# Baptists join diverse faith groups to support mosque-building effort



## Pergamum

http://baptistnews.com/article/baptists-join-diverse-faith-groups-to-support-mosque-building-effort/

For any supporters of Russell Moore and the ERLC out there:



> “It’s good when we can join hands with … folks we are sometimes on the other side of,” said Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
> 
> Those folks include the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and the International Mission Board, both agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention. The National Association of Evangelicals is also supporting the mosque-building case.
> 
> It all began when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty set out to form a diverse religious coalition to back the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge, N.J., in its federal lawsuit against a planning board that denied its building permit application in December.
> 
> The denial followed some four years of hearings and numerous modifications to tone down overtly Islamic design elements to reassure neighbors and to conform to local architectural styles.






> The SBC’s ERLC and IMB have joined in with the likes of the Center for Islam and Religious Freedom, the Interfaith Coalition on Mosques, the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, the Sikh Coalition, and other unlikely allies to support building a mosque. According to The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty (An organization in which Russell Moore is on the Board of Directors) over 20 “interfaith” groups have united to push forward the agenda of the god of religious liberty in support of the mosque..


----------



## Jake

Presbyterians aren't exempt. Assuming this list is up-to-date, PCA and EPC are members of the NAE which is supporting the effort: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Evangelicals#Member_denominations


----------



## Pergamum

Jake said:


> Presbyterians aren't exempt. Assuming this list is up-to-date, PCA and EPC are members of the NAE which is supporting the effort: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Evangelicals#Member_denominations



AAARGH!!!!!


This is like the exact opposite of church-planting. And using the funds of Christians to do it.


----------



## Edward

Pergamum said:


> This is like the exact opposite of church-planting. And using the funds of Christians to do it.



No, it is defending the First Amendment. Because if we let them start chipping away at the Constitution, it isn't going to be long before WE end up on the list of folks that can't build churches. Do you *really* want to come down on the side that cities can keep churches out of town?

RLUIPA came about because a Catholic church in Texas was not allowed to expand in a historic district, and the Supreme Court striking down the prior Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the resulting litigation. (City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997))


----------



## reaganmarsh

Dr. Moore used to speak about this kind of thing regularly while I was studying at SBTS. His position was basically as Edward lays about above; if religious freedom is devalued or attacked, it's _all_ religious freedom which is jeopardized, not just the other guy's.


----------



## Pergamum

Edward said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is like the exact opposite of church-planting. And using the funds of Christians to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is defending the First Amendment. Because if we let them start chipping away at the Constitution, it isn't going to be long before WE end up on the list of folks that can't build churches. Do you *really* want to come down on the side that cities can keep churches out of town?
> 
> RLUIPA came about because a Catholic church in Texas was not allowed to expand in a historic district, and the Supreme Court striking down the prior Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the resulting litigation. (City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997))
Click to expand...


Sure they can build mosques.... but not with my dime! And Christian groups shouldn't be funding mosques. Saying a group is free to do something is different than donating to their cause.


----------



## uberkermit

“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.


“You shall have no other gods before me.


“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

(Exodus 20:1-6 ESV)​
When Christ returns, will he permit mosques to remain? 

If the price to pay for freedom of religion is contrary to the will of Christ, I want nothing to do with it.


----------



## Edward

Pergamum said:


> Sure they can build mosques.... but not with my dime!



I draw a distinction between contributing to the building fund and signing onto an Amicus. 



> Becket’s amicus brief was joined by a diverse coalition including the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Center for Islam and Religious Freedom, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Interfaith Coalition on Mosques, International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Muslim Bar Association of New York, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Association of Evangelicals, New Jersey Muslim Lawyers Association, Queens Federation of Churches, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Sikh Coalition, South Asian Bar Association of New Jersey, South Asian Bar Association of New York, and Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey.
> 
> Becket was joined by Christopher J. Paolella of the New York law firm Reich & Paolella and Asma Uddin of the Center for Islam and Religious Freedom. The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge and Mr. Chaudry are represented by Adeel A. Mangi of the New York law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.


 http://www.becketfund.org/amicus-brief-defends-new-jersey-islamic-society/

Becket got in on the ground floor of RLUIPA litigation. If a church finds itself in this kind of mess, they should at least look at the Beckett resources.


----------



## bookslover

reaganmarsh said:


> Dr. Moore used to speak about this kind of thing regularly while I was studying at SBTS. His position was basically as Edward lays about above; if religious freedom is devalued or attacked, it's _all_ religious freedom which is jeopardized, not just the other guy's.



Yeah but, if the tables were turned, why do I doubt that mosques would lift a finger to help build Christian churches?


----------



## earl40

Edward said:


> No, it is defending the First Amendment. Because if we let them start chipping away at the Constitution, it isn't going to be long before WE end up on the list of folks that can't build churches. Do you *really* want to come down on the side that cities can keep churches out of town?
> 
> RLUIPA came about because a Catholic church in Texas was not allowed to expand in a historic district, and the Supreme Court striking down the prior Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the resulting litigation. (City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997))



Edward, with you being a lawyer I have a quick historical question. When The First was passed did the people of that time have any idea of any religion besides the Christian religion?


----------



## Jake

earl40 said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is defending the First Amendment. Because if we let them start chipping away at the Constitution, it isn't going to be long before WE end up on the list of folks that can't build churches. Do you *really* want to come down on the side that cities can keep churches out of town?
> 
> RLUIPA came about because a Catholic church in Texas was not allowed to expand in a historic district, and the Supreme Court striking down the prior Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the resulting litigation. (City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997))
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edward, with you being a lawyer I have a quick historical question. When The First was passed did the people of that time have any idea of any religion besides the Christian religion?
Click to expand...



IANAL (not sure why its relevant) but Thomas Jefferson had interactions with Islam (including owning a Koran and the Barbary Wars), and some people say he was even accused of being one. Not to mention Judaism and non-Protestant sects.


----------



## Edward

earl40 said:


> Edward, with you being a lawyer I have a quick historical question. When The First was passed did the people of that time have any idea of any religion besides the Christian religion?



Jews fought in and helped finance the American Revolution. While they were generally well treated in Georgia and South Carolina, they faced restrictions in some of the other states. Recall George Washington's 1790 letter to the Jewish congregation in Rhode Island (where they weren't as well treated.) 

Muslims were much less well established, but as early as July, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia said, ""True freedom embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo as well as the Christian religion." Jefferson and Washington both alluded, not unfavorably, to the Mahamdan/Mahomitan/Mohometans. On the other hand, some were denouncing Islam. So the issues were well enough established that there was informed debate by the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights.


----------



## reaganmarsh

bookslover said:


> reaganmarsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Moore used to speak about this kind of thing regularly while I was studying at SBTS. His position was basically as Edward lays about above; if religious freedom is devalued or attacked, it's _all_ religious freedom which is jeopardized, not just the other guy's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but, if the tables were turned, why do I doubt that mosques would lift a finger to help build Christian churches?
Click to expand...


Dear brother, I thoroughly concur. My intention in this post was merely to speak to what & why Dr. Moore has taken this course of action: he's being consistent with what he's taught in the past.


----------



## kodos

True freedom would never favor false religion. That is the problem with a purely libertarian definition of 'freedom': it advances spiritual bondage.

*Psalm 146:7-10*
The LORD gives freedom to the prisoners.

8 The LORD opens the eyes of the blind;
The LORD raises those who are bowed down;
The LORD loves the righteous.
9 The LORD watches over the strangers;
He relieves the fatherless and widow;
But the way of the wicked He turns upside down.

 10 The LORD shall reign forever—
Your God, O Zion, to all generations.

Praise the LORD!


----------



## earl40

Edward said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edward, with you being a lawyer I have a quick historical question. When The First was passed did the people of that time have any idea of any religion besides the Christian religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jews fought in and helped finance the American Revolution. While they were generally well treated in Georgia and South Carolina, they faced restrictions in some of the other states. Recall George Washington's 1790 letter to the Jewish congregation in Rhode Island (where they weren't as well treated.)
> 
> Muslims were much less well established, but as early as July, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia said, ""True freedom embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo as well as the Christian religion." Jefferson and Washington both alluded, not unfavorably, to the Mahamdan/Mahomitan/Mohometans. On the other hand, some were denouncing Islam. So the issues were well enough established that there was informed debate by the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...


Thank you. I see what side of the debate won by the lack of a certain words as we read today in the documents of our country. Is it no wonder why Our Lord is judging our nation much quicker than many nations of times past.


----------



## Parakaleo

Does anyone seriously think that Paul or Peter would attach their names to this undertaking?


----------



## Pergamum

My issue is the MONEY involved. And the SUPPORT and ENDORSEMENT of false religion.

Sure, make sure the First Amendment applies to all. But if the Muslims want to build their houses of worship, it will not be with any of my help. To not persecute false religion is one thing, to go and lay the bricks or build the idols is another...

...and they are using the money of Christians to do this. Probably many donors are not aware of these activities. The funds are coming from other Christians thinking they are giving to a worthy cause.

Russell Moore ought to be held accountable for this and deposed as the Pope of Baptist Ethics. I'm sick of him.


----------



## Pergamum

Some are saying the accusations are unfair against Moore and the Baptist leaders (who seem to dabble more and more on immigration and leftist social issues, even being funded by Soros). 

Here are two additional thoughts:

---Lawyers donate time to causes. There is not much difference between donating time and legal expertise in matters such as this....meanwhile, many other more pressing legal issues press the church. But....can't deal with that now....gotta help the Muslims.

How much time and transportation and hours in meetings, and legal fees, and hours away from churches, and time away from causes which more directly help the church is now being spent on Muslims (the largest religious bloc on earth)? Do a billion Muslims really need the SBC's help?


--- You can tell a lot about a person by who their friends are. Joining hands with the world and with false religion, and then spending much time and money and effort on such partnering activities, is very troubling.


----------



## Pergamum

Not merely critical spectators from the outside, but some Southern Baptist leaders are also unhappy with these developments as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/southern-baptist-leader-r_n_814023.html


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> My issue is the MONEY involved. And the SUPPORT and ENDORSEMENT of false religion.
> 
> Sure, make sure the First Amendment applies to all. But if the Muslims want to build their houses of worship, it will not be with any of my help. To not persecute false religion is one thing, to go and lay the bricks or build the idols is another...
> 
> ...and they are using the money of Christians to do this. Probably many donors are not aware of these activities. The funds are coming from other Christians thinking they are giving to a worthy cause.
> 
> Russell Moore ought to be held accountable for this and deposed as the Pope of Baptist Ethics. I'm sick of him.



I'm not a huge Moore fan. But can you point out where Cooperative Program (i.e. SBC) money is involved in this? I don't see anything of the kind in the article, which is about supporting the Muslims in a court case. Has anything happened here other than filing an amicus brief? Your posts come across as if direct funding of the mosque is on the table. 

If all that has been done is file an amicus brief, (friend of the court) from what I understand that is not at all the same as "filing suit" as Dr. Land is quoted as claiming in the HuffPo article you linked.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## reaganmarsh

If CP funds are involved, it will be a major problem. I don't think Dr. Moore would do anything so foolish as that.


----------



## Pergamum

The ERLC is supported through the funds of the Cooperative Program. 

1.65% of CP funds go towards supporting the ERLC and all of its actions, which amounts to 3.236 million dollars. 

So, in effect, this means that some of this 3 million dollars' worth of the tithes and offerings of baptist folks are going towards any time and effort expended in this enterprise. 

In the meantime, the IMB is talking about sending home 600-800 IMB missionaries due to lack of missionary funding.

That is why I favor abolishing the ERLC. The Church's Mandate is not to tweet about immigration or to sign amicus briefs on behalf of Muslims but to Preach the Word and Disciple the nations.


----------



## Pergamum

Meanwhile, I just ran across an announcement by the ERLC. 

They publicly urged that local churchgoers ought to be more active in their local communities in order to get local zoning laws tightened in an effort to disallow strip clubs in local communities.... 

...and then they advocate for looser zoning laws so that mosques can be built. 

Because dirty dancing is a bigger threat than the proliferation of Islam, I guess.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

The constitution is ungodly. It not only abandons Christ, but is specifically anti-Christ by not acknowledging Christ as Lord but rather "We The People". With that said, I'd rather have churches go underground then support idolatry. Seems also like God would rather have the altars and idols torn down then built up (Deut 12:2-3; Ex. 34:13-14; Judges 6:25).


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Pergamum said:


> That is why I favor abolishing the ERLC. The Church's Mandate is not to tweet about immigration or to sign amicus briefs on behalf of Muslims but to Preach the Word and Disciple the nations.



 and


----------



## Dekybo

I sincerely hope that my congregation and I's tithe does not go to the advancement of evil.


----------



## Pergamum

If you give through the Cooperative Program, then 1.68% of your offerings go to the ERLC and its activities. Your church is helping to keep the ERLC alive.

The activities of the ERLC of late have been: To paint Jesus as an illegal alien, to support liberal and progressive immigration policies, to bash the "white church" in America, to say that any Trump supporter is a moron (without equal hate-time for Sanders and Clinton, a socialist and a felon), to bash the faithful Judge Roy Moore for not conducting gay marriages and to call for his resignation, to state that the desire of gays to marry was honorable because they desired to be in a long-term relationship, and many other silly things. 

Much of what the ERLC writes is very good (particularly in medical ethics), but their social policies (particularly race and immigration) often sound leftist and progressive and, no wonder, since they are part of the Evangelical Immigration Table, funded by the liberal George Soros.

Also, the very existence of an extra-ecclesiastical governing body speaking authoritatively as a mouthpiece for all baptists and existing outside (and above, really) the local churches, is a monstrosity of ecclesiology that should be killed. This is not even a "parachurch" entity, for it is not "alongside" the church at all. The ERLC is, instead, dictating to churches what they should believe...they are above the church. 

...and the ERLC is alive and well due to over 3 million dollars of tithes and offerings that could be used to help the 600-800 IMB missionaries in danger of coming home due to the current financial crisis within the SBC. 

I made the suggestion on Facebook that Southern Baptists might consider pulling out of the SBC if they did not abolish the ERLC. I was met with a whole flurry of anger. 

But I believe that any SBC churches out there who are reading this ought to make their continuance within the SBC contingent upon the abolishing of the ERLC.


----------



## Philip

The zoning discrimination in question is a real concern for church planters in many areas. I know that zoning has been used as a political weapon to block building churches in a number of urban and suburban settings. There's a reason why my hometown has only had one new church constructed in the 16 years since my family moved there.

In the eyes of US law, an Amicus brief supporting a mosque is the same as an Amicus brief supporting a church. If churches can be built, then so can mosques.


----------



## JoannaV

bookslover said:


> reaganmarsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Moore used to speak about this kind of thing regularly while I was studying at SBTS. His position was basically as Edward lays about above; if religious freedom is devalued or attacked, it's _all_ religious freedom which is jeopardized, not just the other guy's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but, if the tables were turned, why do I doubt that mosques would lift a finger to help build Christian churches?
Click to expand...


According to Google, there are Muslims who helped build churches. There are also articles saying that doing such things is evil as it is supporting the spread of apostasy.


----------



## Parakaleo

Philip said:


> In the eyes of US law, an Amicus brief supporting a mosque is the same as an Amicus brief supporting a church. If churches can be built, then so can mosques.



Call me a theonomist if you want, but I believe the building of mosques or Buddhist temples or high places to be evil and should be opposed by believers. Even if it means we can't build churches.



> You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, (Exodus 23:2)



The nation or municipality that would prohibit the building of churches, but would allow them if plans for mosques are pushed through and built, is not worthy to be crowned with the jewel of a church building.


----------



## lynnie

Would they be taking this stand if it was openly a Satanist Church? With all the symbols and trappings that go with such churches? A Pentagram and those ugly horned creatures on the front walls? 

A mosque is a Satanist church, but disguised better. I wonder if this would be viewed as freedom of religion if it was blatantly satanic, not indirectly Satanic. Allah is not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## Parakaleo

This week, I'm preaching Micah 1:1-4. This news item just made it in my sermon as an illustration.



> Hear, you peoples, *all of you*;
> pay attention, O earth, and all that is in it,
> and let the Lord GOD be a witness against you,
> the Lord from His holy temple.
> For behold, the LORD is coming out of His place,
> and will come down and *tread upon the high places* of the earth.
> And the mountains will melt under Him,
> and the valleys will split open,
> like wax before the fire,
> like waters poured down a steep place.



It is a reproach upon any people to have high places.


----------



## Philip

Parakaleo said:


> The nation or municipality that would prohibit the building of churches, but would allow them if plans for mosques are pushed through and built, is not worthy to be crowned with the jewel of a church building.



That's what the first amendment means: what goes for one religion must apply across the board. If we ban mosques, then we also have to ban churches. If we allow churches to rent schools, then we have to allow mosques to rent schools. That's the country we've been living in since the 1790s.

And just to drive the point home: this means that any church that has a building is complicit in a legal, zoning, and tax system that allows the construction of mosques.


----------



## Pergamum

Some Southern Baptists who support the ERLC may reply that this is a biblical issue of justice for all peoples (even for Muslims).

However, again, if private lawyers want to engage this issue....fine. But the ERLC is funded by church funds. 

Also, if this is truly an issue of justice for all...then reference the ERLC actions in the past urging local baptist citizens to get more active in their local communities and push for tighter zoning laws in their towns in order to shut down strip clubs. In that case, the ERLC strongly urges local action to shut down private establishments. But in this case of joining the Interfaith Coalition for Mosques, they appeal to the biblical principle of justice to prevent the shutting down of mosques by local communities not desiring to expand their current zoning laws. 

Justice would entail that if a local community doesn't want a mosque, then Islam shouldn't be foisted upon them by extra-ecclesiastical baptist parachurch groups that exist from the very tithes and offerings of those they are opposing. If local communities can say no to private establishments allowing topless dancers (as the ERLCA has urged local baptists to do in the past) than surely they can say no to one of the greatest dangers to civilization in the past 1500 years. Topless dancers, after all, don't advocate jihad.


----------



## Pergamum

I never thought it would be controversial to assert that baptists shouldn't be part of an Interfaith Coalition for Mosques.


----------



## Pergamum

Defending the oppressed also means defending local communities who are happy with the current zoning laws and want them to continue, but are being bullied by multi-million dollar parachurch entities helping to file legal papers to force them to change their current local laws.


----------



## Philip

Pergamum said:


> Also, if this is truly an issue of justice for all...then reference the ERLC actions in the past urging local baptist citizens to get more active in their local communities and push for tighter zoning laws in their towns in order to shut down strip clubs. In that case, the ERLC strongly urges local action to shut down private establishments.



Private establishments that fall under a different segment of the US tax code than do churches. Under US law, there is no difference between a Mosque and a Church. Any discriimination against Mosques can be applied to churches.



Pergamum said:


> Justice would entail that if a local community doesn't want a mosque, then Islam shouldn't be foisted upon them by extra-ecclesiastical baptist parachurch groups that exist from the very tithes and offerings of those they are opposing.



Thing is, this happens to churches (even Baptist churches) all the time. Churches want to build buildings, but the zoning board words the laws so as to exclude them. And the church plants decide not to sue because they don't have the energy or resources for it and because they know the courts won't listen. But they'll listen to Muslims all right!


----------



## Philip

Pergamum said:


> Defending the oppressed also means defending local communities who are happy with the current zoning laws and want them to continue, but are being bullied by multi-million dollar parachurch entities helping to file legal papers to force them to change their current local laws.



Does this apply to Atheist communities that want to keep out Presbyterians? Again, US law does not and cannot make distinctions based on doctrines.


----------



## Pilgrim

Parakaleo said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of US law, an Amicus brief supporting a mosque is the same as an Amicus brief supporting a church. If churches can be built, then so can mosques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me a theonomist if you want, but I believe the building of mosques or Buddhist temples or high places to be evil and should be opposed by believers. Even if it means we can't build churches.
Click to expand...


Then to be consistent, wouldn't you also need to not only oppose new buildings, but oppose the continued existence of all unorthodox religious centers as well?


----------



## Edward

Pergamum said:


> Defending the oppressed also means defending local communities who are happy with the current zoning laws and want them to continue, but are being bullied by multi-million dollar parachurch entities helping to file legal papers to force them to change their current local laws.



You really ought to move to Castle Hills, Texas (San Antonio suburb). You'd probably like it there. In the 1970s, they blocked expansion of Cornerstone Church, eventually running it out of town. In the 90s, they ran the Pentacostals out of town, taking over that building for city offices. And now the Southern Baptists have their facility on the market, and are leaving town. In litigation, the city fathers described the Baptists as "a church which seems to grow like a cancer, feeding on homes in much the same way as a cancerous tumor feeds on healthy cells." The property being sold includes a vacant 5 acre tract which the city bought in the last century which the city never allowed them to use for parking; after 5 years of litigation, the church was able to build out unused space in an existing building.


----------



## Pergamum

Church tithes should not be used in this venture. Over 3 million dollars from the coffers of Southern Baptist Churches go into the ERLC.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/02/05/how-the-satanic-temple-forced-phoenix-lawmakers-to-ban-public-prayer/

You can have your pluralism and your multiculturalism. America is now paying the price of these policies.




> Justice Joseph Story (Founder of Harvard Law School) said in his Commentaries, “The real objective of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advocate, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.”


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> Some Southern Baptists who support the ERLC may reply that this is a biblical issue of justice for all peoples (even for Muslims).
> 
> However, again, if private lawyers want to engage this issue....fine. But the ERLC is funded by church funds.
> 
> Also, if this is truly an issue of justice for all...then reference the ERLC actions in the past urging local baptist citizens to get more active in their local communities and push for tighter zoning laws in their towns in order to shut down strip clubs. In that case, the ERLC strongly urges local action to shut down private establishments. But in this case of joining the Interfaith Coalition for Mosques, they appeal to the biblical principle of justice to prevent the shutting down of mosques by local communities not desiring to expand their current zoning laws.
> 
> Justice would entail that if a local community doesn't want a mosque, then Islam shouldn't be foisted upon them by extra-ecclesiastical baptist parachurch groups that exist from the very tithes and offerings of those they are opposing. If local communities can say no to private establishments allowing topless dancers (as the ERLCA has urged local baptists to do in the past) than surely they can say no to one of the greatest dangers to civilization in the past 1500 years. Topless dancers, after all, don't advocate jihad.



They'd probably say that operating a strip club isn't a fundamental right, at least not in the way that worship is. As has been noted above, they'd say that the power on the part of the government to oppose Muslims in this way is also the power to oppose conservative Christians, who are increasingly being marginalized. 

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, ERLC's predecessor (which was defunded because conservatives couldn't gain control of it, unlike the seminaries) began in 1936. The ERLC replaced it. The SBC has been involved in this kind of thing for 80 years and it is highly unlikely that it will be abandoned altogether. The SBC at this point is run by neo-evangelicals, including Mohler. Carl F.H. Henry, who basically came to prominence by rejecting the narrow focus and disengagement of fundamentalism, is a huge hero to them. They'd chop off their right arm before they'd give up the ERLC. 

Many of them will look at you as a "fundamentalist." I know, I was called one when I had these kinds of conversations on other issues with some Southern Baptists during my brief period as one several years ago. Your arguments against the existence of things like the ERLC are basically the same ones that independent Baptists use. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but don't be surprised when Southern Baptists essentially say "Shut up, you aren't SBC anyway, and you don't understand." 

Perhaps some will pull out of the SBC because of this kind of thing. If I was a Southern Baptist, I would be uneasy with the CP funding mechanism, but that is also how the seminaries are funded. (It's no accident that academically the SBC seminaries are far and away superior to any other Baptist ones out there, especially at the doctoral level. If every little thing was nitpicked or if churches only sent money to seminaries that they totally agreed with, it wouldn't happen.) The SBC is so big that accountability is difficult. Some Anti-Calvinists have already redirected funds away from SBTS and SEBTS, regarding them as lost causes for the time being but not wanting to fund them. 

I'm sure it would be much easier for you in some respects if you were sent through the IMB and didn't have to raise support, but you wouldn't have the relationship with the churches that you have enjoyed either.


----------



## Edward

Pergamum said:


> Church tithes should not be used in this venture. Over 3 million dollars from the coffers of Southern Baptist Churches go into the ERLC.



How much SBC money went into this project?


----------



## Pilgrim

Edward said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Church tithes should not be used in this venture. Over 3 million dollars from the coffers of Southern Baptist Churches go into the ERLC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much SBC money went into this project?
Click to expand...


Counselor, I'm sure you've heard the old saying about arguing the law, arguing the facts or pounding the table.


----------



## Edward

Pilgrim said:


> Counselor, I'm sure you've heard the old saying about arguing the law, arguing the facts or pounding the table.


----------



## Parakaleo

I am frankly astonished there are people on this board who are sympathetic or blasé about this. Religious freedom or pluralism apart from the Lordship of Christ is an idol equally grotesque as Allah. A pinch of incense for Caesar won't hurt?


----------



## Philip

Parakaleo said:


> Religious freedom or pluralism apart from the Lordship of Christ is an idol equally grotesque as Allah.



"We the People . . ." Nothing about God or Jesus there. There is no Christian America and never has been. If your position is that it's wrong, fine (I have reservations about it too), but that's the system we've been in since 1789. If a church gets to build a building, so does a mosque. If a Christian school gets nonprofit status then so does a madrassa. If a Christian pastor gets a special tax bracket, then so does an imam. 

Paul argued for his rights as a Roman citizen, but I see nothing about suppressing the local temples in his letters. If we argue for priviliges for ourselves (tax exemptions, non-discriminatory zoning, having meetings in public spaces, etc) then we argue for them for Muslims and others. American law makes no distinction.


----------



## Pergamum

Edward said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Church tithes should not be used in this venture. Over 3 million dollars from the coffers of Southern Baptist Churches go into the ERLC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much SBC money went into this project?
Click to expand...


Probably not a lot. But even a little is too much. It is the principle of the matter.


But...this sort of thing can only happen due to the very existence of the multiple millions of dollars used to fund the ERLC. And legal fees, salaries of ERLC workers, time spent in meetings, gas money, all represent a costly distraction away from what the church ought to be doing. If this is a good cause, then have private lawyers engage this issue...not those directly funded by tithes. This is not the proper priority for the Church to have.


----------



## Pergamum

Philip said:


> Parakaleo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious freedom or pluralism apart from the Lordship of Christ is an idol equally grotesque as Allah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We the People . . ." Nothing about God or Jesus there. There is no Christian America and never has been. If your position is that it's wrong, fine (I have reservations about it too), but that's the system we've been in since 1789. If a church gets to build a building, so does a mosque. If a Christian school gets nonprofit status then so does a madrassa. If a Christian pastor gets a special tax bracket, then so does an imam.
> 
> Paul argued for his rights as a Roman citizen, but I see nothing about suppressing the local temples in his letters. If we argue for priviliges for ourselves (tax exemptions, non-discriminatory zoning, having meetings in public spaces, etc) then we argue for them for Muslims and others. American law makes no distinction.
Click to expand...


Yes, so let the Muslims argue for this... thy are the largest religious bloc in the world. And some of the richest oil-producers. They don't need assistance from baptists, especially when that assistance is purchased by baptist tithes.


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Church tithes should not be used in this venture. Over 3 million dollars from the coffers of Southern Baptist Churches go into the ERLC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much SBC money went into this project?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Counselor, I'm sure you've heard the old saying about arguing the law, arguing the facts or pounding the table.
Click to expand...


I don't get it? Are you saying I am just pounding a table? Some things need to be pounded on...


----------



## Philip

Pergamum said:


> Yes, so let the Muslims argue for this... thy are the largest religious bloc in the world. And some of the richest oil-producers. They don't need assistance from baptists, especially when that assistance is purchased by baptist tithes.



It's not about that so much as being on-record that the same principles apply to churches. They're getting a precedent set in a way that will benefit all churches.

The deal is that churches get this treatment by municipalities all the time. Thing is, most churches don't sue over it because few churches building their first building have the resources and connections to devote to both a lawsuit and a building fund. So the building fund gets used for a church office or to hire a new staff member, and the municipality keeps discriminating.

Now along comes this lawsuit which could finally set the precedent. Beckett and ERLC file an _amicus_ for it because they know that once the precedent is set, a church will test it because they now know they can call Beckett to cover their legal fees. 

And for what it's worth, Baptists have a history of this going back to Jefferson's time. They were key players in the decision to disestablish the church in Virginia, for instance.


----------



## Pergamum

This year I've talked to two brothers who left churches (or in the process of leaving) due to the grievous ciphoning off of mission funds and church tithes to two efforts: 

(1) the first, a soup kitchen that simply fed the homeless without any gospel witness to them, 

and (2) A World Relief project helping Syrian refugees (who probably shouldn't be coming here anyway) coming to the US with specific demands "No Proselytizing" in bold letters. 

Some may be offended by these brothers leaving their churches and may say that they do not care about the homeless or the refugees. They have cold hearts and don't want to feed the poor, or that they hate refugees. 

But, that was not the case at all...it was just that much of the sum total of their mission funds were going to these projects helping nonbelievers and not to the support and education of ministers or towards missionary activities planting churches among the unreached. 

Private Christians can do many good works and this is a good thing. But it becomes a bad thing when it steals higher priorities. 

And many of the ERLC's actions are THEFTS away from the higher priorities given to the church.


----------



## kodos

Philip, if you can find an epistle where Paul argues to Caesar _for_ the creation of pagan temples, you might have a point. 

Rather, the Apostle writes, "shall we do evil that good may result?"

One does not promote the building of synagogues of Satan because one fears for the church. 

Let Christ defend His Bride, and let Satan defend his.


----------



## Pergamum

kodos said:


> Philip, if you can find an epistle where Paul argues to Caesar _for_ the creation of pagan temples, you might have a point.
> 
> Rather, the Apostle writes, "shall we do evil that good may result?"
> 
> One does not promote the building of synagogues of Satan because one fears for the church.
> 
> Let Christ defend His Bride, and let Satan defend his.



Rom for the win!


----------



## Philip

kodos said:


> Rather, the Apostle writes, "shall we do evil that good may result?"



If we're doing evil here, then we've been doing evil all along. That's my point. By going along and benefitting from a pluralistic society, we've already acquiesced to this. Why are we quibbling about this now? We've been enjoying tax-exempt charity status for years; we've been buying tax-free properties for years' we've been giving ministers housing stipends for years, knowing full well that the same principle would have to apply to any other religious institutions that happened to apply.

If you're going to argue this, then go on and follow the argument where it goes: churches that have tax-exempt status and enjoy freedom from property tax etc are consenting to pluralism.


----------



## kodos

Philip said:


> If we're doing evil here, then we've been doing evil all along. That's my point. By going along and benefitting from a pluralistic society, we've already acquiesced to this. Why are we quibbling about this now? We've been enjoying tax-exempt charity status for years; we've been buying tax-free properties for years' we've been giving ministers housing stipends for years, knowing full well that the same principle would have to apply to any other religious institutions that happened to apply.
> 
> If you're going to argue this, then go on and follow the argument where it goes: churches that have tax-exempt status and enjoy freedom from property tax etc are consenting to pluralism.



You may not realize this, but I am a _Reformed Presbyterian_. The Church whose North American Synod published such gems as "TESTIMONY AGAINST THE MORAL EVILS IN THE CIVIL INSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES", etc. We (and others) have warned the Church of Jesus Christ that this is where supporting the United States Constitution inevitably leads you. 

If your critique is that American Evangelicals are inconsistent in their enjoyment of certain civil benefits, that is fine, you can critique the inconsistency of believers - but we should never forget that what is wrong is wrong in God's eyes, and inconsistency does not suddenly make it morally okay to push for the building of a mosque.

In further defense of my brethren who do not share my convictions on the United States Government - there is a clear progression in the Scriptures from merely standing with sinners to sitting down with them (see Psalm 1). This is now linking arms with those who worship demons, to help build houses of grotesque wickedness that God hates. This should never be.

It is also wrong to impute to the brethren that if they are going to _benefit_ from the common civil benefits of a government, that they must then consent to every aspect of that program that they have benefited from. Paul took advantage of his Roman Citizenship without ever feeling that obligated him to worship Caesar as a god, or that he was therefore consenting to religious pluralism.

I'm going to sum up my view this way: The Church of Jesus Christ does not need the approval of the United States Government to exist. He who sits in the heavens laughs (Psalm 2). I am not afraid that if the Muslims lose their right to build a mosque that Christ's Church is doomed. I also don't think it is wrong to benefit from the civil government's programs (even if they are in error) if you can. That is being a shrewd and wise steward as Christ taught. Christ taught much about benefiting from "unrighteous mammon", etc.


----------



## Philip

kodos said:


> You may not realize this, but I am a Reformed Presbyterian.



I do realize this, but you need to make the full implications of your position clear: religious toleration is not Christian.

On the other hand, religious toleration is the historic Baptist position and so it's difficult to fault Baptists for following it consistently.



kodos said:


> but we should never forget that what is wrong is wrong in God's eyes, and inconsistency does not suddenly make it morally okay to push for the building of a mosque.



There is a moral difference between arguing a) that Muslims should build a mosque b) that Muslims have a right to build a mosque. In the words of G.K. Chesterton, "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." Arguing that Muslims have a right to certain things is not the same as agreeing with their use of that right.

Illustration: If P has the right to vote, then it is good to argue for P's right, regardless of how he votes. Even if I disagree with his use of his vote or think that he might be irresponsible with it, it isn't inconsistent to argue that he ought to have that right.


----------



## Philip

kodos said:


> I also don't think it is wrong to benefit from the civil government's programs (even if they are in error) if you can. That is being a shrewd and wise steward as Christ taught. Christ taught much about benefiting from "unrighteous mammon", etc.



Ok, so is it wrong to protest the erosion of such benefits? Because that is all that is going on here.


----------



## kodos

Philip said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may not realize this, but I am a Reformed Presbyterian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do realize this, but you need to make the full implications of your position clear: religious toleration is not Christian.
> 
> On the other hand, religious toleration is the historic Baptist position and so it's difficult to fault Baptists for following it consistently.
> 
> 
> 
> kodos said:
> 
> 
> 
> but we should never forget that what is wrong is wrong in God's eyes, and inconsistency does not suddenly make it morally okay to push for the building of a mosque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a moral difference between arguing a) that Muslims should build a mosque b) that Muslims have a right to build a mosque. In the words of G.K. Chesterton, "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." Arguing that Muslims have a right to certain things is not the same as agreeing with their use of that right.
> 
> Illustration: If P has the right to vote, then it is good to argue for P's right, regardless of how he votes. Even if I disagree with his use of his vote or think that he might be irresponsible with it, it isn't inconsistent to argue that he ought to have that right.
Click to expand...


Philip, the reason I am a Reformed Presbyterian is that I believe that the distinctives of the Church are Scriptural.

By the way, I don't believe that the Muslim has any right to build a mosque. Nor do I believe that pornographers have the right to make p0rnography, that prostitutes have any rights to sell their bodies, or that unbelievers have the right to blaspheme the name of my Lord in the name of 'free speech'. I certainly will not be filing any legal briefs on their behalf either.


----------



## Philip

kodos said:


> By the way, I don't believe that the Muslim has any right to build a mosque. Nor do I believe that pornographers have the right to make p0rnography, that prostitutes have any rights to sell their bodies, or that unbelievers have the right to blaspheme the name of my Lord in the name of 'free speech'.



Under US law they do. You're equivocating on the use of the word "right" here. Daniel didn't have the right to pray, but he prayed nonetheless. Peter and John didn't have the right to preach in the temple, but they preached anyway. I'm speaking merely of rights under human law, not about what is right.


----------



## kodos

Philip said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I don't believe that the Muslim has any right to build a mosque. Nor do I believe that pornographers have the right to make p0rnography, that prostitutes have any rights to sell their bodies, or that unbelievers have the right to blaspheme the name of my Lord in the name of 'free speech'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under US law they do. You're equivocating on the use of the word "right" here. Daniel didn't have the right to pray, but he prayed nonetheless. Peter and John didn't have the right to preach in the temple, but they preached anyway. I'm speaking merely of rights under human law, not about what is right.
Click to expand...


There is a certain irony in highlighting civil disobedience to unjust laws (Daniel, Peter, John) in an argument to support laws that are unjust.

I am certainly glad that you have admitted that these things are not right. If these are not right, then they are by definition: _unjust_.

Where we differ is that I believe that rights come from God, and therefore there is no right to abortion, there is no right to blasphemy, there is no right to sodomy, and there is no right to serve false gods.

The way I look at it is - if we lose certain benefits that we have gotten in the past, then so be it - Christ is sovereign. I am also not going to support the pornographer's free speech case because I believe doing so would help the Church be able to preach the gospel. They have that "right" under US law as well.


----------



## Philip

kodos said:


> There is a certain irony in highlighting civil disobedience to unjust laws (Daniel, Peter, John) in an argument to support laws that are unjust.



As I see it, false worship is an injustice that God and the church are given to deal with. The state can only deal with injustices between men, not between men and God. Too many Godly people were killed during the interregnum by states claiming that their form of worship was just. The remedy for false worship is the right preaching of the Word of God, not forcing people into the church at gunpoint.


----------



## kodos

The State has a compelling interest in establishment of religion. Always had, always will. You will never escape that fact, no matter how much you will try to plead a secular understanding of "separation of Church and State". The LDS folks for instance are very well aware of the fact that they had no First Amendment protection for their religion, and so were virtually outlawed until they changed their doctrine.

No one is asking anyone to go to church at gunpoint (well, I am not, but I guess you never know!). However, the Westminster Larger Catechism tells us our duties under the Second Commandment. Please see the bold section.

WLC Q. 180: What are the duties required in the second commandment?
The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God; and vowing unto him; as also *the disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry*.

Scripture Proof: Deut 7:5 - But thus you shall deal with them: you shall destroy their altars, and break down their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images, and burn their carved images with fire.

With that I shall bow out of this conversation - I am glad to have this kind of vigorous debate, but I must log out . Peace.


----------



## Parakaleo

Philip said:


> Daniel didn't have the right to pray,



Yes, he did.



> Then Daniel said to the king, “O king, live forever! My God sent His angel and shut the lions' mouths, and they have not harmed me, because I was found blameless before Him; and also before you, O king, I have done no harm.” Dan. 6:21-22



That is an excellent description of the godly serving the true, best interest of a ruler while remaining faithful to God. For Daniel to pray to the king would have been injurious to Darius himself. It is injurious and unloving to lay a snare of any type in front of our neighbors. 

If a Muslim asks you directions to the nearest mosque, say, "There is only destruction in that path." You have loved your neighbor.


----------



## Pergamum

Philip said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a certain irony in highlighting civil disobedience to unjust laws (Daniel, Peter, John) in an argument to support laws that are unjust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I see it, false worship is an injustice that God and the church are given to deal with. The state can only deal with injustices between men, not between men and God. Too many Godly people were killed during the interregnum by states claiming that their form of worship was just. The remedy for false worship is the right preaching of the Word of God, not forcing people into the church at gunpoint.
Click to expand...


Yes, there are two issues at stake. 

When I say, "The Church shouldn't be doing this" you seem to read it as, "He doesn't believe in freedom of religion." You are confusing the two issues.

Just because Jesus said, "Let the dead bury the dead" doesn't mean that Jesus was not in favor of burying the dead. 

But the Church has a higher calling.

I believe in other civil institutions and civil values as well, but that doesn't mean I should muster the resources of the Church in support of them. 

For example: participating in jury duty is a fine civic duty, but if a parachurch used the tithes of the Church to man juries all over the country, this would be to lose the main focus of the Church, which is to preach the Gospel and Disciple the Nations. 

There are many ways to protect the rights of church-goers, without aiding and comforting the enemy. I John 1:10 tells us to not even to greet false teachers, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them." and yet 3 million dollars of baptist tithes are being used to run the ERLC which is doing much more than greeting and welcoming Muslim imams into our communities, but are using the Church's resources to do so.



Again...if you want to pursue a legal case in support of these Muslims, do so as a private citizen, not with the funds that could be funding the Gospel going to other lands.


----------



## reaganmarsh

An interesting article reflecting on the situation and critiquing Moore's decision: http://christianindex.org/muslims-really-qualify-religious-freedom-benefits/


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> This year I've talked to two brothers who left churches (or in the process of leaving) due to the grievous ciphoning off of mission funds and church tithes to two efforts:
> 
> (1) the first, a soup kitchen that simply fed the homeless without any gospel witness to them,
> 
> and (2) A World Relief project helping Syrian refugees (who probably shouldn't be coming here anyway) coming to the US with specific demands "No Proselytizing" in bold letters.
> 
> Some may be offended by these brothers leaving their churches and may say that they do not care about the homeless or the refugees. They have cold hearts and don't want to feed the poor, or that they hate refugees.
> 
> But, that was not the case at all...it was just that much of the sum total of their mission funds were going to these projects helping nonbelievers and not to the support and education of ministers or towards missionary activities planting churches among the unreached.
> 
> Private Christians can do many good works and this is a good thing. But it becomes a bad thing when it steals higher priorities.
> 
> And many of the ERLC's actions are THEFTS away from the higher priorities given to the church.



Again, when Southern Baptists have run children's homes, hospitals, liberal arts colleges and all kinds of other things with Cooperative Program funds, (from which mission and seminary education funding is drawn) don't be surprised when you find them doing something else with their money like the ERLC that isn't directly tied to missions and evangelism. In my state, If I recall correctly some 3 million dollars per year is spent on the state convention's liberal arts college. Needless to say, given the makeup of the SBC, the Cooperative Program also funds Semi-Pelagian seminary professors, church plants and missionaries. 

That's denominationalism, basically. Various Baptists opposed it 100 years ago. Today various groups of them go by the names of Missionary Baptists and independent Baptists, (including independent Sovereign Grace Baptists), as well as associations like the ABA. (Landmarkers tended to break away from the SBC due to disagreement over creeping denominationalism of this sort as much as they did because of departures from the "old landmarks.") In other parts of the country, this kind of robust denominationalism fell apart for conservatives that had to come out of liberalizing denominations. To some degree it has been replaced by parachurch organizations that aren't under the oversight of particular churches or denominations. 

I'm not arguing with your philosophy. But it is simply and fundamentally at odds with the philosophy of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Cooperative Program (CP) mechanism by which all of their entities and ministries on the associational, state and national level have been funded for almost 100 years. Those who come around to your way of thinking will need to leave the SBC to follow it consistently. To expect the SBC to drop all those other things in our lifetime is about as realistic as expecting the PCUSA to turn into the OPC in our lifetime and apologize for pushing out Machen and Mcintire.


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> This year I've talked to two brothers who left churches (or in the process of leaving) due to the grievous ciphoning off of mission funds and church tithes to two efforts:
> 
> (1) the first, a soup kitchen that simply fed the homeless without any gospel witness to them,
> 
> and (2) A World Relief project helping Syrian refugees (who probably shouldn't be coming here anyway) coming to the US with specific demands "No Proselytizing" in bold letters.
> 
> Some may be offended by these brothers leaving their churches and may say that they do not care about the homeless or the refugees. They have cold hearts and don't want to feed the poor, or that they hate refugees.
> 
> But, that was not the case at all...it was just that much of the sum total of their mission funds were going to these projects helping nonbelievers and not to the support and education of ministers or towards missionary activities planting churches among the unreached.
> 
> Private Christians can do many good works and this is a good thing. But it becomes a bad thing when it steals higher priorities.
> 
> And many of the ERLC's actions are THEFTS away from the higher priorities given to the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when Southern Baptists have run children's homes, hospitals, liberal arts colleges and all kinds of other things with Cooperative Program funds, (from which mission and seminary education funding is drawn) don't be surprised when you find them doing something else with their money like the ERLC that isn't directly tied to missions and evangelism. In my state, If I recall correctly some 3 million dollars per year is spent on the state convention's liberal arts college. Needless to say, given the makeup of the SBC, the Cooperative Program also funds Semi-Pelagian seminary professors, church plants and missionaries.
> 
> That's denominationalism, basically. Various Baptists opposed it 100 years ago. Today various groups of them go by the names of Missionary Baptists and independent Baptists, (including independent Sovereign Grace Baptists), as well as associations like the ABA. (Landmarkers tended to break away from the SBC due to disagreement over creeping denominationalism of this sort as much as they did because of departures from the "old landmarks.") In other parts of the country, this kind of robust denominationalism fell apart for conservatives that had to come out of liberalizing denominations. To some degree it has been replaced by parachurch organizations that aren't under the oversight of particular churches or denominations.
> 
> I'm not arguing with your philosophy. But it is simply and fundamentally at odds with the philosophy of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Cooperative Program (CP) mechanism by which all of their entities and ministries on the associational, state and national level have been funded for almost 100 years. Those who come around to your way of thinking will need to leave the SBC to follow it consistently. To expect the SBC to drop all those other things in our lifetime is about as realistic as expecting the PCUSA to turn into the OPC in our lifetime and apologize for pushing out Machen and Mcintire.
Click to expand...


Yes, I suggested to several pastors last week that they ought to pull out of the SBC and just go Independent instead of feeling uneasy over giving to things they didn't believe were foremost.... and one took great offense at the suggestion. There is "brand loyalty" among many Southern Baptists and some would never pull out, even as they remain unhappily within and complain about the Cooperative Program and NAMB and how they use funds. It is like I am asking them to do the unthinkable.


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> This year I've talked to two brothers who left churches (or in the process of leaving) due to the grievous ciphoning off of mission funds and church tithes to two efforts:
> 
> (1) the first, a soup kitchen that simply fed the homeless without any gospel witness to them,
> 
> and (2) A World Relief project helping Syrian refugees (who probably shouldn't be coming here anyway) coming to the US with specific demands "No Proselytizing" in bold letters.
> 
> Some may be offended by these brothers leaving their churches and may say that they do not care about the homeless or the refugees. They have cold hearts and don't want to feed the poor, or that they hate refugees.
> 
> But, that was not the case at all...it was just that much of the sum total of their mission funds were going to these projects helping nonbelievers and not to the support and education of ministers or towards missionary activities planting churches among the unreached.
> 
> Private Christians can do many good works and this is a good thing. But it becomes a bad thing when it steals higher priorities.
> 
> And many of the ERLC's actions are THEFTS away from the higher priorities given to the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when Southern Baptists have run children's homes, hospitals, liberal arts colleges and all kinds of other things with Cooperative Program funds, (from which mission and seminary education funding is drawn) don't be surprised when you find them doing something else with their money like the ERLC that isn't directly tied to missions and evangelism. In my state, If I recall correctly some 3 million dollars per year is spent on the state convention's liberal arts college. Needless to say, given the makeup of the SBC, the Cooperative Program also funds Semi-Pelagian seminary professors, church plants and missionaries.
> 
> That's denominationalism, basically. Various Baptists opposed it 100 years ago. Today various groups of them go by the names of Missionary Baptists and independent Baptists, (including independent Sovereign Grace Baptists), as well as associations like the ABA. (Landmarkers tended to break away from the SBC due to disagreement over creeping denominationalism of this sort as much as they did because of departures from the "old landmarks.") In other parts of the country, this kind of robust denominationalism fell apart for conservatives that had to come out of liberalizing denominations. To some degree it has been replaced by parachurch organizations that aren't under the oversight of particular churches or denominations.
> 
> I'm not arguing with your philosophy. But it is simply and fundamentally at odds with the philosophy of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Cooperative Program (CP) mechanism by which all of their entities and ministries on the associational, state and national level have been funded for almost 100 years. Those who come around to your way of thinking will need to leave the SBC to follow it consistently. To expect the SBC to drop all those other things in our lifetime is about as realistic as expecting the PCUSA to turn into the OPC in our lifetime and apologize for pushing out Machen and Mcintire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I suggested to several pastors last week that they ought to pull out of the SBC and just go Independent instead of feeling uneasy over giving to things they didn't believe were foremost.... and one took great offense at the suggestion. There is "brand loyalty" among many Southern Baptists and some would never pull out, even as they remain unhappily within and complain about the Cooperative Program and NAMB and how they use funds. It is like I am asking them to do the unthinkable.
Click to expand...

Some will either never pull out or won't pull out now because SBC members get 50% off of the tuition at any of the six SBC seminaries. Many also think that the IMB is the best mission org of all time. The idea of having to go out and raise support is foreign to them.

Plus, the current issues pale in comparison to what was going on 30 years ago. So the idea of pulling out over this looks crazy to those who remember how it was when the liberals were in charge, even if they are disappointed in Moore. 


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum

Is the First Amendment for Americans less important than religious freedoms for Muslims to Moore? 



> "As I caught up on news out of Louisville, I kept waiting for Mohler or Moore to say something about the assaults at the Trump rally. They did, after all, happen in the same city where the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is located, and Moore taught at the school for thirteen years before taking his current position. I checked the websites and blogs of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Moore and Mohler. It's possible no one had time to compose an official statement, but I checked their Twitter timelines, too. Immediate and 140 characters. By noon on Friday, March 4, nothing."



http://ncronline.org/blogs/intersection/leaders-should-condemn-ugly-moments-trump-rally-violence-ky


----------



## Pergamum

> "Specifically, the ERLC “exists to assist the churches” – not mosques, mind you – with a quad-pointed outline of ERLC ministries, each notably penned with the opening phrase, “Assist Churches.” It seems rather hard, does it not, to reconcile mosque-building with helping churches.
> 
> Now, despite Moore’s response to Harris, if you’re a Southern Baptist, when is the last time Russell Moore, or a representative from his agency, showed up to help your church “understand the moral demands of the Gospel?” When is the last time they arrived in your association, or even your state, to train, teach, and provide support for applying “Christian principles to moral and social problems?” (For about a hundred bucks, you can attend the ERLC’s upcoming National Conference...
> 
> Indeed, in the case of Georgia Baptists, as Harris points out, Moore nor his agency engaged in helping “to promote religious liberty in cooperation with” Georgia Baptist Churches. But Moore certainly found time to jump to the aid of Muslims denied a building permit.
> 
> Moore’s defense of religious liberty in his blog isn’t the issue. The question is not whether Southern Baptists should defend this right. The question is should we not be extremely cautious, guided by well-discerned, Scripturally-guided discretion, as to how and with whom we align in pursuit of religious liberty?
> 
> We live in a world where the prevalent view is that there are many paths to God. Why add our name to a list of heretical foreign gods in defense of building a temple to evil, and thus forsake our Gospel witness? Is our trust in the liberty guaranteed by a government somehow more valuable than the promises we know to be real from the Author of Liberty?
> 
> From a purely legal, first amendment perspective, there seems little restriction in America that precludes Muslims, or Sikhs, or atheists, or whomever from seeking freedom in the name of religion or no religion. But from a Gospel perspective, is it necessary for Southern Baptists to align with evil so that God will protect our freedoms?
> 
> The Apostle John wrote something that Baptists used to actually believe. “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19) The apostle then goes on to lovingly command the flock, “Little children, keep yourself from idols.” (1 John 5:20)
> 
> Methinks religious liberty is an idol for the ERLC, and Moore, in an evident self-aggrandizing effort, is willing to forego any discernment, any discretion in pursuing alliances necessary to perpetuate its worship. All the while, the mission of his very agency goes decidedly neglected. Truly, in the SBC today, we need to be worrying less about the separation of church and state and much, much more about the separation of church and world. “Come out from among them.” (2 Corinthians 6:17)
> 
> The upcoming annual meeting in St. Louis would be a great time for Southern Baptists to debate whether we could do much more with less Moore. If it’s deemed necessary to keep intact this lobbying arm of the Convention* then perhaps we should, at least, put a leader in place that will actually endeavor to fulfill its mission to the churches. It’s a worthy mission – if we had someone to do it.
> 
> * – The 2014/2015 Budget – funded by tithes and offerings – of the ERLC is $3,530,395. How many missionaries could be supported with these funds that, instead, went to support such things as mosque building?"



http://pulpitandpen.org/2016/06/09/sbcs-mosque-building-moore-defends-alliances-with-evil/


----------



## Pergamum

Summary:
A. ERLC does not protest when Trump rally attendees are attacked in their own backyard. They fail to defend the 1st Amendment.
B. ERLC takes great pains to support muslims desiring to build mosques due to freedom of religion.
C. ERLC leader tweets about Jesus being an illegal alien and supports a leftist and progressive immigration policy
D. ERLC is part of an immigration roundtable financed by the leftist and progressive rich dude Soros.
E. Moore tweets against Trump and about Trump speaking at a Christian university.
F. Moore is silent about Bernie Sanders speaking at a VERY SAME Christian university.
G. ERLC takes tithes of Southern Baptist churches (1.68% or over 3 million) to do this work.
H. ERLC's stated mission purpose is to "assist churches" but they are now focused on assisting Muslims.

Conclusion: ERLC is partisan and political rather than merely "gospel" oriented and should be disbanded.


----------



## Pergamum

A thought on the Sabbath and religious liberty: 

Currently Russell Moore and the ERLC of the Southern Baptist Convention are making efforts to defend the religious liberties of mosques, and thus, there are many baptists stating that Christianity was never the law of the land nor was America ever conceived as a Christian nation and that our country's ideals demand total religious pluralism and not merely non-preference for any of the Protestant sects through taxation.

Sabbath laws ("blue laws") were in effect until about 1970, and most states required most businesses to close on Sunday. Why were Sabbath laws seen as never violating the 1st Amendment. Were these Sabbath laws appropriate? Don't they assume a Christian basis for civil society?

Was this an oversight or a Christian prejudice that we did not give equal weight to the same "sacred" time of Friday mosque prayers? Or was it assumed that Christianity (though not State-Sponsored forms of such) and Christian principles would rule our land?


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> A thought on the Sabbath and religious liberty:
> 
> Currently Russell Moore and the ERLC of the Southern Baptist Convention are making efforts to defend the religious liberties of mosques, and thus, there are many baptists stating that Christianity was never the law of the land nor was America ever conceived as a Christian nation and that our country's ideals demand total religious pluralism and not merely non-preference for any of the Protestant sects through taxation.
> 
> Sabbath laws ("blue laws") were in effect until about 1970, and most states required most businesses to close on Sunday. Why were Sabbath laws seen as never violating the 1st Amendment. Were these Sabbath laws appropriate? Don't they assume a Christian basis for civil society?
> 
> Was this an oversight or a Christian prejudice that we did not give equal weight to the same "sacred" time of Friday mosque prayers? Or was it assumed that Christianity (though not State-Sponsored forms of such) and Christian principles would rule our land?



That's a good question, and it illustrates the tension in a pluralistic society that has no official religion, even though the society was strongly influenced by a particular religion for a long time. BTW in Louisiana those laws persisted until the early 80s. When I was a boy, about the only stores that were open on Sunday were pharmacies and convenience stores, most if not all of which sold gasoline. In some areas, you still can't do things like buy alcohol on Sunday. 

Even though there are generally no blue laws anymore, government offices and many others are closed on Sunday and Christmas. The calendar we use is a Christian calendar and so on. It is a reminder of what Francis Schaeffer called a "Christian base" in the sense that American culture was significantly influenced by Christianity even if it was never really "Christian" at any time in an official sense and even though many of the founders were not orthodox Christians. But there was never any mechanism in American law (especially on the national level) to ban false religions. There is no standard by which the state can adjudicate the question. Among conservative evangelicals today, including "Calvinistic" ones, broadly speaking, there is sharp disagreement over basic issues like justification, sanctification, and apparently the Trinity, with respected churchmen saying that others are either guilty of heresy or are far down the slippery slope toward it. If Christians themselves can't agree on these issues, what role could the government have? 

That being said, a generic Protestantism was basically the unofficial official religion of the US until about the 1950s or early 1960s. (One reason why the Catholic school system was set up was because the public schools were considered to be Protestant.) This started breaking down with the court decisions banning school prayer and similar things. (Now if you had school prayer, it would include prosperity gospel heretics coming in and offering "Christian prayer". The apostasy is much too far along to go back to that kind of generic "Christianity.") 

JFK's candidacy was controversial partly out of prejudice and partly due to the fact that up to that time (pre-Vatican II) Rome had not affirmed religious liberty. But by that time, the idea that even a Protestant was a Christian first and an American second probably would have been widely viewed as anti-American. The controversy was largely over once it became clear that JFK was an American first. 

Prohibition and its failure surely played a role too, since it was a cause that most Protestants of the day, liberal and conservative, promoted enthusiastically. (Sure, there was Machen et al, but that was a very small percentage of Protestants.) One reason why the KKK was so popular in the 20s, even in the North and West, was because it promised to maintain Protestant supremacy and curb Catholic influence. 

Christians and other cultural conservatives have drawn one line in the sand after another and have pretty much lost every time. Basically, religious freedom is the last refuge, the last defense against the sexual revolution. If the ERLC and similar organizations are seen to really only be out for the freedom of certain types of Christians, it will be seen as a sham. For various reasons, probably a significant majority of liberals, moderates and the indifferent view the pleas for religious liberty as a sham anyway, but the conservative evangelicals, Catholics and others are hoping for some favorable court decisions lest religious organizations be forced to perform SSM, hire homosexuals, drop all standards on sexual behavior of employees and students and so on.

Going back to the Baptist leader John Leland in American history, if not before, there is long established precedent for Baptists favoring religious freedom for all to worship, no matter their religion. (My understanding is that Isaac Backus thought religious liberty should only be for Protestants, but his view was widely rejected among Baptists. I think the thinking would have been that a government with that kind of power has the power to flog the likes of Obadiah Holmes, throw John Bunyan in jail and so on. That's why they joined with secularists to get the First Amendment passed.) We may not like it, but that's the way it is. It seems to me that the alternative is some kind of theonomy or a theocracy as envisioned in the original WCF with an official state church. Countries that have maintained an established church are worse off than the USA, with empty churches in most of them. In the UK, the crown is the "Defender of the Faith." How is that working out? 

As an aside, regarding Sunday, almost all of the kinds of Southern Baptists that we've been referring to here, even the "Reformed" ones from places like SBTS, do not agree with the Puritan view of the Sabbath. (Neither do most Presbyterians today, For what it's worth. The PB is hardly representative of the average church member or elder, at least in the PCA.) They think the 4th Commandment was ceremonial. In Presbytery meetings you will commonly hear the old refrain "Calvin bowled on the Sabbath" and so on when a "TR" has the temerity to press a ministerial candidate on his views of the Sabbath. At most many think it means that we are obligated to worship on Sunday if they think it has reference to any specific day at all. After the service you can watch the Super Bowl, work, shop or do whatever you want. So in some sense some of them might indeed say that it was wrong, that it led to hypocrisy, a mere outward conformity and so on, and that it was hardly any more justified than was Prohibition. Those evangelical and conservative Christians that patronize restaurants and go shopping right after church (i.e. the people who have kept the USA from resembling Europe, however much we might disagree with many of their views and practices) sure don't see it as a problem. So a "Christian society" today (in the sense of one dominated by conservative evangelicalism or conservative Protestantism as it is today) wouldn't enact those laws even if they made up 80% of the population and there was no legal bar against it.


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> Is the First Amendment for Americans less important than religious freedoms for Muslims to Moore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As I caught up on news out of Louisville, I kept waiting for Mohler or Moore to say something about the assaults at the Trump rally. They did, after all, happen in the same city where the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is located, and Moore taught at the school for thirteen years before taking his current position. I checked the websites and blogs of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Moore and Mohler. It's possible no one had time to compose an official statement, but I checked their Twitter timelines, too. Immediate and 140 characters. By noon on Friday, March 4, nothing."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://ncronline.org/blogs/intersection/leaders-should-condemn-ugly-moments-trump-rally-violence-ky
Click to expand...


Denny Burk made statements about it and was present at that rally. He and Moore are among the most prominent evangelical Never Trumpers. I believe Dr. Mohler has made statements on his podcast about Trump's win basically signaling the end of social conservatism in the GOP, a further sign of decline and so on. (I only end up listening to Mohler once a month or so.) That article is nonsense (and probably agenda-driven nonsense) that was posted on a liberal Roman Catholic website, and I'm not sure what the purpose is in posting it here. The idea that they've been silent is ridiculous. 

If neither Mohler nor Moore said anything specific about that particular rally, it's because there was nothing unique about that rally that hasn't happened in most other Trump rallies.


----------



## reaganmarsh

Dr. Moore, speaking at the SBC this week, addresses the question before us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuGxOE0Vy1g


----------



## Pergamum

Again, freedom of religion is one thing...using church funds and time to help pagans procure theirs is not the church's job. Over 3 million dollars goes to the ERLC...the Gospel is more important than making sure Muhammad in Texas can pray. They can foot their own bill for that.


----------



## reaganmarsh

Perg, I agree. Just figured that it his response to the matter we're discussing was worth passing along. 

I increasingly find myself "not at home" in my denomination, regardless of our reformed resurgence. 

For the record: I studied preaching under Dr. Moore at SBTS and have the *utmost* respect for him as a man of God. I just think he's gotten off-track at the ERLC and I'm not sure what the best thing for him to do is. Truth be told, I'm concerned about several of the SBC leaders we have at present; I think we've put some good men into poorly-chosen, unwisely-appointed roles. How I wish Dr. Moore had simply remained at the seminary and preaching at his church. He'd be much more effective. 

Just my $0.02...recognizing that I'm an SBC pastor of very little consequence in the SBC.


----------



## Pergamum

reaganmarsh said:


> Perg, I agree. Just figured that it his response to the matter we're discussing was worth passing along.
> 
> I increasingly find myself "not at home" in my denomination, regardless of our reformed resurgence.
> 
> For the record: I studied preaching under Dr. Moore at SBTS and have the *utmost* respect for him as a man of God. I just think he's gotten off-track at the ERLC and I'm not sure what the best thing for him to do is. Truth be told, I'm concerned about several of the SBC leaders we have at present; I think we've put some good men into poorly-chosen, unwisely-appointed roles. How I wish Dr. Moore had simply remained at the seminary and preaching at his church. He'd be much more effective.
> 
> Just my $0.02...recognizing that I'm an SBC pastor of very little consequence in the SBC.



Yes, My thoughts exactly. I feel like some SBC leaders are trying to speak in ways pleasing to the secular left in order to buy them street cred with the liberals for the Gospel.


----------



## zsmcd

This is one among many of the reasons why I am leaving the SBC (not to mention paedobaptism). 

All government magistrates impose a religion on those underneath them. Whether it be the religion of humanism, Islam, or Christ; religious "neutrality" is impossible. "Religious freedom" will always be limited in some respect. The question is, how much? A nation whose citizens in general recognize the Lordship of Christ will by virtue of their love for God and neighbor, _oppose_ the building of temples of Molech, Allah, or any other demonic false god. At the moment, we do not live under such a nation. If its citizens then, want to try and oppose the Gospel by keeping us from building our city "church buildings" then so be it. Christ has no need of bricks, stones, and steeples to build his Kingdom. I am not saying that building are not _helpful_, but we _by definition_ are opposing the Gospel when we support the building false idols for the sake of our own right to hard infrastructures. 

This is a waste of time, energy, people, and resources that could be used to advance the Gospel. "Religious freedom" is not the Gospel whether or not our constitution or history of our nation agrees.


----------



## Pilgrim

reaganmarsh said:


> Perg, I agree. Just figured that it his response to the matter we're discussing was worth passing along.
> 
> I increasingly find myself "not at home" in my denomination, regardless of our reformed resurgence.
> 
> For the record: I studied preaching under Dr. Moore at SBTS and have the *utmost* respect for him as a man of God. I just think he's gotten off-track at the ERLC and I'm not sure what the best thing for him to do is. Truth be told, I'm concerned about several of the SBC leaders we have at present; I think we've put some good men into poorly-chosen, unwisely-appointed roles. How I wish Dr. Moore had simply remained at the seminary and preaching at his church. He'd be much more effective.
> 
> Just my $0.02...recognizing that I'm an SBC pastor of very little consequence in the SBC.



Unlike you, I don't know the man, but I wasn't surprised in the least when he was appointed to the ERLC. 

I don't have much time, but I'll say this--As you may know, before entering the pastorate, he was a staffer for a Mississippi Democratic Congressman, albeit one that was pretty conservative by today's standards. He doesn't favor smaller government, etc. and is more concerned with civil rights and racial issues than the average Southern Baptist. His dissertation on the Kingdom of God (later published by Crossway as "The Kingdom of Christ") was basically about providing a theological basis for political activism as opposed to Spirituality of the Church, R2K or dispensational (e.g. MacArthur) type views that would have the church stay out of politics to one degree or another. 

Some of his SBTS proteges were hammering away at immigration being a "gospel issue" several years ago when they were pushing a resolution at the SBC, leaving one with the idea that to oppose their particular policy is "anti-gospel." (How could it be otherwise, if "comprehensive immigration reform" is really is a "gospel issue?") And this was when Dr. Moore was still at SBTS. I'm pretty sure he was part of the Soros funded evangelical immigration round table even then. (If he wasn't, Land/the ERLC was and Moore supported their efforts.) 

If anyone has the idea that Moore has "changed" or whatever, they weren't paying close attention earlier. His actions as head of the ERLC have basically been what any observer would have expected given his background and views.


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim said:


> reaganmarsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perg, I agree. Just figured that it his response to the matter we're discussing was worth passing along.
> 
> I increasingly find myself "not at home" in my denomination, regardless of our reformed resurgence.
> 
> For the record: I studied preaching under Dr. Moore at SBTS and have the *utmost* respect for him as a man of God. I just think he's gotten off-track at the ERLC and I'm not sure what the best thing for him to do is. Truth be told, I'm concerned about several of the SBC leaders we have at present; I think we've put some good men into poorly-chosen, unwisely-appointed roles. How I wish Dr. Moore had simply remained at the seminary and preaching at his church. He'd be much more effective.
> 
> Just my $0.02...recognizing that I'm an SBC pastor of very little consequence in the SBC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I don't know the man, but I wasn't surprised in the least when he was appointed to the ERLC.
> 
> I don't have much time, but I'll say this--As you may know, before entering the pastorate, he was a staffer for a Mississippi Democratic Congressman, albeit one that was pretty conservative by today's standards. He doesn't favor smaller government, etc. and is more concerned with civil rights and racial issues than the average Southern Baptist. His dissertation on the Kingdom of God (later published by Crossway as "The Kingdom of Christ") was basically about providing a theological basis for political activism as opposed to Spirituality of the Church, R2K or dispensational (e.g. MacArthur) type views that would have the church stay out of politics to one degree or another.
> 
> Some of his SBTS proteges were hammering away at immigration being a "gospel issue" several years ago when they were pushing a resolution at the SBC, leaving one with the idea that to oppose their particular policy is "anti-gospel." (How could it be otherwise, if "comprehensive immigration reform" is really is a "gospel issue?") And this was when Dr. Moore was still at SBTS. I'm pretty sure he was part of the Soros funded evangelical immigration round table even then. (If he wasn't, Land/the ERLC was and Moore supported their efforts.)
> 
> If anyone has the idea that Moore has "changed" or whatever, they weren't paying close attention earlier. His actions as head of the ERLC have basically been what any observer would have expected given his background and views.
Click to expand...





> a staffer for a Mississippi Democratic Congressman


What a hypocrite then if he holds that voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Do you have a link to prove this?


----------



## Pergamum

zsmcd said:


> This is one among many of the reasons why I am leaving the SBC (not to mention paedobaptism).
> 
> All government magistrates impose a religion on those underneath them. Whether it be the religion of humanism, Islam, or Christ; religious "neutrality" is impossible. "Religious freedom" will always be limited in some respect. The question is, how much? A nation whose citizens in general recognize the Lordship of Christ will by virtue of their love for God and neighbor, _oppose_ the building of temples of Molech, Allah, or any other demonic false god. At the moment, we do not live under such a nation. If its citizens then, want to try and oppose the Gospel by keeping us from building our city "church buildings" then so be it. Christ has no need of bricks, stones, and steeples to build his Kingdom. I am not saying that building are not _helpful_, but we _by definition_ are opposing the Gospel when we support the building false idols for the sake of our own right to hard infrastructures.
> 
> This is a waste of time, energy, people, and resources that could be used to advance the Gospel. "Religious freedom" is not the Gospel whether or not our constitution or history of our nation agrees.



Great!

I keep seeing smug little posts (even from RC Sproul Jr) about Moore's "Mic Drop Moment" at the Convention, but people are confusing two issues; (1) freedom of religion (which is good), with (2) the existence and authority of an extra-ecclesiastical commission on ethics for the SBC, the ERLC, and its almost 4 millions dollars it uses to push these agendas, even while almost 1,000 IMB missionaries are under-funded (which is awful). 

And even if you critique the second point, they come back with the first point and accuse you of not believing in freedom of religion (a lot of these responses seem like its simple pandering to the American masses by evoking American ideals as they spend 3.8 million NOT on missions or churches).

Priorities people! Let private lawyers champion these causes. Let the Church be the Church! Preach the Word and Disciple the Nations...not sign amicus briefs for Muhammad and his kin.


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reaganmarsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perg, I agree. Just figured that it his response to the matter we're discussing was worth passing along.
> 
> I increasingly find myself "not at home" in my denomination, regardless of our reformed resurgence.
> 
> For the record: I studied preaching under Dr. Moore at SBTS and have the *utmost* respect for him as a man of God. I just think he's gotten off-track at the ERLC and I'm not sure what the best thing for him to do is. Truth be told, I'm concerned about several of the SBC leaders we have at present; I think we've put some good men into poorly-chosen, unwisely-appointed roles. How I wish Dr. Moore had simply remained at the seminary and preaching at his church. He'd be much more effective.
> 
> Just my $0.02...recognizing that I'm an SBC pastor of very little consequence in the SBC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I don't know the man, but I wasn't surprised in the least when he was appointed to the ERLC.
> 
> I don't have much time, but I'll say this--As you may know, before entering the pastorate, he was a staffer for a Mississippi Democratic Congressman, albeit one that was pretty conservative by today's standards. He doesn't favor smaller government, etc. and is more concerned with civil rights and racial issues than the average Southern Baptist. His dissertation on the Kingdom of God (later published by Crossway as "The Kingdom of Christ") was basically about providing a theological basis for political activism as opposed to Spirituality of the Church, R2K or dispensational (e.g. MacArthur) type views that would have the church stay out of politics to one degree or another.
> 
> Some of his SBTS proteges were hammering away at immigration being a "gospel issue" several years ago when they were pushing a resolution at the SBC, leaving one with the idea that to oppose their particular policy is "anti-gospel." (How could it be otherwise, if "comprehensive immigration reform" is really is a "gospel issue?") And this was when Dr. Moore was still at SBTS. I'm pretty sure he was part of the Soros funded evangelical immigration round table even then. (If he wasn't, Land/the ERLC was and Moore supported their efforts.)
> 
> If anyone has the idea that Moore has "changed" or whatever, they weren't paying close attention earlier. His actions as head of the ERLC have basically been what any observer would have expected given his background and views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a staffer for a Mississippi Democratic Congressman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hypocrite then if he holds that voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.
> 
> Do you have a link to prove this?
Click to expand...

He worked for Gene Taylor in some capacity. This was over 20 years ago. Rep. Taylor was more conservative than many Republicans back then and was pro life, voted to impeach Clinton, etc. Because of the life issue, I doubt Moore is a Democrat now. 

Has Moore said that he'd vote for Hillary? I thought he said he couldn't vote for either. (I won't be voting for either.) If that's right, where's the hypocrisy? 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reaganmarsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perg, I agree. Just figured that it his response to the matter we're discussing was worth passing along.
> 
> I increasingly find myself "not at home" in my denomination, regardless of our reformed resurgence.
> 
> For the record: I studied preaching under Dr. Moore at SBTS and have the *utmost* respect for him as a man of God. I just think he's gotten off-track at the ERLC and I'm not sure what the best thing for him to do is. Truth be told, I'm concerned about several of the SBC leaders we have at present; I think we've put some good men into poorly-chosen, unwisely-appointed roles. How I wish Dr. Moore had simply remained at the seminary and preaching at his church. He'd be much more effective.
> 
> Just my $0.02...recognizing that I'm an SBC pastor of very little consequence in the SBC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I don't know the man, but I wasn't surprised in the least when he was appointed to the ERLC.
> 
> I don't have much time, but I'll say this--As you may know, before entering the pastorate, he was a staffer for a Mississippi Democratic Congressman, albeit one that was pretty conservative by today's standards. He doesn't favor smaller government, etc. and is more concerned with civil rights and racial issues than the average Southern Baptist. His dissertation on the Kingdom of God (later published by Crossway as "The Kingdom of Christ") was basically about providing a theological basis for political activism as opposed to Spirituality of the Church, R2K or dispensational (e.g. MacArthur) type views that would have the church stay out of politics to one degree or another.
> 
> Some of his SBTS proteges were hammering away at immigration being a "gospel issue" several years ago when they were pushing a resolution at the SBC, leaving one with the idea that to oppose their particular policy is "anti-gospel." (How could it be otherwise, if "comprehensive immigration reform" is really is a "gospel issue?") And this was when Dr. Moore was still at SBTS. I'm pretty sure he was part of the Soros funded evangelical immigration round table even then. (If he wasn't, Land/the ERLC was and Moore supported their efforts.)
> 
> If anyone has the idea that Moore has "changed" or whatever, they weren't paying close attention earlier. His actions as head of the ERLC have basically been what any observer would have expected given his background and views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a staffer for a Mississippi Democratic Congressman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hypocrite then if he holds that voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.
> 
> Do you have a link to prove this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He worked for Gene Taylor in some capacity. This was over 20 years ago. Rep. Taylor was more conservative than many Republicans back then and was pro life, voted to impeach Clinton, etc. Because of the life issue, I doubt Moore is a Democrat now.
> 
> Has Moore said that he'd vote for Hillary? I thought he said he couldn't vote for either. (I won't be voting for either.) If that's right, where's the hypocrisy?
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


If he aided a Pro-choice candidate or the representative from a party with an official platform of being Pro-choice.

Also, if he condemned Liberty University for letting Trump speak, but is totally silent about Bernie Sanders speaking at the same place. Or, if his hometown of Louisville is the center of many chaotic Trump protests, and he says nothing at all about freedom of speech there. He is unequal in his agendas that he is pushing. And he is pushing an agenda and this makes me suspicious.


----------



## reaganmarsh

Hi Chris,

I will readily concede that I was unfamiliar with a good deal of his stances politically until fairly recently (to be blunt, I've never paid much attention to the ERLC until Dr. Moore began working there; and I'm not at all convinced that the SBC ought to have the ERLC). I don't recall very much of that at all in his preaching class. I do recall a blood-earnestness about the gospel, the Scriptures, and helping us to become the best interpreters and expositors of the Sacred Writ that we could be. I was stretched further in that class than in any other class ever, save one. I learned how to preach Christ there. 

For that reason, I greatly appreciate Dr. Moore. I would not be the man or the preacher I am today apart from his instruction; and for that, I will forever be indebted to him. 

That being said, though I respect him as a preacher of the gospel, I vigorously disagree with several of his current emphases, as per my previous posts in this thread. 

Thanks for engaging in this discussion. It's been helpful for me. 

Grace to you.


----------



## Pergamum

Do you trust any church group led by a man who would tweet this:

http://i0.wp.com/pulpitandpen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/m22.jpg


----------



## Pergamum

Pergamum said:


> Do you trust any church group led by a man who would tweet this:
> 
> http://i0.wp.com/pulpitandpen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/m22.jpg
> 
> View attachment 4526



p.s I just had someone mad at me over Moore's tweet, saying I was being unfair since the Pope is, after all, a pretty good world leader and has "done a lot of good for the world."


----------

