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

[Max]

"I am utterly stunned that Russell Moore is being paid by Southern Baptists to insult them." (Mike Huckabee)

Well, Brother Huckabee, I know you haven't been plugged into SBC life as you once were, so may have missed some things lately. You would not only be stunned, but utterly shocked, to know that Southern Baptists are paying the salaries of several knuckleheads these days! They include seminary presidents and entity heads who are wresting control of the denomination away from majority Southern Baptists who don't agree with their theological leaning. The old gray mare ain't what it used to be since you were an SBC pastor.

[peter lumpkins]

I think you all see what I'm talking about.

Precisely Mary. McKissic can speak anyway he likes and is immune from guilt of using racist innuendo.

I don't know if any of you were around about the beginning of this blog. If you were, you may recall my being chastised as being racially insensitive--actually it was more like actually being a racist--by Dwight McKissic and Wade Burleson for my remarks made to Dwight on SBC TODAY. At some point in a conversation with Dwight, I said in jest for him to chill, sit back and relax over a nice glass of cornbread and buttermilk. That's it. That's all I said. One would have thought I used the N-word the howls of protest were so loud. The following day Burleson posted on his blog an entire piece accusing me of being racially insensitive to McKissic.

I insisted then as I still insist. Never mind the fact that I had absolutely no racial intentions in my mind when I uttered the phrase, cornbread and buttermilk is an indisputable part of my own cultural upbringing. It was a regular part of my diet, and still is. And though I was very much aware of racially charged language in my childhood, at no time was cornbread and buttermilk ever considered questionable or contested as a racial slur. Personally I felt violated that they would take an innocent part of my cultural memories and drag it through the racially correct verbal mudhole of today.

[Max]

“Paula White is a charlatan" (Russell Moore)

Ms. White will be praying at President Trump's inauguration.

[Lydia]

What exactly do you all think happened the last 8 years? People were literally afraid to publicly disagree with horrible policy in a bold manner because it woruod be construed as racist. It was uncanny how it worked. Now we are told that "hope" (in the form of a mere human) is leaving our country. The narcissism is astounding. But that thinking paved the way for every thing to be about race.

What Dwight and all the other race dividers do is to desensitize people to real racism. When everything but absolute lock step agreement is about race then all disagreement is racism. And there is code language as Pete shows in the links. It's constant walking on egg shells. Not a great way to get things done.

Give me a Herman Cain or a Ben Carson, please. At least they are non establishment. At the time I voted for each it had nothing to do with the pigment content of their skin but that both were capable non establishment primary candidates. More, please!

So, if I wince at the idea Russ Moore is a prophet for our time, I am a racist? Do these people not read history? A similar strategy was used in Maos Cultural Revolution.

[Lydia]

And here I thought Russ Moore was all about Patriarchy as essential to the Gospel. I guess that big national promotion changed his issue de jour? Pro-Patriarchy works not go over well in the NYT or WaPo. He is such a fraud.

[Lydia]

"y remarks made to Dwight on SBC TODAY. At some point in a conversation with Dwight, I said in jest for him to chill, sit back and relax over a nice glass of cornbread and buttermilk. That's it. That's all I said. One would have thought I used the N-word the howls of protest were so loud. The following day Burleson posted on his blog an entire piece accusing me of being racially insensitive to McKissic"

The result of such ridiculousness is people just stop talking. It's not worth it. Political correctness has over taken common sense and any sort of debate. And because people can't disagree on issues/policy without being labeled, they simply shut up and no one sees a major upset coming in the form of an election. Makes strategizing impossible ---as they found out. They got what they wanted. People who don't dare disagree with them publicly.

People lose jobs over this stuff. It has all become too one sided. And it is a dead end for the young. All Dwight is doing is helping young people he leads be perpetual victims. Just as the "hope" named Obama has done. Hernan Cain would say, go make money, instead. Ben Carson would say, study. Dwight says, be offended.

[Mary]

Here's an article that might be of interest

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/12/26/sorry-but-our-fight-against-liberal-fascism-has-only-just-begun-n2263156

[Scott Shaver]

Hey Pete, if enjoying crumbled cornbread and buttermilk is "racist" then count me in as one whole-heartedly. My father introduced me to the fare when I was knee-high to a grasshopper...been eating it ever since. So the racist radar of McKissic extends even to our culinary heritage?

What a sap. Now I guess I'm really racist by referring to syrup.

[Scott Shaver]

The most high profile racist in the SBC judging fro cyberspace IS A BLACK GUY.

[Lydia]

Being offended over every perceived slight while accusing others has become a national past time. It totally desensitizes people to serious offenses. Some jump on board with it because it is a cheap way to purchase media image enhancement in this day and time. No thinking required.

Where are the grown ups? These are not people who have the ability to be a part of solving real problems. They are part of the problem.

[Lydia]

Btw, people need to educate themselves on what censored politically correct speech is doing to Europe and especially Sweden. They can't even name the problem and the victims (many gang raped) are shamed with guilt for daring to do so. Do we even dare mention the heinous evil coming from UN peacekeeping troops?

Why would we want to be like them?

When a society cannot even distinguish between right and wrong due to politically correct censored speech, all is lost. And that is where all this is going. Russ Moore is a race baiter. He divides and stays on top. If the SBC gets rid of Moore it proves they are all racists, right? That is what Obama did and frankly, he is not going anywhere. He will continue to be the Chicago community organizer.

Race was not Moores big concern at the pro slaver Founders SBTS but many are convinced he is now a prophet on the subject? Right.

[Scott Shaver]

Everybody has an opinion. Mine in reflection is that Russell Moore is a product of the social and theological progressivism now engrained, not only in secular academies, but in Protestant seminaries and many private faith-based schools as well over last 20 years.

Looks like the CR and its shibboleth-spouting adherents have created a more pervasive kind of "liberalism" within SBC ranks than the benign threats they waged denomination jihad over in the 70s and 80's. Wonder what Pages Patterson or Al Mohler back then would have had to say if Russell Dilday met with LBGT advocates, enrolled a Muslim student, or had a hamburger with the Mormons?

History not only serves often as a warning, it has a sense of humor as well.

[Scott Shaver]

Can you imagine Russell Dilday or Roy Honeycutt subscribing to "Theological Triage" and the idea of "Tertiary" doctrine?

Mohler, Patterson and the Judge would have been screaming even louder for their heads than they did at the time.

Dave Miller opines (from his perspective) how "liberal" SWBTS was during his days (God help em) as a student. Now he sounds more liberal-progressive in his rants than the "enemies of inerrancy" ever came off during the SBC eighties.

Scratching me head.

[Lydia]

Scott, you realize this means liberalism is promoting and partnering with the likes of CJ Mahaney and Driscoll as Christian leaders while extolling the evils of the non pastor, Trump? How on earth does Dave look in the mirror? You would have to have lots of brainwashed followers for that to work.

Moore is a walking contradiction not a prophet. He is patriarchy. Pro Founders who love the pro slaver spiritual gurus of the past. Then he becomes a race divider and one sided moral prophet for the SBC?

Prophets are at least consistent. His current 'blame the hearer' backpeddling means he has lost his moral compass--- according to his own barrage before the election. It's a corner he painted himself into.

Why Dave keeps choosing the charlatans is a mystery. Maybe it is attention he gets from the big cheeses?

When people blame the religious right I crack up. Who are they? Since Moore is highly paid by the very people he insults, he probably had no clue this election was about the economy and the establishment that got us here. He is insulting a lot of people who held their nose when they voted. He is an out of touch elitist. The ERLC needs to go. Moore, as political pundit and prophet for the masses, can get a highly paid gig with big media. Or, could he?

[Scott Shaver]

There is no more religious right. The voices we hear from the "conservative SBC talking heads" is the voice of religio-political-pundit/opportunists who attempt to squelch all questions or inquiry with their global Pseudo-spirituality. In the end, their treatises and public pronouncements are totally irrelevant to the pilgrimage of individual believers and their INDIVIDUAL relationships to Christ. He is a personal rather than "collective" savior.

[Scott Shaver]

Additionally, a blog presence (regardless of official ties, affiliations, or "denominational" office holders)....they all constitute a PARACHURCH ORGANIZATION.

PARACHURCH ain't even close ekklessia.

They can moderate and pontificate within their cells (blogs) convince themselves they're speaking to millions as the guardians of orthodoxy or for the collective "Christian" conscience of millions...even when nobody outside their 15 or 20 regular readers know who they are. Would bet 81% (evangelical) Southern Baptists don't know who the heck Russell Moore is.

They do not know the Christ who is big enough to embrace the whole WORLD and to CARE SPECIFICALLY about me.

Let em alone fellers (and ladies)...they have their reward.

[Lydia]

". In the end, their treatises and public pronouncements are totally irrelevant to the pilgrimage of individual believers and their INDIVIDUAL relationships to Christ. He is a personal rather than "collective" savior."

True. If only thousands of young minds indoctrinated in shepherding cult tactics at SBC seminaries understood this.

I think what is happening is recruitment. The Neo Cal shepherding cult bent has climaxed. The word is out. They need growth so they are appealing to the cultural political socio-emotional establishment arguments of the day. It did not work. Moore did not have the gravitas in evangelical circles he thought. Now he can position himself as a crusader with a persecuted following standing for truth while the mean immoral racists pay him a high salary to insult them.

[peter lumpkins]

Dwight actually said what critics who are questioning the direction of the ERLC are doing is "metaphorically equivalent" to "acts of violence." I replied that was one of the most contorted statements I've ever encountered. This type of language is literally scary to me.

[Scott Shaver]

He also (Mckissic) welcomes what he describes as a "much-needed civil war" within the SBC. These guys make the CR icons look half rational

[Scott Shaver]

Might be "scary" Pete were it coming from somebody with a little more stroke than a race-baiting preacher from North Texas

[peter lumpkins]

I honestly don't know what to think. The type of thinking I'm hearing from McKissic presently reminds me of the radical rhetoric of Black Lives Matter proponents.

[Lydia]

"honestly don't know what to think. The type of thinking I'm hearing from McKissic presently reminds me of the radical rhetoric of Black Lives Matter proponents."

A law enforcement official in Calif has taken out a protective order from a BLM activist who camer to his home and workplace with threats. The irony? Both men are black.

There are people who want a race war for various reasons. And some people operate as "Useful Idiots" to that cause without realizing it.

Obama has been a disaster. The Chicago community organizer knew exactly what he was doing and he is not done yet. Guys like Bob Creamer who hired and paid agitators to incite violence at rallies should be charged with fraud and inciting violence.

[Scott Shaver]

Don't know about Creamer but McKissic definitely meets the threshold for ignorant, race-baiting slander. Sad...disgusting.

[Max]

Regarding Russel Moore ... I hope that we don't get to the end of Trump's first term and Moore can say "I told you so!" That would be a huge boom to New Calvinism's theo-politics going forward.

[Scott Shaver]

Whether Trump has a good first term (or presidency for that matter) is irrelevant to Moore's arrogance and divisiveness prior to the election.

Apples and oranges.

[peter lumpkins]

Max. Thx. Personally I've never been a fan of "rubbing it in" though at times I've caught myself doing it. I don't intend to do so if Trump's administration is consistent with his promises. I am expecting a huge celebration from #NeverTrumpers if Trump's administration nosedives. If it does, it does. Based on the info I had in November, I voted the best I knew how. Truth be told, neither Trump nor any other politician we elect to public office is going to bring all the goods to the table he or she claimed. If we expect perfection or nothing, we get nothing every time. Grace brother...

[Max]

"If we expect perfection or nothing, we get nothing every time."

I was young and now I'm old. I stopped expecting perfection among national politicians several decades ago, but I never stopped praying for POTUS (but I won't tell you how I prayed for #44). We desperately need a revival in the church and spiritual awakening in America. Otherwise, it will continue to be impossible to raise a national son (or daughter) to the highest office in this land who doesn't have some sort of shame in their background. I know it's cliche, but the solution to the American mess lies with the Church House, not the White House. Unfortunately, America is a mess because the church is a mess. Heck, before you know it, even the world's largest evangelistic denomination will stop preaching that the Gospel is available to ALL people (oh, wait a minute). Yep, America is a mess because the church is a mess.

[Lydia]

Max, Most new presidents get a honey moon. All the traditions are out the window. They won't stop. They want a civil war. They were educated to be entitled. The only decent thing I have seen happen is my older flaming liberal friends are appalled at the so called progressives. They are seeing the cruel, whiny and even violent under belly of the left they ignored for so long. They are civil people.

If Trump blows it --even with all the nit picking he will receive from the mainline media that Obama and a Hillary President would not receive--he blows it. He will need to be bold and the wishy washy timid republicans might be a help or hindrance.

At the very least, the encroaching Fascism Obama loved will have a harder time. The "Hope" is leaving the WH but he's not going anywhere.

[Scott Shaver]

Funny Lydia, that you should mention that phrase "civil war" in terms of something "progressives" desire.

I've read with my own eyes from the pen of Dwight McKissic that a "civil war" is much needed within the SBC. I've read with own eyes from the pen of Russ Moore discussions about "evangelical civil war".

These guys seem to be chasing the same blue ghosts of smoke that their CR predecessors chased right up the current scenario we're witnessing.

Max is right about a mess. I hate sports-illustrated sermonizing but if Alabama is the Slytherin of college football, the SBC must certainly be the Slytehrin of baptist evangelical life in America.

[Lydia]

These are people who are professional dividers. We have already seen it happen all over the SBC and evangelicalism with the Neo Cal movement. That has climaxed and the well paid leaders are moving on to other issues to stay relaxant and keep recruiting for their team. Doctrine is passé. Social issues like racism and immigration are the new fad.

If McKssic thinks Moore is now a prophet on race then how does he explain SBTS where Moore was immersed in Founders thinking? So, it's only rhetoric that matters? Moore had no problem promoting the pro slaver Founders.

McKissic and BLM don't want to be treated equal.

[Scott Shaver]

You'll notice, in line with your hypothesis Lydia, that Denny Burke has disabled content on his blog (probably read widely by SBTS students and a few SBC sycophants only). He now full-charge on the "eternal sonship of Christ".... one of the splintering factions.

Notice that those sympathetic with CR debacle who are now criticizing Moore are attempting to conjure (in association with Moore) the SBC ghost of Foy Valentine. Larry Baker and Foy Valentine were probably the two sanest people to ever hold that position.

Went downhinll immediately after as a direct result of the CR. Still sliding.

Russell Moore is one they own lock, stock and barrel.

[Scott Shaver]

The difference between Southern baptist "moderates" of the CR days and the new Southern baptist moderates like Rick Patrick is courage.

New "moderates" are afraid of the term and don't want to be associated with it because they would have to admit the futility and deception of a so-called conservative resurgence which actually surrendered more theological ground than it conserved. Classic case of "if you can't beat em, at least half-way join em"

[Mary]

What's not news all of 'hate crimes' to have turned out to be hoaxes. What's not a 'hate crime'? kidnapping a mentally challenged white man, holding him for 24 -48 hours and torturing him live on Facebook - screaming F$#@ White People also not poltiical F&^% Donald Trump.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/01/04/chicago-kidnapping-torture-facebook-live-arrests/

Brandon Wall ✔ @Walldo
CPD is investigating if the “fuck white people/ Fuck Donald Trump” lines were “sincere or stupid ranting or raving" pic.twitter.com/o0GbviLbBI

http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/01/05/seriously-watch-cnns-don-lemon-explain-why-chicago-kidnap-torture-suspects-arent-evil/

http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/01/05/shocker-shaun-king-more-concerned-over-white-supremacist-hashtag-blmkidnapping-than-actual-attack/

[Scott Shaver]

Saw that this morning Mary.....insane stuff.

[Scott Shaver]

Mary...regarding this issue, Where is Thabiti? Where is McKissic? Where is Moore (sorry, he's on vacation). Where the heck is Alan Cross?

If the roles were reversed, guarantee they'd be all over this.

[Mary]

Scott, the "Useful Idiots" don't understand how they are manipulated to "care" about certain "narratives" but are directed away from anything that goes against the narrative. It's all about stories not the facts. So go back to Michael Brown in Ferguson - when that first happened his buddy went on the local news shows declaring that Brown had been shot in the back while fleeing the police. Of course that's not what happened but the media picked it up and worked through the sludge til they could get to a "narrative" that would make Brown another innocent black man shot by cops. Across the country people don't know how many times that "narrative" changed til they came up with "Hands up Don't Shoot" and even that was debunked by Obama's Justice Department but by that time it didn't matter because certain factions in society need to keep a whole bunch of people ginned up so as to bring about "revolution" whether through peaceful means like Hilary getting elected or non peaceful means it doesn't really matter. We live in a time where facts and reality do not matter. That's why there is a backlash and a guy like Trump can come in and win an election. People who are having trouble making the rent paying are getting fed up with the lies and attacks against them and their communities.

[Mary]

OK so here's an example of the media colluding with the Dems to push a narrative

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/05/hmmm-fbi-never-examined-dnc-servers/

All over the place we're hearing that Russia hacked the election. First off Russia did not "hack the election" - no voting machines were hacked, there was no manipulation into anything regarding election day. The DNC and John Podesta were hacked. Podesta stupidly clicking a phishing linked which led to his stuff being hacked leading to the DNC being hacked. These hacks were not super sophisticated government level type of hacks. It was John Podesta being stupid. The RNC was NOT hacked. Attempts were made but they were NOT hacked. So NO THE ELECTION was NOT HACKED. But the media has convinced "useful idiots" that the election was stolen because they want you to make Trump an illegitimate President. Now that the intelligence community who thus far has refused to come before Congress and give up what they know about the DNC hack are actually revealing that no - no one from the Intelligence Community actually looked at the DNC servers to investigate who hacked them. The DNC hired a PRIVATE company to that and the DNC decided to point the blame at Russia because this helps them politically. But of course the media goes along with and the "useful idiots" will repeat that Russia stole the election from Hilary ad infinitum.

Another "narrative" that the media push that "useful idiots" to this day will spout. Remember the Terrorist who shot up the gay night club. Well immediately the Media wanted it to be not Islamic Terrorism so they made up this story that the Terrorist was a closeted gay man and the attack nothing to do with terrorism. The FBI investigated could find nothing to support closeted gay man story but did find plenty of evidence that it was an Islamic Terrorist including the man's explanation for the attack recorded that night on a 911 call but if you go to a place like the Huffington Post and read comments on any article regarding that attack the narrative is "closeted gay man and Islmaaphobia is trying to cover that up and cry Terrorism"

People believe what they want to believe not based on facts and reality but feelings.

[Scott Shaver]

The media video clip of the week is entitled "crybabies" or something of that nature. Interspersed throughout the narrative are video clips of Putin attempting to control his laughter. Many Americans are laughing along with him.

:)

[Mary]

A tenured professor at Georgia Tech resigns over college craziness - specifically the "climate change" narratives.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

[Lydia]

" the "Useful Idiots" don't understand how they are manipulated to "care" about certain "narratives" but are directed away from anything that goes against the narrative"

The narrative is group identity. Everything is about leading people into group identity so they lose any semblance of independent thought or individualism. It is a strategy. Mohler is brilliant at this. He even admitted it when he called for the marginalizion of Read statement signers. The Neo Cal movement worked exactly like this and has a lot in common with BLM except it was stealth.

Obama, the community organizer, created the perfect conditions for BLM.

Guys like Herman Cain and Ben Carson are detrimental to his agenda.

People who are raised to think independently have a harder time staying in group think because they question they eventually question narrative. That is why we teach kids to respect authority but politely question it, too.

[Scott Shaver]

Also, where is the voice of the "public policy arm" of the SBC on this latest UN resolution condemning Israel? Especially in light of the SBCs declared position.

SBC resolutions have a shelf life of 15 minutes or less.

[Scott Shaver]

"Useful Idiots" is an unusually appropriate term for these caped crusaders.

[Lydia]

"We live in a time where facts and reality do not matter. That's why there is a backlash and a guy like Trump can come in and win an election. People who are having trouble making the rent paying are getting fed up with the lies and attacks against them and their communities."

Yes. While the establishment oligarchy (politicians, bureaucrats, media, lobbyists, etc) lives quite well while working to control the average Joe's choices in flyover country. There is a segment of society at the top and bottom who live off the government establishment.

The SBC needs to fire Moore. If he had any integrity, he would not take a high salary paid by people he refers to as racists.

[Scott Shaver]

If you pay close attention to Russell Moore's story (as he tells it), you get the sense that since his childhood he's never been quite comfortable with the skin of rank and file SBC church members/pastors, particularly if they are beyond "millenial" age.

There are contradictions abounding. For example some of the persons he names as influential on his Christian development also receive, anonymously, his ire for their "civil religion" theological dispensation charts, racism etc.

I'm not one of these primarily interested in calling for his "job" but more interested in calling out the arrogance, hypocrisy and inconsistency reflected in his views toward other "evangelicals" in what's supposed to be his own "camp".

The SBC probably needs to fire itself and let it's various institutions sink or swim on their own in direct proportion to how those institutions relate to churches and individual Christians inclined to support their causes.

The annual meeting is a carnivorous dinosaur. There are reasons behind the extinction of many species and organizations in terrestrial history.

[Mary]

Here's another link if anyone's interested in the crass politics involved in the "Russian Hacking" story. China has been hacking the US for years - not individuals but the US Government and Obama has done nothing but some Russians were reported to be happy that Trump won which means Russians interfered in the election. The narrative the thing - not actual evidence. Useful idiots go right along with the narrative.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/06/stumping-earnest-say-why-didnt-obama-eject-china-diplomats-over-opm-hack/

[Paul]

Is it now a Gospel issue to support the building of mosques but not Israel?

https://www.onenewsnow.com/church/2017/01/06/moore-supported-mosquebut-not-israel

[Scott Shaver]

You would have to ask Russ Moore and TGC that question Paul, and it's a good one. They have re-tooled, adulterated the term and redefined it so broadly according to their religio-political agendas and business models that it could even apply to the color of polish one uses on the nails of a guinea pig.

[Scott Shaver]

Washington Post reports that Russell Moore is in trouble because
SBC/Evangelical "leaders" lack courage.

Looks to me like Russell Moore and company (Seminary Presidents, Committess, Trustees, etc) ARE THE "LEADERS." The problem they're having as "leaders" is they can't stomach the BAPTIST DNA of those they're supposed to be "leading".

Which of them has criticized Moore? Critiques I read and hear come from pew sitters and pastors across a broad spectrum of baptist churches affiliated with SBC. Those with SBC appointments, positions or ambitions appear to be shilling for Moore.

Fake News at its best. And who would actually expect the Washington Post not to be biased in its reporting of Russell Moore. Wonder if he and the reporter ever have coffee at a DC Starbucks?

[Alex Guggenheim]

99

[Alex Guggenheim]

100 - sorry, this had to happen. There were 98 comments and I was fearful it wouldn't make it to 100. In the meantime, McKissic is simply a black trophy, in my view, hence, he is permitted to spew anything he want since to challenge him is tantamount to being a racist. They have taught him well.