, "We don't have to get along" statement made during the heated days of the Conservative Resurgence. Thank goodness that the Luter's and Crosby's weren't around during those days, we might not have won.
These days everyone is focused on unity while doing everything seemingly possible to bring about disharmony. It's not leadership if you only surround yourself with "yes" men.

[Alex Guggenheim]

Moore, et al, are headed like a rocketship in the wrong direction.

Many of these are theologically unprepared men who appear unable to withstand scrutiny.

There are cases of unjust characterizations that can occur by those with a chip on their shoulder but these are not those kinds of objections. They are matters of principle.

I am convinced Russell Moore is a Trojan Horse.

[Scott Shaver]

Pete:

Thanks for the "whole story". Like I posted on the NOBA "blog" which posted the article, Crosby and his circle of Moore sychophants can want in one hand and spit the other to see which fills faster.

Their hypocrisy is GLARING

Didn't realize at that time that these guys were Moore supporters as part and parcel of their SBC "responsibilities.

I see Russell Moore as Al Sharpton lite.

[Scott Shaver]

What do Russell Moore, Hillary Clinton and Alan Cross all three have in common?

All three tweeting out childish whimperings last night while having both their hypocrisy and overt lies exposed by RNC speakers.

Would love to see Russell Moore and Sheriff David Clarke one on one instead of these fuzz-balls that usually interview Moore.

[Scott Shaver]

Uh Kyle:

Hate to correct you but both Crosby and Luter were around during the CR. Both supported "your" side but were both just chicken-hearted enough to avoid the fray of those battles.

They are examples of guys who gleaned the spoils of war while "avoiding the battles."

Luter served on the committee which drafted the 2000BFM and tossed out Jesus as the ultimate criterion of Biblical interpretation.

These guys preach Jesus....that is until it comes to matters of individual interpretation at which point they call for censorship of the press.

[Scott Shaver]

Don't sit around holding your breath for the defense of Bart Barber on this one.

That's a branded yearling.

[JND]

I love these calls for unity.

"You shut up and go along with me."

[Charlotte Poteete]

The issue of reformed theology vs. free will is just a smoke screen to cover the real issue that all of us who contribute to the Cooperative Program are now actively supporting the legal battle of Muslims to construct their mosques--and of course in the name of religious liberty. But if one has any ability to see the greater principle, we are actually assisting a satanic religion in real ways.Is religious liberty the highest value here? If we or they lose our freedom to worship, we will join the early Christians in the underground before we will join in help Baal worship. Think, Christians! What is the root principle and how can you get around this truth? Maybe by diverting the real issue.

[Scott Shaver]

Very good point in your own words Charlotte about ultimate causes and effects in the year 2016.

Is religious liberty the apex of Christianity or is it a condition that can only exist and flourish under a Judeo-Christian framework.

Additionally, I find it disingenuous that so many "higher thinkers" in the SBC are banging the drums of religious liberty when they've previously flushed such baptist distinctives like priesthood of THE believer and Christ as the ultimate criterion of biblical interpretation down the loo.

They're definitely having enough difficulty being "Baptist" without the added mantle of "defenders of religious liberty".

Aren't these the same guys hash-tagging "NeverTrump" and "Black Live Matter" under the lame threat of disowning "evangelicalism"?

And now they're off to the subject of religious liberty for everybody but their own kind.

Makes no sense.

[Lydia]

"First and most obvious is, if Hall was wrong to publicly criticize Moore or "regard" him "with suspicion," what makes Crosby right to publicly criticize Hall regarding him with suspicion? "

Because Hall is not Moore? :o)

Sorry but it how they think.

[Lydia]

Moore is encouraging kindness truth and grace? Seriously? Shouldn't he practice what he preaches?

And what on earth is 'defining a Gospel culture for marriage'? I double dog dare him to write about that phrase in WaPo instead of racism. Don't the lofty vague platitudes ever get old with this crowd?

But yes, all they know is censorship (unless you are a Muslim, of course, but that is good for Moore's optics)

I think we will see more non Cals jump on this bandwagon. I am sure some are starting to worry about the money drying up and retirement funds. Just forget the deception of the last 10 years or so for the sake of fake unity. We need the money for Platt and Ezell!

[Lydia]

"I am convinced Russell Moore is a Trojan Horse."

Would live to hear more of your thoughts on this. Moores rise never made sense to me from either a theological standpoint or even as a deep thinker. He isn't. He isn't even an ideologue. He is more of a bold propagandist. An opportunist. He is 'in your face'. Not exactly statesman like for the ELRC. But then i have always seen danger in one guy representing the SBC in that capacity. Very unbaptist!

[Scott Shaver]

Lot of thoughts here to ponder.

[Scott Shaver]

I believe we can definitely see a push of the pendulum by Moore hard away from the allegations or criticism of "racist" attitudes leveled at his predecessor, Land.

Would be interesting to know what percentage of Southern Baptists are still listening to Land today as opposed to Moore.

Anyways, I can relate to Lydia's discomfort with a one-horse baptist lobby in DC propped up by church offerings.

[Robert Vaughn]

One thing that seems to be fairly consistent among Southern Baptist leadership is dislike of criticism and attempts to it.

Such an attitude split the Baptist General Convention of Texas at the end of the 19th century. It is clear that one S. A. Hayden was very rancorous in his complaints about the leadership in the state association -- big names such as Truett and the Carrolls. A review of the old papers will show that his opponents was just as rancorous, but his sin was that he was not in sympathy with the leadership. R. C. Burleson of Baylor sided with Hayden -- and lost his job for it. Wealthy rancher C. C. Slaughter said, "we are determined to down that man, S. A. Hayden." And they did. For his efforts the state convention denied him a seat at the convention. They didn't like him or his freedom of the press. They were "tired of buzzard politics" and editorials against the leadership. But the leadership does need to be called in question from time to time, and give an answer to the people.

I think Hayden did a lot of stuff that was wrong. But so did the other side. The main difference in how they are remembered by Southern Baptists is that Carroll and company were "the winners".

[Tom]

Robert:

You said:"One thing that seems to be fairly consistent among Southern Baptist leadership is dislike of criticism and attempts to it." IMO the spirit of the CR lives on. I think the leadership message is follow them or shut up.

[Scott Shaver]

Well, let's follow Russell Moore's axiom in print of drawing lines and telling his following with a progressive consciousness to go sit in the lip-pointing corner with Ted Cruz.

Boy did this guy ever "sink" into mire of duplicity over what's "principle" and what's "personnel". And I was a dark-horse supporter.

Live and learn I guess.

[Scott Shaver]

Russell Moore, Denny Burk, Alan Cross.

What they call "Christianity" and "Gospel Issues" are really nothing more than CULTURAL MARXISM with a progressive "evangelical" flavor... and I use the term "evangelical" lightly.

Ain't saying they ain't Christian, but they are, from a biblical and Christocentric perspective, SORELY MISGUIDED.

Years ago they used to call it "spiritual immaturity".

Don't know what the buzzwords are now...but there it is.

[Scott Shaver]

David Crosby emphatically states that "Russell Moore is faithful to the Gospel".

Wants those of us, including newspaper editors who disagree "stopped".

There's at least one of us out here that would take issue and say that Russell Moore, under the guise of a Southern Baptist, has corrupted the "Gospel" for a shot at politcal and cultural influence which appears so far...DESTRUCTIVE to the fabric of both church and country.

In the words of Donald Trump...."not good".

[Lydia]

Scott, Their Gospel is not Good News. It is obeying them.

[Scott Shaver]

May be "good news" for them, for the rest of us its intentional obfuscation.

[Janeece Bowers]

In regard to freedom of speech - yes, even in the SBC - whatever happened to "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free"? It seems that there are those in "power" who seem to think that they are the ones who will declare what Truth will be and all else should be either denigrated or stopped. It takes courage to tell the truth; does this mean that we have some less than courageous leaders among us? Indeed, the pen is mightier than the sword.