The evolution of Southern Baptist ethicist Russell Moore

You should hear this guy preach! You’d swear he’s a southern fundamentalist baptist evangelist but with impeccable scholarship and solid Bible content.

[G. N. Barkman]

You should hear this guy preach! You’d swear he’s a southern fundamentalist baptist evangelist but with impeccable scholarship and solid Bible content.

I prefer lesser scholars and homileticians who don’t join hands with false preachers that promote and bless the abomination of sodomy.

2 John 1:9-11 reads “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

That must necessarily be applied to Moore’s affiliation with “Joe Phelps, pastor of Highland Baptist Church in Louisville. Highland Baptist left the Southern Baptist Convention about 10 years ago and is known as a liberal congregation with openly gay members.”

See this quote. “We are not going to reunite, but we don’t need to be adversaries,” Phelps said. I am not sorry to say that the Bible explicitly says that we DO need to be adversaries. Moore’s being elevated to this position is evidence of our modern down-grade controversy.

JobK, those were Phelps’ words, not Moore’s. To my knowledge, Moore has said nothing of the kind, and hasn’t budged on iota on homosexuality. The fact that Phelps doesn’t think they need to be adversaries does not mean that Moore agrees with him, or that Moore is soft on homosexuality.

Kind of funny how this guy also supports so called immigration reform, because he thinks it’s part of human dignity. What about the human dignity of the millions of Americans who can’t find work, and will probably live in poverty the rest of their lives? Typical Liberal mentality… spend countless hours and billions of dollars helping unknown people in other parts of the world, while ignoring your own neighbors.

Yeah, Russell Moore, that stinkin’ liberal…

[christian cerna]

Kind of funny how this guy also supports so called immigration reform, because he thinks it’s part of human dignity. What about the human dignity of the millions of Americans who can’t find work, and will probably live in poverty the rest of their lives? Typical Liberal mentality… spend countless hours and billions of dollars helping unknown people in other parts of the world, while ignoring your own neighbors.

I’m sorry, but anyone that things that immigration is the source of unemployment/economic woes just doesn’t understand economics. Immigration is a good thing, and it has traditionally been a huge boon for the economy.

The problem is 1.) the welfare state and 2.) minimum wage laws (and more broadly government control of the economy.) Until you fix those, you aren’t going be able to make any real headway. And when you do fix those, you’ll find that immigration will fuel, not harm, the economy.

[jcoleman]

[christian cerna]

Kind of funny how this guy also supports so called immigration reform, because he thinks it’s part of human dignity. What about the human dignity of the millions of Americans who can’t find work, and will probably live in poverty the rest of their lives? Typical Liberal mentality… spend countless hours and billions of dollars helping unknown people in other parts of the world, while ignoring your own neighbors.

I’m sorry, but anyone that things that immigration is the source of unemployment/economic woes just doesn’t understand economics. Immigration is a good thing, and it has traditionally been a huge boon for the economy.

The problem is 1.) the welfare state and 2.) minimum wage laws (and more broadly government control of the economy.) Until you fix those, you aren’t going be able to make any real headway. And when you do fix those, you’ll find that immigration will fuel, not harm, the economy.

How is immigration a boon for the economy?

We have a finite amount of jobs in this country, and a growing US population.

You say that minimum wage laws are a problem. I suppose you want people to work for a couple dollars an hour instead?

While I do see welfare as a double edged sword, making people dependent on the State, I also know that it was originally implemented as a result of poverty and lack of jobs for many Americans. I agree that welfare should be limited, but before you wean someone off of it, you need to have something else available for them to do so that they can fend for themselves. Once again, where are the jobs?

Government having some control over the economy is not the problem. The government must serve as the regulating body, ensuring the welfare of the nation and its people. However, during the past few decades, the government has handed over its power to banks and corporations which have greedily sent most well paying jobs overseas, in order to enrich a few shareholders.

Immigration has always benefited business owners, and especially corporations, allowing them to use it as a way to flood the market with cheap labor and also to suppress wages.

If immigration is a boon for the economy, then all we have to do is allow another 100 million immigrants from all over the world to enter our country, and then we will have another golden era in American history.

[Larry]

JobK, those were Phelps’ words, not Moore’s. To my knowledge, Moore has said nothing of the kind, and hasn’t budged on iota on homosexuality. The fact that Phelps doesn’t think they need to be adversaries does not mean that Moore agrees with him, or that Moore is soft on homosexuality.

The issue isn’t Moore’s words but his actions. Moore is working with a wolf scattering the sheep who promotes homosexuality. Whether Moore agrees with Phelps is not the issue. The issue is that he has aligned himself with Phelps when the Bible says that we are not supposed to. 2 John 1:10-11 doesn’t warn against endorsing the doctrines of false teachers. It says that if you receive the false teachers or wish them well then you share in their evil deeds. Now one can argue that discussing books with the fellow over coffee is one thing, fine, but working with Phelps and his ilk “on issues such as religious liberty” is another. That is precisely what ‘“We are not going to reunite, but we don’t need to be adversaries,” Phelps said” means.

Also, Moore preaches against homosexuality. Good. But how about putting some action behind it? You preach against homosexuality but you associate with pastors who promote it. This is OK why? This is another example of letting the world set our standards. With homosexuality, our position is “Well, the Bible calls it a sin but the world says it is OK, so we are going to compartmentalize and call it sin in the spiritual sphere but not really do anything in the secular sphere beyond our words.” All right, suppose it was something that the world hates, like pedophilia. (Well, I should say that the world hates it for now in our current culture. In other cultural times and places, the practice was and is considered to be just fine. And even with our own present culture, let us just say that a number of leading homosexual scholars are now finding our age of consent laws to be inconvenient. I have seen various mainstream media outlets pretty much accommodate and endorse this stance, so it will only be a matter of time before it begins to pick up steam … it might be the next battle after gay marriage.) If this “pastor” Phelps was promoting pedophilia in his “church” and allowing pedophiles to be members of his congregation would Russell Moore be talking literature over coffee with him, let alone working with him on religious freedom issues? Of course not. Why not? Certainly not the Bible, which has the same position against pedophilia as it does against homosexuality. The only difference would be the world and the law loving one and (for now) hating the other.

And speaking of false preachers named Phelps, why is engagement with a promoter of homosexuality in this case OK but Moore wouldn’t touch Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church with a 10 foot pole? What is the difference between one and the other? Simple. The media - and the world - loves Joe Phelps but hates Fred Phelps. That is the only difference.

Kind of funny how this guy also supports so called immigration reform, because he thinks it’s part of human dignity. What about the human dignity of the millions of Americans who can’t find work, and will probably live in poverty the rest of their lives? Typical Liberal mentality… spend countless hours and billions of dollars helping unknown people in other parts of the world, while ignoring your own neighbors.

Here is another article that explains Moore’s view of immigration. Some of it does not reflect a “typical liberal mentality,” especially since he also supports securing the border and holding businesses accountable for hiring undocumented workers. I do believe that you assumed a fighting position against Moore without knowing where he fully stands on the issue.

And it definitely is a human dignity issue because as you know, illegal immigrants are created in God’s image which demands human dignity……

http://www.russellmoore.com/2011/06/17/immigration-and-the-gospel/

Job, You don’t have to disagree with me. But perhaps you could demonstrate how Moore is working with Phelps in any ecclesiastical partnership.

The article seems clear that Phelps is part of the CBF, having left the SBC ten years ago, while Moore is a part of the SBC. As you might know, the CBF was formed by some who left the SBC because the SBC was too conservative. They had coffee a few times to discuss something they both liked. That’s no violation of any biblical standard that I know of. As the head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, it would be expected that he would work with other groups on religious liberty. Religious liberty has always been an issue bigger than Baptists, and working for it is not necessarily ecclesiastical partnership.

So it seems that, unless you have some evidence you have not posted, that your statements and your perspective do not line up with what the article says.

[christian cerna]

Kind of funny how this guy also supports so called immigration reform, because he thinks it’s part of human dignity. What about the human dignity of the millions of Americans who can’t find work, and will probably live in poverty the rest of their lives? Typical Liberal mentality… spend countless hours and billions of dollars helping unknown people in other parts of the world, while ignoring your own neighbors.

The great part, Christian, is that Jesus’ definition of “neighbor” included immigrants….look no further than the parable of the Good Samaritan to see that. As far as I know, James 1:27 is still in the Bible. I love America and i want to see her prosper. I also want others to be introduced to America. I want to see immigration reform…does that make me a “liberal”?

You seem to find one issue that you disagree with someone on and then brand them a liberal or an idiot. Are you familiar with the phrase “good men differ”? There is a lot of latitude for disagreement within Christianity. Until you recognize that and show charity toward others, you will find yourself on an ever-shrinking deserted island with the only person that agrees with you on everything (yourself).

We have a finite amount of jobs in this country, and a growing US population.

I haven’t checked lately, but last numbers I heard demonstrated negative US population growth if immigrant numbers weren’t included.

Also, a finite number of jobs? And what is that finite number exactly? Doesn’t matter as the population will never reach an infinite number. :)

[christian cerna]

How is immigration a boon for the economy?

We have a finite amount of jobs in this country, and a growing US population.

A finite number of jobs? Seriously? Pretty sure that can scale. If you really believed that, then we’d still have the same number of jobs as, say, 50 years ago…which would be a big problem.

[christian cerna]

You say that minimum wage laws are a problem. I suppose you want people to work for a couple dollars an hour instead?

Again, you don’t understand basic economics. There are both seen and unseen effects of regulations like the minimum wage. The see effect is that some people have higher paying jobs. The unseen effects are that there are much fewer entry-level jobs, and, directly tied to that, it’s very difficult for an unskilled worker to gain the skills necessary to move up the ladder.

Illegal immigrants are actually fulfilling an incredibly important role in our economy right now, particularly, for example, on farms—where they’re willing to do work that no American would do at a given rate of pay. If those were all minimum wage jobs, then your food prices would skyrocket.

So get rid of the minimum wage, and you actually 1.) will have a lot more entry-level jobs and 2.) because people can take those entry-level jobs, they’ll be able to gain the experience necessary to do more skilled jobs. Oh, and the unemployment rate would be significantly lower.

[christian cerna]

While I do see welfare as a double edged sword, making people dependent on the State, I also know that it was originally implemented as a result of poverty and lack of jobs for many Americans. I agree that welfare should be limited, but before you wean someone off of it, you need to have something else available for them to do so that they can fend for themselves. Once again, where are the jobs?

The jobs would be there if the government weren’t regulating with things like the minimum wage and prohibitions on competition, excessive taxes, etc.

[christian cerna]

Government having some control over the economy is not the problem. The government must serve as the regulating body, ensuring the welfare of the nation and its people. However, during the past few decades, the government has handed over its power to banks and corporations which have greedily sent most well paying jobs overseas, in order to enrich a few shareholders.

Actually, it is the problem. And no, the government does not exist to ensure the welfare of anyone. It exists to protect the people and keep law and order. That’s it. And capitalism/free market (which we don’t have in the US—we have corporatism, it’s a common mistake to confuse the two) will always result in better economic gains across the board.

[christian cerna]

Immigration has always benefited business owners, and especially corporations, allowing them to use it as a way to flood the market with cheap labor and also to suppress wages.

Again, this assumes you can change one variable without it affecting others. For example, you’re assuming that adding new, cheaper labor to the pool decreases labor costs only. But it also changes the demand side of the equation. Oh, and goods prices go down due to lower employment costs. So it’s a win/win. The real problem is the excessive cost of labor due to government intervention and an entitlement mentality that many Americans have with respect to what work they’re willing to do for a certain amount of pay.

First let me clarify, I am not against immigration. I am against illegal immigration.

Why must people always use the “they do jobs Americans won’t” argument? The only jobs that I agree most Americans wouldn’t want to do is farming, at least not on a full time basis. But, out of the 12 million+ illegals living in this country, how many do you actually think work on farms? Maybe 150,000? I can almost guarantee that the rest live in the cities working all kinds of jobs they can find.

You say that due to the minimum wage there are not enough entry level jobs. That is totally wrong. The reason that there are not that many entry level jobs left, is because they are being taken by illegals. Those jobs that high school and college kids used to do.(e.g. newspaper delivery guys, cashiers, cooks, waiters, busboys, mowing lawns, washing cars, construction, etc.)

And if we got rid of minimum wage jobs, do you think anyone would be able to afford to keep their cars fueled(with gas at $4 a gallon), or to have some type of shelter(with house prices artificially inflated and banks unwilling to lend money)?

And yes, the federal government is supposed to provide for the welfare of this country. And I don’t mean welfare as in welfare checks. I mean welfare, as in the well being of its citizens. (This doesn’t apply to non-citizens)

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”