Dr. Russell Moore – What Are The Major Issues of Today?

Brother Robin,

Just wanted to say that Dr. Moore certainly is spot on. I never thought I would hear him agreeing with Foy Valentine, but I would have to say that Dr. Valentine was correct. We are Southern Baptist, not Evangelicals. Dr. Moore certainly nailed it when he said; “Evangelicalism is a rootlessness, bland, generic blob.”

Blessings,
Tim

Brother BDW,

Welcome to SBC Today. I pray that you find our interaction accommodating to your debate style. However, I pray that you do not find our beliefs accommodating to yours. :>)

Seriously, I believe that Dr. Moore would know what Liberalism is when following the topics of joint worship services with Jews and how to do that would be hide the cross and not say Jesus. I believe anyone would say that this is liberalism.

As for Dr. Moore establishing the definitions of the words, I believe it was Foy Valentine that first said; Southern Baptist are not Evangelicals.

Blessings,
Tim

Brother BDW,

Are you saying there has never been a break-out session at the CBF General Assembly that explained or attempted to explain mother-god worship?

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

Moore stated:

“For about three years in the early part of this decade I went every single years to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship meeting, the General Assembly, writing articles for Baptist Press. And at the CBF meeting, when I’m sitting in a mother-god worship service or when I’m walking through the convention hall going to a session on how Jews and Christians can have joint worship services and all you have to do is cover the crosses and don’t say Jesus Saves.”

Moore leaves his audience with the impression that the CBF worships “mother-god” during the General Assembly sessions. He’s not talking about a break-out session. Instead, he’s talking about an auxillary event (breakfast) held before the CBF officially convened. On this one occasion, BWIM participants (I expect Moore was the only man in the room) sang a hymn which referenced a “strong mother god.” As you said earlier, big difference.

And then he goes on:

“And when someone says to me there, are you a fundamentalist. My answer is – yes indeed. Because what they mean by ‘are you a fundamentalist’ is ‘do you actually believe the canon’”

Now, Moore is suggesting that all CBFers who would ever pose such a question don’t actually believe the Bible. How ridiculous.

I encourage you to observe a future General Assembly. With your fame as SBC Today contributor, I’m sure BP might let you do a little reporting. You can help bring *fair and balanced* back….

Whether a neoevangelical, denominational evangelical or just plain ole evangelical – I don’t think Moore was suggesting that Southern Baptists such as himself aren’t evangelicals. Pick up a copy of Uneasy in Babylon by Barry Hankins. It’s perhaps the only true “outsider” examination of Southern Baptist conservatives and their roots in modern evangelicalism. Mullins called himself an evangelical too, ya know!

Tim,

I didn’t say it was completely unrelated. However, Moore gives the impression that the CBF (as a whole) had a “mother-god worship service” at the General Assembly. As I pointed out, that’s not true.

And yes BWIM receives CBF funds. Since this happened in 2001, let’s not apply a 2005 partnership statement. I believe in accountability but that’s a completely different issue than what we have above in Russ Moore’s comments. He misrepresented the CBF as a whole in this instance to suit his agenda (i.e. CBF = liberal). As I side note, I will note that CBF doesn’t endorse every word and verse uttered at an auxillary event and/or by those in leadership positions. For instance, I don’t believe that the SBC endorses the imprecatory prayer of your former 2nd VP…..but like I said – that’s a separate issue.

And I do believe that “The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error.”

The word Evangelical has been around for several centuries and obviously has been defined differently along the way. However, Dr. E.Y. Mullins did use this word to describe himself. My dad is writing a book on Mullins (rerelease of The Axioms of Religion) so I suspect that I could find a citation later.

BDW
Uneasy in Babylon made me uneasy because of it’s skewed view of SBC and culture. Hankins acknowledges his tilt to the moderate aspect of the struggle, but he still claims an unbiased view. His description of Southern Seminary makes Mohler look like a hermit and the seminary as failing and devoid of any real scholarship. His characterization of Adrian Rogers and Jimmy Draper as populist preachers w/o academic or intellectual depth is at the least a misstep and at the most a deception.

He is not hesitant to name names and take no prisoners unless the culprit in mind is moderate professors. The engagement in this book make confessional conservatives look like mean Pharisees and the progressive evangelicals as irenic loving Jesus men. I think the main alliance SB’s conservatives made with evangelicals were on cultural issues and the inerrancy of Scripture. This does seem to be a strong point of this tome.

Finally, you might notice the book was published by University of Alabama Press – that’s indication enough of its inadequacy (that’s for you C.B)

I’m not sure that Hankins characterized Rogers and Draper as without any depth. But, his three classification system for conservatives (intellectuals, activists, populists) required that he place both men in a category. Clearly, they fit the “populist” mold as they “marshaled rank-and-file Baptists to support conservative causes.”

Devoid of any real scholarship? Did Hankins suggest that SBTS completely lacked scholarship? Or lacking in scholarship compared to top-tier evangelical seminaries? The latter is a valid criticism, I think.

I have my own criticisms. I felt Hankin’s subjects were often allowed to tell *their* side of the story without rebuttal. In my opinion, that wasn’t fair. However, Hankins acknowledged early on that he could not offer a moderate response at every turn.

“The engagement in this book make confessional conservatives look like mean Pharisees and the progressive evangelicals as irenic loving Jesus men.”

That’s a strong statement. Professors from SBTS like Greg Wills didn’t read Uneasy in Babylon that way. Of course he had criticisms. But Wills also offered up much praise.

Nonetheless, the general consensus is that Uneasy in Babylon is the most scholarly study of SBC conservatives to date…

One quote from Richard Land is quite relevant considering the recent homemaking news at SWBTS.

Hankins: What would Land’s America look like? On this question he is quite specific, more so than the more cautious Mohler. Land’s ideal is “America in 1955 without the racism and without the sexual discrimination against women.”

BDW:
I hope you’re morning is not as fuzzy as this night owl. Hankins work is valuable but skewed from his own biases. His persistent suggestion that irenic evangelists from the outside have “no baggage” when it comes to SB life is overstated. I think that is to make his perspective seem less tainted. My main contention with the book is his handling of the Southern Seminary transition. It seems uneven and one-sided. Are you suggesting Southern is not a top-tier seminary? Which ones would you suggest are? Why?
Blessings,
Joe

Brother BDW,

I hear what you are saying. When you refer to liberal you are referring to a classic liberal. I remember my Systematic Theology prof at SEBTS, in the BP era, refer to this same line of reasoning. As I understand it a classic liberal denies the blood atonement, virgin birth, the veracity of Scripture and a host of other doctrines that are vital to the Faith.

However during the CR, you would call it a takeover, this definition was re-defined and that, I believe is how Dr. Moore makes his reference. Dr. Adrian Rogers defined it this way;
“I’d define a liberal Southern Baptist as a person who does not believe in the veracity, the exactitude, the integrity, the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scripture. Even if he believed that the Word was inspired in its purpose but not in its entirety, he may be right of the center in regard to Christendom but left of the center line in Southern Baptist circles.”

As you said, from the perspective of a Southern Baptist, there are many in the CBF that would be considered liberal.

Blessings,
Tim