Joe Carter, the ERLC and Division over Donald Trump (Part 1)

Joe Carter, Communications Specialist at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention (ERLC), recently posted a piece on The Gospel Coalition website where he also works as editor. Entitled, Why Evangelicals Are Divided Over Trump, Carter claims the divide over Donald Trump within the evangelical wing of conservatism is clearing new ground since, according to him, up until the present presidential election cycle, “there has been a general sense of unity” among social conservatives. Carter blames Trump’s polarizing persona as the chief culprit: “Few people could have predicted he’d bisect socially conservative evangelicals into warring camps.”¹

Even so, Carter’s purpose in this piece, in his own words, is to “attempt to bridge this chasm” between evangelical conservatives by “explain[ing] the reasoning of both sides…examin[ing] their strengths and weaknesses” in order to “propose a way forward.” According to Carter, while the two sides may be warring now, they “can at least attempt to seek a modicum of understanding and reconciliation.”

Before looking closer at some of the details of Carter’s proposal (Part 2), it must be stated up front that neither understanding nor reconciliation is likely to transpire between the two “warring camps” within social conservatism until the fog surrounding the claims that gave rise to the division in the first place has receded somewhat.

Understanding may surely take place when new or better information is acknowledged. In other words, it's correct to expect the fog of ignorance to begin dissipating when substantial facts are finally accepted. On the other hand, reconciliation is another matter entirely. In fact, it’s not too much to suggest, that reconciliation can hardly happen in this case until certain claims are recanted on the one hand and forgiven the other. Remember, Joe Carter and Russell Moore (i.e. the ERLC) publicly claimed evangelicals who were/are voting for Donald Trump are “idolaters” and “hypocrites” who are de facto living out their citizenry "on the wrong side of Jesus" by voting for Trump.² These are not trivial claims, accusations reflecting one's lack of knowledge either about a particular candidate or the electoral process. Rather, these implications strike at the core of a person’s faith and are undeniably moral and spiritual in nature. Ignorance may be corrected with truth. Idolatry must be confessed as sin. 

Hence, to suggest as Carter does that come November 9, we can just shake hands and go back to being co-belligerents in a worthy cause is too naïve for words. 

Until Russell Moore, Joe Carter, and the ERLC actually concede that their bombastic, condemnatory rhetoric was not only unnecessary and imprudent, it was also flat-out wrong to accuse other evangelicals of actually committing idolatry and losing their faith when, while they may not have made the right decision in voting for Trump,³ neither their purpose nor their heart was/is to forget God, shame their Lord, tarnish their witness, nor align themselves with sheer political power.

Those evangelicals I know who are voting for Trump are doing so hardly for selfish reasons. Instead their motivation is their love for their country; their compassion for unborn human life; their concern for their families; their commitment to religious liberty; their God-given right to free speech and to bear arms; their concern for the Supreme Court and safe borders; among a host of other values not endemic to their own personal well-being.

Truth be told, the over-whelming majority of the issues from which they reason a Trump presidency would be a greater good for this country than a Clinton administration concerns what they believe is best for all people, not just themselves. Contra Joe Carter, for Moore et al to skew and twist Trump-voters' motivations into sinful idolatry, hypocrisy, heresy, moral apathy, and other unholy ethical vices cannot be reduced to a mere division of opinion over voting for Donald Trump.

Hence, in this sense, November 9, I’m afraid, is not going to usher in a let’s-just-forget-all-about-it mock millennium where social conservatives can all kiss and makeup as Carter seems to gullibly hope.

The divide is real.

And the divide is not over Trump per se. Rather it's over the ceaseless, imprudent and sub-Christian way the ERLC has deliberately questioned the faith and integrity of evangelicals who believed it was their civic and moral duty, based upon what they knew of the only two viable presidential candidates, to do everything in their power from handing over the country's future to Hillary Rodham Clinton.    

And until Joe Carter, Russell Moore, and the ERLC understand that, peace will hardly be probable.

Part 2 up next.

 

¹Some evangelicals believe it’s arguably not Trump that’s created the divide--at least in Southern Baptist circles—so much as it is Carter’s boss, Russell Moore, with his brazen, condemnatory rhetoric aimed at traditional social conservatives.

²While perhaps Carter himself has not explicitly referred to Trump-voters as idolaters, Moore (and therefore the ERLC) most certainly has indicated it. 

³Every voter is faced with the possibility of being wrong every time he or she steps into the polling booth and casts a vote for any candidate of any party or of no party. I need only recall my vote for Jimmy Carter to substantiate this principle. It’s called living in a Genesis 3 world.

⁴Picture source  

Comments

[Eric O]

For those on this site, I'm wondering:

1. Is there is anything Trump could do or promote(not including breaking the law) that would disqualify him from being voted for by a Christian?

2. Is there anything Trump could do or promote that would be just cause for folks like Moore to say what they say?

If the answer to #1 is NO, then I would say its fair to warn people that they may have set Trump up as an Idol. You see, we must protect our way of life, liberty and freedom through our "idol" Trump. That is, Trump is going to save us from the road Clinton will take us down.

I'm leaning towards Trump for one reason, The courts. Trump is gone in 4 years but the judges are here for life. Even so, Its good for me to examine if Ive set Trump up as an "Idol" that will save us from Clinton.

I have to resolve if there is anything Trump can do that will disqualify him from my vote. Then Trust in Our God who has already declared that he is in control, even if Clinton gets elected.

[Alex Guggenheim]

There are many things Mr. Trump could do which would make him second to Hillary as a choice (in the end we are getting one of the two, noble fantasies about someone else are just that, fantasies, and so I'd like to have a say as to which) but he hasn't done anything to place him there. He has chosen a conservative Christ confessing Christian as his #1, indicating his admin's trajectory and pledged to fulfill a conservative and constitutional platform.

But what could he do to make him second to Clinton? Pledge less vetting of Muslim immigrants, dismiss border control more than Hillary, collude with the press more than Hillary, mishandle classified materials in great numbers than Hillary, delete more emails than her, have more corrupt political surrogates than Hillary, be more unhealthy and deny it more than Hillary, promise more taxes for more social programs than Hillary and be more of a globalist than Hillary and this is for starters. Hope that helps.

[Eric O]

Thanks Alex,
I probably should have clarified "Character" issues not "policy" issues.

[Alex Guggenheim]

I thought colluding with major media, illegal servers and mishandling classified material and deleting emails and so forth more than Hillary would qualify as character issues, were he to do these.

[Scott Shaver]

Russell Moore, ERLC, Joe Carter et al had better think again about what happens when the "fog of ignorance clears". I've read nothing but "clouds of ignorance" from these guys.

Regardless of what banner they think they're waving, I wouldn't follow these guys to a free buffet at an expensive Brazilian steakhouse.

[Scott Shaver]

Somebody needs to remind Moore, Mohler and Carter that, despite the inclination of their egos, they do not speak for nor do they figuratively represent American "evangelicals" in any official capacity outside their own delusions.

My vote for the Republican nominee used to based on the unfitness of the democratic candidate to lead this country in the spirit of The Constitution. Now my vote for the Republican nominee will be cast primarily as a protest vote to the sniveling, whining and misrepresentation of both Christ and culture at the hands of guys like Moore and Mohler.

[Max]

I would feel a lot better about this election if I observed widespread humility, repentance, prayer and seeking God's face in churches across America. In the absence of that, God will do what He always has - give us a leader to test and try us until we do. Right now, it appears that either candidate would fit that bill. Until the Church House does what it needs to do, the White House will continue to be a reflection of who we really are.

[Alex Guggenheim]

Mac

I understand your sentiment but disagree that a humbled andv repentant church would be reflected by the White House.

The early church exploded but was persecuted. It isn't a guarantee that civil leadership will appear accomdating if the chuch is obedient.

However, in this case, amazingly we have a candidate who so recognizes the vital role of Christian expression to this nation that he chose an outwardly confessing believer as his Vice and repeatedly has met with Christian leaders for counsel and prayer. He may not be born again (or he may, I am certainly not permitted to judge that as God, so I won't but using worst case scenario here) but he is a friend of them!

[Alex Guggenheim]

Max, I mean above

[Scott Shaver]

At this level Max, it's not even about the election any more. Its about overly pious and terminally egocentric baptist college professors who've never had a real job or had to function outside the audience of a church house.

[Scott Shaver]

Not to mention that most of these bozos have only briefly if ever pastures a local church.

[Max]

"... overly pious and terminally egocentric ..."

Scott, there's certainly no shortage of that in New Calvinism! Last time I looked those qualities were not on the fruit of the Spirit list.

[Max]

"It isn't a guarantee that civil leadership will appear accommodating if the church is obedient."

Alex, wouldn't it be worth a try? I just don't see any movement in the direction of repentance and revival by the organized church ... nor widespread faithful obedience in the pew (barely in the pulpit). The reason we don't have much holiness preaching in 21st century American pulpits is that we don't have many preachers living holy lives. When I say "holy", I don't mean being Pentecostal about it - I mean holy and pure Christlikeness expected of all of us who bear His name. Who knows, in the midst of genuine revival, perhaps a national son bought-by-the-blood of Jesus would make it to the White House and exert a healthy influence on the nation. It's happened before.

[Alex Guggenheim]

Max

I certainly agree the church, in her logistical abundance or what is often called material wealth, has forgotten her spiritual wealth and is now expressing herself by and large in a very worldly and carnal fashion.

I would say this is true worldwide with the exception being in certain areas or with certain local churches which are a significant minority.

[Lydia]

"I probably should have clarified "Character" issues not "policy" issues."

You might not be old enough to remember that Hillary hired Betsy Wright to deal with bimbo eruptions and hire investigators and pundits to drag Bills conquests who spoke up....through the mud. Then Hillary did her famous TV interview where she insisted personal lives should be private and those who were outraged over Bills perpetual bad behavior were part of a right wing conspiracy out to destroy them. It worked. Whatever they do, works. Deception is like that.

If operating above the law such as compelling the FBI to destroy evidence and the long term pattern of selling access to the highest bidders are not character issues for a "public servant", then we are in big trouble-- as we are with the establishment oligharcical Clintons. Frank and Claire Underwood.

So my choices are a bombastic jerk or a long time deceptive "public servant" who is above the law and protected by the institutional establishment like the DoJ and FBI. Americans can be so silly. No guarantees with Trump. Plenty of proof and guarantees with Hillary over a few decades of "public service".

[Scott Shaver]

"Public Service" is correct Lydia, the "public" and some sheiks have served her very well since leaving DC "flat broke".