Labels

Russell Moore, Donald Trump, the SBC, and Further Evidence of the Sucktitude of the 2016 Election

Russell Moore
After a whirlwind in evangelical circles Monday, it seems the issues of Russell Moore's job and a little southern angst has been resolved.  Well, at least for now.

Dr. Moore heads up the Southern Baptist Convention's (SBC) Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC).  During the 2016 Republican primaries, he was quite critical of Donald Trump (whom would later call Moore "nasty" in a tweet) as well as evangelical Trump supporters.  Dr. Moore later pulled back a little on his criticism of Trump voters, acknowledging there is a difference between being an enthusiastic supporter of someone like Trump, and humbly realizing there wasn't a good choice but that Trump would probably be better than Hillary Clinton.  The concerns remained, but the 2016 election did not occur in a vaccuum, and many reasonably concluded that while Trump was not ideal, Clinton would be an extension of President Barack Obama policies that threatened religious liberty and furthered abortion.

Jack Graham
Some might think with Dr. Moore's concession and the election of Donald Trump as president that things would blow over.  Not so much.  A number within the SBC have remained critical of Dr. Moore holding leadership of the ERLC.  Most notable has been Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church, a megachurch in Plano, TX.  Graham, a member of Trump's evangelical advisory board and a former SBC president, announced his church would send its Cooperative Program funds into an Escrow account instead of sending it along to the SBC as a protest to Dr. Moore and the ERLC (that link explains the Cooperative Program).  The oft stated reasons of angst towards Dr. Moore being he was overly critical and even condescending towards many Southern Baptists in his assessment of Trump's candidacy and his support, and that this tension between him and Trump will lessen the ERLC's ability to influence policy in Washington.
nwood would place it's portion of

I can see how Dr. Moore's criticism of evangelical Trump supporters could have come across rude.  However, I would note that the harshest criticism came during the primaries, when several other options with far more humility, wisdom, and consistency on issues such as religious liberty, abortion, and marriage remained in the running.  Dr. Moore famously compared Ted Cruz's support as the "Jerry Falwell wing," Marco Rubio's support as the "Billy Graham wing," and Trump's support as the "Jimmy Swaggart wing."  The comment actually couldn't have been much more appropriate at the time.  If you listened to Rubio speak about his faith and policies, you usually heard someone who expressed humility and truth, as Graham did.  Also, whatever doomsday message was promoted, there was always hope on display.  Meanwhile, Cruz, while not being wrong, tended to stick to talking points and cliches (all politicians do this to a point).  Falwell, the leader of the old moral majority, built a lot of support on emotions and fear, as Cruz did.  Again, though many conclusions weren't necessarily wrong, it wasn't the logical arguments, but the ones on emotion.  Then there was Trump, who, from the beginning, just seemed to troll everyone and run his candidacy as a scam, until folks started buying in.  Beyond the obvious sex scandal comparisons, Swaggart and Trump were both skilled at using media to sell their lies, and conflated the ideas of Christianity and prosperity.  It's also worth noting that even after the primaries, the concerns regarding Trump's character, policies, and experience should still have been concerning to evangelical Christians.

Not Scripturally-Sound
Further, sometimes what one finds rude is actually the truth hitting where it hurts.  All idols need to be smashed, particularly those idols we Christians create in politics.  For instance, if you have a picture of President Ronald Reagan hanging next to a picture of Jesus, you're doing Christianity wrong.  I am a huge admirer of President Reagan, but he is no Jesus Christ.  I am a huge fan of the United States of America, but it is no Kingdom of God.  The overall point that Dr. Moore (and many, many, many others) tried to make during this election was that being a Christian does not mean handing over power to whomever the Republican Party nominated.  One of my favorite songs from last year is "Maybe Both, 1865" by Sho Baraka.  One theme is that things are usually more complicated than we pretend.  In the song he points out that blacks have largely handed over their votes to the Democrat Party without thinking twice about how it's actually impacting them.  Evangelical Christians have done the same with the GOP.  As long as Republicans pay lip-service, the remnants of the Religious Right will hand over their votes, no questions asked.

But all of that is politics, and, after all, the ERLC exists to speak Christ into public policy issues.  You can't have public policy without politics.  If we're honest, though, this issue is much deeper than politics.  Dr. Moore didn't just hit a nerve with folks who supported Donald Trump, he hit a nerve with folks who hate/fear Muslims as well as outsiders in general.  When you read those who despise Dr. Moore the most, they call him "liberal."  Despite Dr. Moore's clear stances on same-sex marriage, abortion, and religious liberty, his application of religious liberty to Muslims as well has his unease with the hateful rhetoric towards immigrants somehow awards him this evangelical epithet.  Toss in his insistence that more repentance and reconciliation is needed regarding the SBC's long bleak history with race relations, and you have an individual willing to use his platform to not only speak Christ into public policy, but into the group he represents as well.  And while I won't estimate the expanse of this ignorance on race issues within the evangelical community, it's clearly there.

David French examined this issue at length at National Review on Tuesday.  Of course, National Review being a traditionally conservative publication that took a strong stance against Donald Trump, and even offering space for Dr. Moore to pontificate, won't convince those firmly entrenched against Moore.  That doesn't mean French (someone who, along with his wife, faced some of the most vile attacks from Trump supporters, many of whom likely claim to be evangelical Christians) doesn't speak the truth here:
While it’s almost certainly true that absent the rise of Donald Trump Moore wouldn’t be facing the sheer amount of incoming fire from fellow Baptists that he is, the dispute between Moore and his critics goes beyond the election to echo the political, generational, race divides that are straining the Evangelical church well beyond the nation’s largest Protestant denomination. Not to over-simplify the dispute, but in many ways Moore represented a break from the partisanship of traditional Christian conservatism at the very time when many of his constituents were proving most unwilling to separate themselves either rhetorically or spiritually from the GOP. 
Here:
On a broader level, Moore was mapping out a vision for Christians that declared the church to be more than just another interest group. Rather than narrowly seeking its own perceived political interests, it should offer a God-honoring moral voice that is concerned with ends and means. In other words, those who lie to secure power are still liars, even if they prove to be marginally better politicians than the candidates they defeat. The church does not glorify God when it aligns itself with corruption in either party. 
At the same time, the ERLC was working diligently to try to bridge persistent racial divisions in the SBC and the Evangelical church more broadly and to persuade the public that religious liberty wasn’t just a Christian concern, but a deeply American value. Towards that end, it controversially (to some) signed on to an amicus brief defending the religious liberty of Muslims seeking to build a mosque in New Jersey. (To criticize this decision is particularly odd given the ERLC’s explicit mission to preserve religious liberty. The same legal standards that apply to mosques will also apply to churches.)
And here:
Moore may have offended with his rhetoric (some of it was harsh, but some Christians are snowflakes). Was he wrong, though, to argue that the church fundamentally should have a more prophetic than partisan role in our culture? How much is God calling Christians to compromise other values for the sake of perceived progress on life and religious liberty? Should the church defend the liberties of others that it would like to exercise itself? Was Moore wrong to cling to the principles outlined in the church’s own resolutions? 
These are the questions at issue not just for Southern Baptists but for all Christians. Moore’s fate matters because these questions matter. The church is not a partisan interest group. Moore understands this reality. Do his critics?
This isn't over.  The SBC is hurtling towards a division if true reconciliation is not reached.  Honestly, I don't know what that looks like and I don't know what it would take.  However, it's obvious there is still strife among those opposed to Dr. Moore, and strife among those opposed to those opposed to Dr. Moore.  And let's be clear, Dr. Moore has plenty of support from Baptists and other evangelical leaders:











Further, if the SBC wants Dr. Moore to oust him from his role at ERLC, it will have far more long-term negative effects on the SBC than Dr. Moore.  If the SBC rejects Dr. Moore, his career will go on just fine in whatever Christians circles and/or denominations will have him (which will be plenty).  He will still be influential.  He will still be on TV.  He will still publish books.  He will still write articles on various platforms.  He will still be an invited speaker.  And he will still be preaching the Gospel.  What about the SBC?  They will lose one of the most prominent and influential voices of coming out of the SBC today.  He wouldn't be the only one.  The SBC has demonstrated their dissatisfaction with David Platt as well.  Would this push him away?  What about countless millennial and ethnic minorities that have been attracted to the words of Dr. Moore?  Does the SBC really see itself as a promising voice in the future if they turn away young and diverse Christ followers?  We're not talking about progressive millennial snowflakes, but rather individuals committed to the Word of God who also don't happen to hate or be suspicious of someone who isn't from around here.

Ultimately, when it comes to issues of the Christian faith and politics, evangelicals need to make a choice.  Either than can follow the Russell Moore model of being a Christian speaking Christ into politics, or the Mike Huckabee model of being a politician speaking politics into Christianity.  As for me and my house, we choose the former.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment