What’s at Stake in the Southern Baptist Convention for the backlash against Russell Moore? A Response

Jake Raabe is a student at Baylor University's George W. Truett Theological Seminary in Waco, Texas and columnist for The Baptist Standard, the news service affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Raabe recently wrote an opinion column entitled "Voices: What's at stake for the SBC in backlash against Russell Moore?" arguing that it is a mistake for Southern Baptists to either silence or dismiss the views of the president of the Ethics and Religious Life Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention, Russell Moore.

It would be naive to claim all of Moore's political beliefs align perfectly with those of Southern Baptists at large. Speaking strictly in terms of politics, but not theology, Moore has been a consistent moderating voice in a convention that recently has been extremely conservative. However, silencing or dismissing Moore would be a grave mistake for Southern Baptists.

Raabe cites the recent action of the Louisiana Baptist Convention to "study the recent actions of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission with regard to issues of concern to Louisiana Baptists" as part of the public backlash against Russell Moore. He claims a negative editorial against Russell Moore written by Louisiana's Baptist Messenger editor, Will Hall, is mainly responsible for Louisiana's action, along with a blog post by William F. "Bill" Harrell published on the SBC Today website.

Raabe interprets the backlash against Moore fundamentally as defying "Baptists' oldest legacy," the legacy of dissent he rightly insists remains "a hallmark of Baptist history and identity." Raabe rhetorically asks, "Should John Smyth and Thomas Helwys have stepped down from their congregations because the majority of Christians in England in the 17th century believed in infant Baptism?" To that question, I wholeheartedly agree with Raabe's presumable answer. Not on your life.

The problem with citing Smyth and Helwys' resistance toward infant baptism in the state church is that it illustrates the opposite of what Raabe intends. In standing against infant baptism, Smyth and Helwys were accurately reflecting and therefore fully representing the Baptist movement in their dissent against the culture and the state church. Louisiana Baptists, on the other hand, were questioning in their action whether Moore's views either reflect or represent their interests as Louisiana Baptists and/or, at least by implication, Southern Baptists. Indeed, the editorial Will Hall wrote asked that very question: "Does the ERLC represent the SBC?"

Of course, we believe in dissent. Of course, we believe Russell Moore has every right as a Baptist to stand his ground on his own convictions and speak to issues he cares deeply about. I applaud him in it, and will stand toe to toe against anyone who would deny him that fundamental right.

But whether Russell Moore has a right to personally dissent is not at stake in what Raabe interprets as a "backlash" against him. Instead the issue here is whether Russell Moore fairly represents and reflects the views and actions of the Southern Baptist Convention to whom he is accountable. In the words of the ERLC statement itself, the ERLC exists to "Represent Southern Baptists in communicating the ethical positions of the Southern Baptist Convention to the public and to public officials."

The fact is, as a representative of Southern Baptists, Russell Moore has no more right to dissent from the views, actions, and positions of the Southern Baptist Convention than Smyth or Helwys had a right to represent the Baptist movement by dissenting to the position of infant baptism in the Church of England. By dissenting they would have forfeited their position in speaking for Baptists. Why then should Russell Moore not forfeit his position in speaking for Southern Baptists when he takes positions either contrary to or not representative of many, if not most, within the Southern Baptist Convention?

What is more, to assume the approach Raabe seems to be suggesting—that is, Dr. Moore should not be silenced or dismissed for views he presents in the public square that are not in line with Southern Baptists at large—is to set up a scenario where the public spokesman for Southern Baptists could embrace most any view no matter how contrary it might be to the churches he represents. Consequently, what accountability would Moore have to the constituents he's hired to represent?

For example, what if Moore began to take a view more in line with the trendy Socialism of Bernie Sanders? What if Moore moderates his views on abortion so that it no longer fits into the mainstream Pro-life position? What if Moore decides he's more in line with evolutionary science than Intelligent Design or creation science? What if Moore finally succumbs to the LGBT agenda? There's no evidence he'll do any of these, of course. However, to take Raabe's position that a representative spokesman of the Southern Baptist Convention should have the fundamental Baptist right of dissenting from the views of the convention he's supposed to publicly reflect implies Southern Baptists should accept it because that's who we are. That's what's implied in the way Raabe seems to interpret Baptists' oldest legacy. 

In short, according to the way I understand Raabe, we're stuck paying the enormous salary of an individual to represent us in the public square even though he may not reflect us accurately all because that's the "hallmark of Baptist history and identity." For me, this makes exactly zero sense. Nor is it how Baptist dissent has teased itself out in Baptist life.

Raabe goes on to inquire whether church members should withhold offerings if something the pastor says strikes them as wrong.

Should we withhold tithes and offerings from our church if we disagree with something the pastor preaches? To do so ultimately assumes we as individuals never need correction or alternative viewpoints, a sentiment that is prideful and has no place in the Christian life. To dismiss Moore because his political viewpoints differ with a large number of Southern Baptists is to assume those members of the convention are without need of correction or challenge, a spiritually dangerous claim to make.

In response, comparing what goes on in a local church to what ought to go on at the convention level simply does not follow. No, we should not withhold tithes and offerings if we disagree with something the pastor preaches for the simple reason the pastor is charged to "preach the Word" regardless of its agreement with every person's view in the pew. Tithes and offerings in a local church support the church's entire ministry whether the church even has a pastor at the time the offering is collected.

Even so, Russell Moore is not the convention's pastor nor is the convention in any sense a church. Russell Moore is an employee of an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention and is paid to represent us in the town square. Nor is it Moore's job to "correct" the convention. He might advise the convention. He could even instruct the convention through many venues including printed and digital resources.

But Russell Moore has absolutely no mandate as president of the ERLC to either correct the convention's views, positions, or actions; nor does he have the delegated authority to publicly criticize the Southern Baptist Convention for views, positions, or actions they might take; nor does Moore have the right to publicly present his personal view if his personal view collides with the convention's views, positions, and/or actions. Moore is not president of the ERLC to present his views, promote his agenda, or propagate his cause.

Rather Moore is president of the ERLC to reflect the views, positions, and actions of the convention. If he cannot do so, but insists on reflecting his personal views in the public square rather than the views of those whom he represents, it seems to me integrity demands Russell Moore find an organization the views, positions, and actions of which do not seriously collide with his own.

Finally, Raabe calls on those who question whether Moore represents the views of Southern Baptists to find a theological issue with Moore rather than a purely political one:

The opposition to him isn't about theology or doctrine: it's purely political and, specifically, about his opposition to Donald Trump. Claiming Moore doesn't represent the SBC is claiming voting for a Republican candidate in every instance is a fundamental aspect of faith for the SBC. Additionally, it would place distance between the SBC and the large number of SBC church members who also did not support Trump's presidency.

In response, few, if any, issues in the public square remain purely political—at least for Russell Moore. He acknowledges as much in his oft-repeated "Gospel and" approach to virtually every issue we might consider. The Gospel and Same Sex Marriage; The Gospel and Religious Liberty; The Gospel and Racial Reconciliation; "Patriotism and the gospel"; "The Gospel and Pop Culture"; "the Gospel and politics"; "interracial marriage and the Gospel"; "The Gospel and Children's Sexuality; "The Gospel and Human Sexuality." One could easily go on. But enough evidence is linked to demonstrate that so far as Russell Moore is concerned, few issues could be characterized as purely political.

But even if there are positions, views, and/or actions that may be characterized as purely political, Russell Moore has a mandate from Southern Baptists as the president of the ERLC to accurately reflect and fairly represent the convention's views not his own. If he can't do so, integrity demands he step aside and let somebody who can represent Southern Baptists in the public square. 

Nor is it the case that whatever public backlash Russell Moore received from either the Louisiana Baptist Convention or individual critics like Bill Harrell was "specifically, about his opposition to Donald Trump." We agree that Russell Moore made no effort to conceal his opposition to Trump for president. And we also concede that we believe Moore should have been both equitable in his criticisms of the Democratic and Republican nominees (he was not) and more cautious in getting into personal squabbles on social media with any of the presidential candidates. More effort could have been made by the ERLC in informing Southern Baptists about the platforms and policies of each presidential candidate were he or she to be elected.

Again, Moore could have counselled and informed evangelical voters about the potential political consequences of a White House administration each candidate might bring instead of a repeated string of morally repugnant slurs primarily aimed at one of the candidates who is now the President-elect.

He did not.

However, it's still not necessarily the case that the backlash against Russell Moore is "specifically, about his opposition to Donald Trump" as Raabe claims. Rather much, if not most, of the backlash against Russell Moore comes from Southern Baptists who reluctantly but confidently concluded that, given the only viable choices for president available, a Donald Trump administration would be better for our country, our culture, our churches, our unborn, our borders, our liberties, our courts, our protection, and our military among any number of other considerations in deciding a president.

And for all this, Russell Moore carried on a personal public crusade against evangelical voters for Trump, many of whom—arguably most of whom—were Southern Baptists. He chided us; insulted us; ridiculed us with inflammatory rhetoric suggesting we've given up everything we've ever believed by voting Trump; that we'd lost our moral core; that we were hypocrites by criticizing Bill Clinton for his womanizing but not Trump for his womanizing; that we were dismissing grave moral errors in Trump's life solely for political purposes; that we were embracing moral relativism. All of these ridiculous charges among many others were repeatedly hurled at Trump voters.

At one point, Moore even denied the descriptor "evangelical" in protest of the large majority of evangelicals on whom his constant condemnation did not work. Consider: assuming Southern Baptists are evangelicals, why should a man represent us and our interests who claims he's no longer an evangelical? A man who publicly declares the descriptor "evangelical" no longer applies to him?

Russell Moore was undeniably a complete failure in representing and reflecting the interests of the Southern Baptist Convention during the entire 2015-16 primary and presidential elections, and the Louisiana Baptist Convention and others like Will Hall and William F. "Bill Harrell have every right to question the allegiance of the ERLC toward the interests of all Southern Baptists   

Russell Moore works for and is paid by the Southern Baptist Convention. If he represents and fairly reflects the issues, positions, and actions of the convention in the public square there will be little to criticize. But he has absolutely no mandate to correct us, chide us, insult us, and certainly not to condemn us.

Raabe indicates that if Moore had been congenial toward Trump, "it would place distance between the SBC and the large number of SBC church members who also did not support Trump's presidency." That may be so. But in his public condemnation of both Trump and Trump voters, did not Moore also place distance between the SBC and the large number of SBC church members who supported Trump's presidency?

And, by condemning Southern Baptists who voted for Trump, Moore put distance between himself and the Southern Baptist Convention to whom he is accountable in reflecting and representing their views, positions, and actions.

Comments

[Lydia]

"But whether Russell Moore has a right to personally dissent is not at stake in what Raabe interprets as a "backlash" against him. Instead the issue here is whether Russell Moore fairly represents and reflects the views and actions of the Southern Baptist Convention to whom he is accountable."

Yep. The author might not have the capacity to understand the difference. It seems to be epidemic.

The irony is Moore expects the people he insults to pay him to do so. The arrogance is astounding.

Perhaps Moore's job description needs to be more specific with boundaries of decorum spelled out since he does not seem to know better. OTOH, Moore has made the case to save money and dissolve the ERLC.

[Les Prouty]

Peter, good article. Here's my question: given that this position does exist, from where does Moore get the "ethical positions of the Southern Baptist Convention?" I'm asking because I don't know. Does the annual convention vote and take various positions on ethical matters and these become his charge?

Thanks.

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Les. From official actions, positions, and views we have. These are gleaned from our heritage, conventions, etc. That's one reason his engagement on the presidential election was a complete failure. He had absolutely no mandate to crusade for or against any candidate dem or rep. He would have done SBs a good had he just informed us on platforms, policies, etc. He could have even given us bio facts about candidates. But he not only attacked one of them almost unilaterally, he attacked SBs who supported him. I've never seen anything like this in my almost 40 years in the SBC. We can't expect him to represent and reflect the individual views of ALL SBs something virtually impossible. What we can expect is a) speak boldly where we DO speak; b) be reserved where we haven't spoken keeping his pulse on where he thinks we might; c) NEVER speak aurhoratively where there's probable broadly diverse views--e.g.presidential elections; d) and never, ever publicly condemn us. If we make decisions that are wrong--and we will--he will need to make a decision: if we're so wrong that he can't conscientiously represent us, then he needs to step down. Now I'm pecking this out on my phone so it probably needs some thoughtful Polish but I think that's where to start. Consider your own position with the ministry you serve, Les. How long would you last if you went around criticizing, condemning and ridiculing either the Board or Senior Leadership? Now perhaps they made decisions so wrong, they needed public correction. My guess is however you'd not be able to continue doing so ON THEIR NICKEL.

[Les Prouty]

Peter, exactly right. If I did that I should expect to be fired. Not good. Seems to me that most of what he should be doing should be based on what messengers have taken positions on, such as abortion, etc. But you're right. In this election he crossed the line and that in only one direction. To call out members who disagreed with him on a debatable issue is not good. Now he probably thinks his pronouncements about Trump were based on clear biblical teaching. But THAT is debatable at best and wrong IMO.

God bless.

[Scott Shaver]

Even a fool is esteemed wise when he shutteth his lips.

Moore has absolutely no one or group to blame for the "backlash" but himself.

[Lydia]

"But he not only attacked one of them almost unilaterally, he attacked SBs who supported him. I've never seen anything like this in my almost 40 years in the SBC."

Me either. He did not even attempt balance. I have never seen anything more obvious and inappropriate from someone in his position.

It was as if he thought he was so super spiritual and important that evangelicals would be Shamed to stay home and a certain establishment candidate would automatically win-- securing his place in that world that pretends it's different but isnt.

Moore is not totally naive to how it works. He worked for a congressman. A democrat who lost to a Republican.

He missed the underlying tenor of this election which was anti establishment and anti PC-- not all pro Trump. Trump was the only non establishment left standing.

Moore talked and acted like one of his YRR SBTS new students, so eager and anxious to please the important people, and do whatever it takes to prove his allegiance to their establishment during the campaign. He is as susceptible to group think as his former students. That is the problem with such bubbles.

[Alex Guggenheim]

Pete/All:
Raabe knows better than to equate removing Moore from his position with silencing his voice in the SBC. If that were true, I guess the President of the ERLC is the only one with a voice in the SBC?

Moore is free to express his views but not in a role which is to represent SBC views and funded by a strong majority who hold to those views when Moore clearly and often departs from them.

Maybe some Trustees will keep getting ear-fulls or better yet, belly-fulls and act.

WARNING - the next big phase of his Trojan Horse endeavors is the cultural Marxism doctrine of racial reconciliation of which Moore will concentrate on if he remains in his role in the next few years. It is humanism masquerading as Biblical enlightenment and imperative doctrine.

Moore has been occupied with it somewhat before the election but now that his focus on Trump reached its pinnacle and with the election and embarrassingly responsible, conservative and multi-ethnic/gender choices for major positions, this will be at the head of Moore's crusading. Resist this at every turn. Please, for the sake of the church and our true reconciliation as Christians, which is spiritually based in Christ, please resist this.

I'm sure the SBC intellectual ruling class of spiritual aristocrats can find a nice SBC church on the edge of turning full leftist which Russ can guide into their new enlightenment and where Moore can still share his voice.

[Scott Shaver]

Dave Chappele recently joked that America has elected its first internet troll as president.

Southern Baptists have an internet troll as the head of their ERLC who was not elected and who has not been transfigured. Just saying.

[Lydia]

"Moore is free to express his views but not in a role which is to represent SBC views and funded by a strong majority who hold to those views when Moore clearly and often departs from them."

Bingo. Moore was not "representing" but trying to shape the election outcome by telling people what they should think from his lofty position and in the media-- in order to be Christian. That entire movement is full on collectivism.

"WARNING - the next big phase of his Trojan Horse endeavors is the cultural Marxism doctrine of racial reconciliation of which Moore will concentrate on if he remains in his role in the next few years. It is humanism masquerading as Biblical enlightenment and imperative doctrine."

Because of the Lefts crony capitalism, i wouid say they are more Fascistic.

It reminds me of Germany in the late 20's. Create propaganda for a massive problem which doesn't really exist except for a few pockets here and there pitting groups against one another. For power.

It works. White privilege even when the white person is in poverty compared to a black President. Logic is not required.

We have a man who reached the pinnacle of earthly global success as President of the US who, still, when leaving, insists he is a victim of racism. And people buy it. It's uncanny, the ignorance out there. Michelle alone is lined up for 50 Mill in book advances, speaking fees but has lost "hope".

Just a few years ago, Moore's pet issue was patriarchy. He was the guy who claimed comps are wimps and we need more patriarchy.

That got him kudos at SBTS but won't go over well at WaPo or NYT which is why he dropped that formerly very important issue?

Moore is an opportunist. Not an ideologue.

[Lydia]

Scott, I cringe over his Twitter use. But should he trust the media? I wouldnt. I don't. they proved their bias two fold and still do-- (even feeding Hillary debate questions. So where was their concern for Russia long before the election? The leaks, which they claim are hacks, are not new at all. The truth is Obama and Hillary both have been horrible about national cyber security for many years.

Trump's campaign has been about side stepping the media. He will have to continue that in some fashion. They won't stop trying to bring him down.

[Scott Shaver]

Poor guy..Moore is trying to walk back statements now that can't be walked back...so if anybody heard them in the wrong way then the "hearer/reader" simply "misunderstood".

Moore decided to become overtly political in a position that used to demand a strict position on ISSUES germane to Southern Baptists and caution on political PERSONS. Raabe defends Moore as a "dissenting" voice but he was a PARTISAN voice opposing Trump. There is a difference. Dissent follows theological issues, convictions, interpretations etc. (padobaptism, gifts of Spirit and such) and not PERSONAL AGENDAS ( Archbishop of Canterbury, Queen or Queen of England and such). Persons who take the "opposing" side are included only secondarily. If Moore is vanquished, tis his own fault.

[Max]

Moore has nothing to worry about. Mohler is his rear guard. They both are untouchable. It matters not what mainline Southern Baptists think about Moore, the New Calvinists love him and they control the denomination right now. Plus, if you were to poll Southern Baptists exiting SBC churches across the nation this Sunday, most would not even know who Moore is or that SBC has an ethics commission! But they know which church grandma cooks the best fried chicken, and other important stuff of that sort. With a pew like that, SBC has been easy pickins' for the new reformation. So, Moore can toot his horn any way he wants to and still get his SBC paycheck.

[Scott Shaver]

Obviously, the SBC has a recent history of writing checks it can't cash.

[Brad Fletcher]

Peter:
Thoughtful post but I would like for you to consider three things- would love to hear your thoughts:

1. Was there really a clearly defined "interest" of Southern Baptist in this election? You said: "Russell Moore was undeniably a complete failure in representing and reflecting the interests of the Southern Baptist Convention during the entire 2015-16 primary and presidential elections, and the Louisiana Baptist Convention and others like Will Hall and William F. "Bill Harrell have every right to question the allegiance of the ERLC toward the interests of all Southern Baptists." I believe, based on your post, that he was a complete failure in representing your views. But he largely reflected my views eloquently. I think your assumption is that there WAS/IS one clearly defined "Interest of Southern Baptist" in this election cycle. But there simply wasn't/isn't. The view Dr. Moore represented WAS a reflection of MANY MANY Southern Baptist.

2. In the comment above you mention that our position on matters comes "From official actions, positions, and views we have. These are gleaned from our heritage, conventions, etc. That's one reason his engagement on the presidential election was a complete failure. He had absolutely no mandate to crusade for or against any candidate dem or rep." However, AT the 1998 SBC a resolution was passed regarding the Moral Character of Public Officials. http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/773/resolution-on-moral-character-of-public-officials We do have a history and a position on this matter.

3. There seems to be some disagreement on what the mission of the ERLC is. The mission in NOT simply to represent and reflect Southern Baptists. The mission of the ERLC is as follows: "The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission exists to assist the churches by helping them understand the moral demands of the gospel, apply Christian principles to moral and social problems and questions of public policy, and to promote religious liberty in cooperation with the churches and other Southern Baptist entities." That mission statement is much more than REFLECTING SBC views- it actually speaks to helping shape the SBC views on political and cultural issues. You are correct that he works and is paid by the SBC. But he isn't paid to simply "reflect and represent". I respect that you disagree with the manner in which he is doing that- but it doesn't mean he has stepped outside of his mandate as currently represented in the mission statement of the ERLC. Perhaps some in the SBC would like to change the mission of the ERLC?

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Brad. I must be brief since all access I have is my phone (I'll also answer one at a time if I may). As to RM addressing your interests perfectly but not mine, that strikes at the heart of much of the problem with Moore. Since he represents the SBC and therefore BOTH me AND you, he could not possibly be doing his job by representing you perfectly and not me at all. Moore has no mandate to enter into partisan, polemical politics. He should have stayed away from such, informing SBs about the policies and platforms of ALL candidates without going on a crusade AGAINST one candidate. Furthermore, he not only unilaterally crusaded against one candidate, he blasted those voting for the candidate, an unprecedented move by the president of the ERLC so far as I am aware.

[peter lumpkins]

As for the resolution you cite, you appear to assume that I think speaking to personal character is not a valid point to bring into the discussion of a candidate for public office. If so, you assume wrongly. Nor would Moore's critique of Trump's moral flaws been illegitimate per se. The problem with Moore's critique is threefold: a) he made Trump's character flaws virtually the only concern; b) he all but ignored character flaws in other candidates; c) he pressed it so hard he became obsessed with it. It's one thing to state what is moral and what is not. Moore repeatedly, mercilessly and personally attacked Donald Trump. Far from honoring the resolution and SBC, Moore took it and beat Trump over the head with it. BTW, contrast Moore's attitude and actions toward Trump and his attitude and actions toward the Gay community...

[peter lumpkins]

Finally, if, as you say, Moore's job is help us think through ethical issues, if you think he actually did that during the presidential election, and did it to your liking, be my guest. I have nothing else to say.

[Lydi]

"But he largely reflected my views eloquently."

That sums up the YRR/Neo Cal/guru following Mohler SBC perfectly. No problem promoting and partnering with the PASTORS Driscoll and Mahaney but Trump voters have lost their moral compass. How selective they are when it comes to ethics and morals.

Never mind the constant string of Clinton scandals over 30 years. Especially Hillarys Bimbo Erruption war room going after Bills victims of predation. And her press conference stating his string of victims who spoke up were none of our business and a private marriage matter. She said Talking about it was a right wing conspiracy. The WSJ called it her "Pretty in Pink' press conference to save her political career.

Moore is ok with that, I suppose. He never mentioned the ethics of Hillary hiring the Bimbo Erruption crew to go after Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley or Juanita Broderick. (The last Bill raped when he was Ark Atty Gen)

Moore seems to be ok with Hillary's pay to play Foundation, too. Not to mention flouting national security. From Moore, I can ascertain it is perfectly acceptable to him to become stinking rich as a public servant.

But this is the legacy of Mohlers protégés. Moores credibility is shot outside the guru following bubble Mohler created. He targeted ONE candidate and left the other alone who has had a 30 year career of scandals using taxpayers.

I have my theory of why he did that. It was all about keeping the gov establishment intact. Better for Moores career that Hillary win than Trump.

Moore chose not to give Hillary equal bashing time. Moore fancied himself an insider. Good thing he has Mohler protecting his job as the Pope of the SBC.

[Scott Shaver]

I understand from Christianity today that over 1200 "took to twitter" # I Stand with Moore.

I'm afraid "Twitter" has contributed more to Russell Moore's demise that it did Trumps victory in the presidential election.

I'll accept Moore as misguided Christian but I don't stand with him.
He was not willing to stand for folks like and publicly denigrated the quality of our faith in Christ.

By the way, why is everybody still referring to this guy as an "evangelical"....He flat declared the title no longer applied because folks like me have ruined it.

ERLC is a baptist Christian PR dream turned nightmare over the past 12 months.

[Lydia]

Scott,

Moore is now immortalized as a hash tag.

Twelve hundred is pretty good considering how long he was a young Dean at Southern indoctrinating young minds.

IMO, the ERLC was a bad idea. If you read over at thouarttheman, Todd makes a very compelling case for where Moore was intending to go with it.

https://thouarttheman.org/2016/10/14/ethicsreligiouslibertycommission/

It's long but that is because Todd does his homework. My guess is Moore was looking to capture some of the billions in refugee resettlement money. The Catholics and Lutherans do quite well. It's a racket. After my work with them, I'd love to see a serious audit.

[Scott Shaver]

Yep, it's big business. No questioning that from here.

If you don't like the tribe paying the bills, build a new one.

[Max]

Lydia wrote "Moore chose not to give Hillary equal bashing time."

That's because he fully expected Hillary to win the election and did not want to close the door with her administration. As it turns out, he obviously will not be welcomed with open arms when he heads over to the Hill now.

[Lydia]

Max, Trump has been making nice with his previous campaign enemies. The problem Moore has now are his own words. If he makes nice with Trump in word or deed, then obviously we are to believe Moore is admitting he has lost his own moral compass. :o)

He is such a silly little immature man.

[Max]

Peter, in case you missed it, there is a comment by "Cathy Mickels" over on the post about Tom Chantry requesting your attention re: Russell Moore.

[Lydia]

https://soundcloud.com/janetmefferdtoday/12-21-16-janet-mefferd-today

Russ Moore is a manipulator. He is now trying to rehab from what he said during the campaign. He needs to go. It wasn't just one statement people heard from him but a continued barrage.

[Scott Shaver]

Now we've got Clinton supporter Dwight Mckissic crawling out of his hole once again to show SBC that he constantly denigrates a "better way" with regard to Moore.

Both Mckissic and Moore keep talking while the credibility of both has been totally shot. McKissic is a classic race-baiter and rarely speaks little on any other subject.

[Scott Shaver]

I keep reading from the Pravda crowd that Moore "has spoken like a prophet". Sterling proof they can't tell the difference between a prophet and a pundit.

Inerrancy sure ain't helping em much.

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Max. I got that!

[Mary]

Scott, OH SNAP! First someone had the audacity to point out the tokenism Pravda exhibits and now we've got a link to the definition of "race baiting" Watch the white liberal guilty go full on with the tokenism to try to defend against the race baiting charge because ain't no one gonna attack their token. I'm betting this year that the annual SBC resolution that everyone must agree with to prove they are not a racist will come from one of the White liberal guilty (with full throttled approval by the resident race baiter of course) instead of the resident SBC race baiter since people are now so publicly pointing out the obvious. It's funny how many times it must be stated that certain people have no power and don't represent anyone in the SBC and yet they continue talking about those "powereless" and "very small" group of people. If they are a bunch of nobodies seems nobody would care what they think.

[Scott Shaver]

Mckissic thinks he's still living in the days of Jim Crow ....and for strange reasons relishes in the illusion

[Scott Shaver]

I'm not a big fan of the philosophy, tactics nor theological orientation of Pulpit and Pen, but Seth Dunn did have some good insights on Russell Moore fumbling the football on behalf of an agency that has far outlived its usefulness in what's left of "Southern Baptist" life.

[Scott Shaver]

Mary, is it considered "attacking" a token if you refer to him/her as a "one-note Johnny"? Or would that be considered pure racist?

Just curious. :)

[Scott Shaver]

As to Brad Fletchers mention of the SBC's "history and position" on matters via SBC annual resolutions...what a joke! You can't be serious. When has an SBC resolution ever carried any weight or been more than a 15 minute news story in terms of the convention's collective resolve?

And if the role of ERLC is actually to "shape" the views and opinions of Southern Baptists on political and cultural matters, then that makes it a propaganda arm as opposed to a "school of prophets" and should have been made defunct or de-funded when the mission statement was revised.

What's wrong with scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in shaping individual political and cultural views apart and independent from the ERLC. Looks like that's what happened in a recent political election where 81% of "evangelicals" with their ballots told Russ Moore to take a hike...whether he still considers himself "evangelical" or not.

[Scott Shaver]

Mary:

By reading the Pravda thread in question, looks like the "unity train" is once again in the process of derailing.

Some things never change in the neo-SBC. Perpetually off the rails.

[Max]

"By reading the Pravda thread in question ..."

Over at SBC Voices "Dr. Moore speaks with a prophetic voice to our faith community about how to live for Christ and his kingdom in our culture ... He’s a leader raised up by God to help guide us in this new day."

Whew, then we just better all sit down and shut up about brother Russell since he is God's prophet who has come into the world for such a time as this! This is a "new day" blessed by New Calvinism, sole keepers of God's word to this generation. We just need to get in the flow!

[Ken P.]

Scott,

For the record, Seth Dunn is the only non-calvinist contributor at Pulpit and Pen.

[Mary]

Scott according to Pravda any time you disagree with a black person, specifically McKissic you are a virulent racist. McKissic is the "black friend" to Pravda as in "I'm not a racist I've got a black friend" There was an idiot comment which came right out and says you cannot call a black person a race baiter because that is racist which is just the same as saying that it's impossible for an AA to be racist. And just for good measure when black people express their "feelings" we all have to fall in line even if we don't agree with their "feelings" That's all McKIssic ever has is "feelings" - the multiple times he's been shown where his "feelings" and facts and reality disagree he thinks his "feelings" should trump facts and reality. And of course all the white liberal guilty just nod their heads and go along with him. We will never move forward with the racism issue in this country as long as "feelings" trump truth. Race baiting is about appealing to "feelings" and the reason Dunn's article is so offensive is he took Dwight words and applied logic to them and showed them to have no actual content except "feelings" The people who think they are "helping" are the ones doing the most damage in regard to race relations.

[Mary]

And for the record no I am not endorsing Seth Dunn or Pulpit and Pen. Just because I can read an article and can agree that it makes a few good points is not the same as full endorsement. But it's nice to see that those folks over at Pravda admit that only their Propaganda pieces are to be accepted and Pravda doesn't actually want to engage in discussion with various "Voices" as much as they wish to push the party line.

[Scott Shaver]

Were biblical (Old Testament) prophets generally as thin-skinned as McKissic or Moore?

I thought the need for prophets delivering a direct word from God was pretty much wrapped up with the incarnation, life and ministry of Jesus Christ. I think it was he who commented that "no other sign will be given....."

I tend to think of prophecy more in this age as the "forth-telling" of God's Word, i.e. preaching. Maybe some of these guys should do more of that and less of the other.

[Scott Shaver]

Thanks Ken P for the insight on Dunn. His writing does not come off to me as that of a full-orbed proponent of TULIP.

[Scott Shaver]

Mary, I've been called a lot worse than "a virulent racist" by folks a lot smarter and certainly nicer than Miller, Pravda, McKissic et al.

Water off a duck's back.

[peter lumpkins]

It's frustrating to dialog with Dwight McKissic online. In person, he's quite remarkable and has a charismatic persona about him that's enjoyable. But his posts as many of you already have observed are radically emotional making it difficult to know what he's really thinking. It's fairly obvious, however, Dr. McKissic exploits racial connotations to the max.

Below are three links to Facebook screenshots of an exchange I'm presently having with him. It demonstrates the frustration many would have.

Screenshot #1

Screenshot #2

Screenshot #3

[Mary]

So Peter, following McKissic's logic if on a hot summer day we're all talking on the internet regarding whether "lynch mob" actually has racial connotations someone says "Dwight, I think you should go chill out with a slice of water melon and maybe enjoy a fried chicken dinner." Since fried chicken and water melon are not actually racist that statement could not be seen as racist and wouldn't cause meltdowns and head explosions all over the internet. Does that sound about right?

[Scott Shaver]

Like I've said, and they insist on vitriol they have can have it in return and in spades.......McKissic fits most relevant definition of a "race-baiter". People preoccupied with race whether Christian or not need to be given a dose of their own rhetorical medicine as long as they insist on going through life like preschoolers.

[Scott Shaver]

Funny part in the ongoing hulabulu is how Mr Rogers/Hobbs from SBCToday is going to avoid the label racist. In Pete's words...what a hoot :)

[Mary]

McKissic's whole argument is that as a black man he can use words/phrases with historical racial meanings and as a black man can now declare "no that's not racial when I do it" but of course if a white person used the same statements that would be racist which is simply racism when you extrapolate that idea out. Black people do not ever have to follow the same rules and the rules are whatever a black person says and can change for any situation. McKissic's problem is that there are white people unlike those at Pravda who are simply not going to pander to him but force him to face his prejudice and racism.

[Scott Shaver]

For McKissic, if a white person said "Boo" at Halloween it would be considered "racist".

[Scott Shaver]

And the really really ironic thing in all this....they tossed Richard Land (of whom I was not a big fan) for being "racist".

Go figure.

[Scott Shaver]

Not only has Russell Moore bordered on blatant "racism" via his terminal white-guilt pronouncements, he's slandered those of religious and geographical sectors from which he hails.

Mice Huckabee has the right perspective on Moore's antics.

[Scott Shaver]

Peter:

The screenshots pretty much serve as a portrait of the modus operandus in question. Can't squeeze orange juice from a turnip.