Russell Moore Silent on “Deplorable” Image-Bearers

By Dr. Rick Patrick, Pastor
First Baptist Church Sylacauga, AL

Whenever anyone speaks harshly to disparage the dignity of human beings created in the image of God, Dr. Russell Moore, President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, has typically taken the initiative to speak out and defend the victims of such verbal abuse. Consider the following examples.

Moore reminded population control advocates on NPR: “In a Christian view of the world, the creation is to be safeguarded by human beings, the image-bearers of God.” Should We Stop Having Children to Save the Earth?

Moore reminded the Planned Parenthood community: “Every human image-bearer is patterned after the Alpha and Omega image of the invisible God.” Planned Parenthood at the Cross

Moore reminded those visiting family members over the holidays: “You can’t evangelize by dishonoring father and mother, or by disrespecting the image-bearers of God.” Family Feuds and Holiday Tensions

Moore reminded racists: “The N-word wasn’t just rude; it was a way for idolatrous white supremacists to rob human beings of their natural dignity as God’s image-bearers. ” Friday Five Interview

Moore reminded us concerning the victims of the Orlando Gay Bar terrorist attack: “At least 50 people—created in the image of God—were slaughtered in cold blood.” Can We Still Weep Together After Orlando?

Moore spoke favorably of a 2014 Southern Baptist Resolution that “recognized transgender people as image-bearers of God.” Transgender Stance Needed, Wise, Moore Says

Given such a track record of consistently upholding the dignity of human beings as “image-bearers of God,” one wonders if Dr. Moore was taking a nap recently when Hillary Clinton stated: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.” In Context: Hillary Clinton and the Basket of Deplorables

My questions are fairly simple. If Donald Trump had characterized a particular segment of humanity as a “basket of deplorables,” would Russell Moore not have criticized him harshly? Has Moore not already criticized Trump for such outlandish statements in this very Presidential campaign?

Why is it that Moore sees those guilty of sins typically associated with the far left—such as nature worshippers, abortionists, homosexuals and transgenders—in such a sympathetic light, as image-bearers of Christ, while never applying this same standard toward those guilty of sins typically associated with the far right—such as racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes and Islamaphobes?

When the Republican Presidential nominee makes a rude statement concerning certain human beings, Moore pounces like a tiger. But when the Democratic Presidential nominee makes an equally rude statement concerning certain human beings, Moore remains as quiet as a mouse.

Honestly, what conclusions are Southern Baptists expected to draw when Moore persists in treating the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate so differently?

In this Presidential election, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention has demonstrated a clear pattern of bias in favor of the Democratic Presidential nominee and in opposition to the Republican Presidential nominee.

I never thought I would live to see the day.


Geoff Davidson 15-09-2016, 00:30

Honestly, it seems his political commentary has a whole has decreased. The same accusation has been levied at me before, and I imagine his stance is similar. Clinton isn’t deceiving enormous numbers of Southern Baptists. Calling her out to our people is like calling the sky blue. Trump is, however, and thus presents a more real threat to the moral integrity of our niche of the Kingdom.

Josh 15-09-2016, 00:45

I completely agree. I strongly dislike Clinton. However Trump makes me much angrier. He has exposed my party. He has exposed some Christian leaders as political hacks, and he has exposed some sin in the pews. We are now told that morals dont really matter… At least if he is a repub. Christians throwing their full support behind trump and dismissing his sins as blemishes forget about Proverbs warnings about foolish and arrogant men. It’s sad and it pains me to watch what is happening in our country.


Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 06:52

I have not heard anyone, in either party or from any religious perspective, make the claim that morals do not matter. I have not heard Robert Jeffress claim morals do not matter. I have not heard Wayne Grudem claim morals do not matter. I have not heard David Jeremiah claim morals do not matter. All three are voting for Trump.

I think we have different philosophies of voting. For example, some are content with not voting or with voting outside of the two political parties with realistic chances of winning. Others, on principle, are making the choice between the overall character of the Republican nominee and the overall character of the Democratic nominee, and voting for the one whose character they believe is the better of the two.

The point of the post, however, is that Russell Moore treats the Republican nominee differently than the Democratic nominee when they make harsh statements about segments of society.

Josh Bailey 15-09-2016, 17:29

Dr. Patrick,
I get what you are saying but I think Dr. Moore’s comments are harsher on the republican side because it is supposed to be our side. The Democrats are going to do exactly what they thought they would do. Many evangelicals voted for Trump when there were other options. I believe those people to be the main targets of all the negativity of Trump… Along with Trump apologists that are selling there souls to defend some of his ridiculous statements. Your position does not seem to fall in either of those categories.

Josh B 16-09-2016, 20:10

I disagree, I believe in many cases he has leaned in favor of the Democrats.

Lydia 15-09-2016, 08:09

“Trump is, however, and thus presents a more real threat to the moral integrity of our niche of the Kingdom.”

The Clintons have put themselves above the law since Little Rock. They have become even more bold in doing so with selling access during their white house days and now for huge donations and now to their Foundation, unsecure emails, leaving Americans to die in Libya while blaming a video online. The string of lies and deception too long to recite over the last 20 years. And that is part of the problem. Many voters were in diapers during the Clinton years. And now much of the oligarchical bent they brought to politics is the younger voters new normal. I haven’t even touched on Hillary’s feminism as an enabler of a philandering adulterer. Or Jay Epstein’s pedophile airplane boy Clinton uses all the time. The clintons used the SBC to start their political careers in Little Rock. They are total frauds.

The clintons are pure establishment and have benefited as part of the establishment more than any other politicians I have seen in my lifetime.

The current establishment, who has passed laws for us peasants that they do not have to follow themselves, are scared to death a non establishment person will be elected. Russ Moore is no fool. The man loves the limelight. And he knows his chances are much better for that Limelight and inner ring seat at the lower tables with an establishment President even from the other side. When you get into a higher Stratosphere in politics they are actually more of the same than they are different when it comes to the establishment. It is all about keeping their status quo. Everyone is scared –from the political pundits to the lobbyists to congress.

They should be. Or, one can hope.

So I have to laugh when you guys talk about moral integrity. Seriously? But I do take into consideration the movement that you come from which tells you what to think. And I have come to view the Neo Cal movement in the SBC as basically an oligarchical totalitarian bent movement. Fits in perfectly with the establishment. And considering the moral scandals that have come out of that movement, I don’t think you guys have anything to complain about.

Is Trump the answer? My view is the establishment has to be culled. The bombastic jerk is a start.

Josh 15-09-2016, 17:39


I see what you are saying and agree with you about the Clinton’s. But Trump is establishment in a way. He was a supporter of the Democratic establishment. He says whatever he thinks his supporters want to hear or what will give him more votes,. He is playing the establishment game.
I don’t need to be told what to think and many in my movement are the people that actually like to study for themselves. My sides problem is love of knowledge. Not the type to sit and listen to a preacher tell him what to think. That would be the synergistic seeker sensitive movement that downplays doctrine and thought.
I get that you hate elder and authority. I have never seen you actually interact with the Bible on this topic. Surely you see the case at least. It seems to me that you may fall into the very western radical individualistic interpretation of life. I fail to see that in the Bible and I think the ANE people and the 1st century Christians would find your individualism and disdain for Christian leaders to be foreign. I do believe the Bible teaches an individualism, just not in the way that Americans see it. If you are to interact, please do so Biblically and exegetically.

Ed Chapman 15-09-2016, 10:13

Seems that some Christians are self righteous. Haven’t we all sinned? Do Christians sill sin? Trump has indeed defended Christian liberty, and vows to defend Christian liberty. In my views, the so-called “conservatives” have failed us, and they are responsible for creating a Donald Trump candidate. The “conservatives” made tons of promises to us, and they failed to deliver, always making excuses. The current Speaker and the former Speaker refuses to fight, they refuse to get in the fight, and the excuses were always the same, “We don’t have the votes”. My response to that is: “So what? If you put things to a vote, the American public gets to see who it is voting against a particular bill, and that is public record. Then you have the so-called conservatives running for re-election, making promises that if you elect him, he will get rid of ObamaCare. We did as he asked. He didn’t deliver. Then we have Ted Cruz that the so-called conservatives mocked and ridiculed. Then we have others telling us that all we need is the Senate, and all will be fine. We gave them what they asked for, and they all failed us, because they don’t have the guts to fight, passing the blame on the president who has a pen and a phone, blaming the democrats, blaming Ted Cruz. Then we have the self righteous Christians who have never sinned a day in their lives, mocking a sinner Christian, Donald Trump. Seems to me that conservatives are confused as to who they really are or where they themselves came from. Christians conservatives, to me, is more of a threat than Donald Trump, because of their self righteous attitudes.

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 06:46

“Clinton isn’t deceiving enormous numbers of Southern Baptists.” I respectfully disagree. I also do not think Southern Baptists voting for Trump are unaware of his character weaknesses. I think they balance those with some character strengths they believe Clinton does not possess. More germane to the post is the idea that Moore will harshly attack Trump for insulting humanity, while never saying anything about Clinton when she does the very same thing. That, regardless of justification, is simply the definition of bias.

Tom 15-09-2016, 07:29

That any Southern Baptist can vote for Donald Trump in good conscience stuns me. Clinton is a lot of things that I am not satisfied about, but no English word describes the instability of Trump IMO.

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 07:34

Every Southern Baptist I know who is planning to vote for Trump in good conscience is doing so to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming President, because in their opinion, no English word describes her instability.

Tom 15-09-2016, 07:52

So all you can do is take my comment and replace Donald Trump’s name with Hillary Clinton. Rick to compare Donald Trump’s stability to HRC’s is laughable. Surely, you can come up with a better response to me than what you did.

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 08:21

No, that’s really all I am capable of this morning, Tom. Let me have my second cup of coffee and I will try to do better. :-)

The point I was really trying to make is that most Southern Baptists, I believe, are “NeverClinton” voters, even though that’s not really a thing that is recognized. The “voting for Trump in good conscience” is not really a pro-Trump stance, but rather a blocking maneuver to prevent Clinton from being President.

Clinton, if elected, will appoint far left Supreme Court judges, promote a greater slide into socialism, maintain Obamacare, strengthen the pro-abortion movement, fail to provide for our military, and jeopardize the security of our nation by not standing up against American threats abroad. She may be guilty of treason in Benghazi and obstruction of justice with the email scandals. Yes, she scares me more than Trump, for I believe her Democratic administration would be filled with fewer Christians than Trump’s Republican administration, and I believe she would be a weak President.

Tom 15-09-2016, 09:19

Wow! Good luck to you and the other SBC that vote for Trump. If you help elect him you are putting a very unstable man in the White House.

Let’s see SBC vote for a Mormon in 2012 and now in 2016 a total non-christian.Snark alert-the SBC is certainly a grand witness to the lost wordl

And I thought what had happened in the recent past was awful. Others may not say it but i will Donald J. Trump is deplorable!!!

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 09:43

I favored Ted Cruz. I truly wish he had been invited to the ERLC Presidential forum early in the election season. Who knows? Perhaps if Southern Baptists had gotten behind him earlier things might have turned out differently. He is a Southern Baptist who has memorized the Constitution. He would have been a much greater witness to the world.

As it stands, I will be voting for the nominal Calvinist over the nominal Arminian. Surely someone has to appreciate that irony!

Mr Torchy 15-09-2016, 07:47

Get ready for another stunning.

I’m Southern Baptist and will gladly pull the lever for Trump in a presidential election where the only other alternative is Columbia/Venezuela with open borders.

Stunnings galore…..haven’t talked to anybody in our home church of about 2000 (SBC) who does not feel the same.

Greetings then from your “xenophobic, islamaphobic, misogynist, racist” basket of deplorable brothers and sisters in our “beloved” SBC. Shout out to Russ Moore as well.

Johnathan Pritchett 15-09-2016, 11:00

“Clinton isn’t deceiving enormous numbers of Southern Baptists”

Perhaps not, which is totally besides the point.

But, since you brought it up:

Moore’s cohorts at the influential, SBC-promoted TGC have publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton, one of which was titled with calling other Evangelical leaders to TELL people to go and do likewise. So, there is the public idea for Clinton to be a viable option for Evangelicals.

Should that not have at least stirred Moore from his Clinton-ostrich slumber? Surely it warranted at least a Tweet (despite his Twitter apparently being broken during the whole Democrat National Convention).

This all kind of negates your entire argument about “moral integrity” as well as the “calling the sky blue” bit. Sorry.

Sam Schmidt 15-09-2016, 15:42

Tell that HB Charles, a man who not only holds tremendous sway over African American Southern Baptists, but reformed Southern Baptists in general. A man who publically argued on blogs as to why Christians should vote for Clinton. I would say Hillary is deceiving a lot more of the Convention than we realize. Trump, in no way, presents a larger threat to the moral integrity of Southern Baptists in the kingdom of God.

Sam Eggartt 15-09-2016, 16:30

You are thinking of Thabiti Anyabwili. Check your facts before you lie about someone.

Sam Schmidt 15-09-2016, 22:04

Indeed, it was Thabiti Anyabwili, and not HB Charles; an honest mistake. I often get the two confused.
My point remains the same.
Regardless, your first sentence was greatly appreciated. Your second sentence was far from necessary.

Josh 15-09-2016, 00:35

Dr. Patrick,

Russell Moore says things that I disagree with. But are not homophobes, xenophobes, racist etc deplorable? What is there to defend? They are deplorable image bearers. He has made statements that say every person is an inage bearer. That clearly includes every person. But why must he denounce calling a spade a spade? The examples you gave are not in the same pattern as Hillary calling people deplorable.

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 07:00

Yes, sin is deplorable, in both the lives of the homosexuals, the transgendered and the abortionists on the far left, as well as the racists, homophobes and xenophobes on the far right. Sin is deplorable.

However, to call image-bearers of Christ guilty of certain far-right associated sins a “basket of deplorables” while not using the same term for image-bearers of Christ guilty of certain far-left associated sins, is simply the very definition of bias.

If Moore wants to let people speak this way about sinners without offering a rebuke or reminder about “image bearing,” then I am fine with that. But he needs to be fair to the sinful image bearers on both sides of the political divide, and he needs to treat the politicians from both parties equally in his condemnation of their attacks against certain segments of humanity.

Reply 15-09-2016, 17:47

Dr. Patrick,

Your examples you gave don’t make your point. Moore defending babies as image bearers, homosexuals that were murdered, families, sinners that are often times mocked by Christians, etc. is not the same category as a political candidate calling xenophobes, racists, Islamaphobes deplorable. That is deplorable. The only thing she was wrong on is the % of them voting for trump…. hopefully. And your second sentence makes it seem like Moore called them that. He didn’t.

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 20:26

My examples were simply to show that Moore has a tendency to refer to some sinners as image bearers of Christ. He does that. Point proven. On the other hand, he does not tend to refer to other sinners as image bearers of Christ. He allows Democratic candidates to call them “a basket of deplorables” with no word of rebuke. If Trump called homosexuals “a basket of deplorables” I believe Moore would say, “No, while we do not condone their behavior, they are fellow image bearers of Christ.”
My point is two-fold: (a) Moore treats sinners on the right and on the left differently, and (b) Moore treats politicians on the right and on the left differently.

I realize you may disagree, but the facts speak for themselves.

Josh 15-09-2016, 20:41

Dr. Patrick,
I do see your point more clearly and I agree with you in principal. Your examples are interesting though: I count 1 image bearer quote towards the left, 1 to everybody, 1 against extreme Islam, 1 against racist, and 1 towards people who may forget about the image of God in transgenders. Of the 5 examples you gave, only 2 specifically target what we would say fall under the Republican category of sins. Your examples were given to highlight the uneven dealings and they don’t really show that. I will say that he is uneven though, That is because he speaks to his crowd though. Do most SBC church goers need to be shown Clinton’s evil? I think Dr. Moore is often times speaking to the church goers. I have not read his job description and so I don’t know if that is appropriate. But somebody does need to do it, because it is getting bad. And for what its worth, Moore bothers me as well.

Mr. Torchy 15-09-2016, 07:31

Calling a spade a spade is exactly what Trump did when stating that “Russell Moore is a terrible representative of “evangelicals”.

Truest statement of this entire election cycle.

The tired old progressive-political labels of “xenophobes, homophobes, racist islamaphobes” have run their course and have no meaning other than being buzz-words for Clinton supporters and those too holy to even cast a vote.

What’s wrong with Trump calling a spade a spade?

Josh 15-09-2016, 17:51

It was a tired label until this election cycle. And then it turned out to be an accurate label for many people and revealed that what Republicans have been denying for so long was actually true.
And Trump can call out whomever he wants. Personally, and for many others, if he called me out like he did Moore I would wear it as a badge of honor. Trump wouldn’t know a good representative of an evangelical if he saw one. His definition of a good evang. would be one that supports him.

Phillip C. Senn 15-09-2016, 04:26

If, as it seems, Russell More is in the Calvinist camp, then he wouldn’t object to this type of rhetoric. Since more will be in Hell than in Heaven, that would be more than 50%, and since most in the reformed camp see all of the non-Elect as totally depraved, this would put them in the “basket of deplorables”. It is the message of many in the “reformed camp”… more than 50% are unredeemable.

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 07:06

While you are correct that his view of Total Depravity Including Inability may help explain his outlook on human beings generally, it does not explain why he would treat the far left differently than the far right, both in his characterization of the sinners in each group, and in his responses to politicians from either side.

Sin is sin—either way. Image bearers are image bearers—either way. There is no excuse for being harsh with sinners and politicians on the right, while going easy on sinners and politicians on the left.

Phillip C. Senn 15-09-2016, 07:49


Phillip C. Senn 15-09-2016, 07:57

As ERIC President, his care should be that he present ethical leadership when speaking on these issues. That would include examining the remarks of all candidates, if he is going to examine any of them.

JIm Poulos 15-09-2016, 06:17

For the Church to be effective and make an impact in this country and this world it must make a distinction with this ‘present evil age’ and the ‘age to come.’

Gal. 1:4 who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this PRESENT EVIL AGE, according to the will of our God and Father,
Luke 18:30 who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the AGE TO COME, eternal life.”

If it continues to confuse the two ‘ages’ the Church will a part of the problem. Keeping things thing clear is a work of God and His people.

Jay Morris 15-09-2016, 07:19

An entire article devoted to tearing one another down, from the inside, like we don’t have enough from the outside.

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 07:28

This article is not devoted to tearing one another down. It is devoted to holding our ERLC President accountable for demonstrating fairness and balance to those on both sides of the political aisle in American life. In his role as a Southern Baptist spokesperson, seeking this kind of proper balance is part of Moore’s job.

Frankly, because he has been so one-sided in the campaign thus far, one wonders what will become of him if Donald Trump wins the Presidency. Already, the de facto Southern Baptist spokesperson on Fox News is Pastor Robert Jeffress. One cannot help but wonder if this will continue in a Trump administration. Jeffress may not take Moore’s title, but it is very possible that he will assume Moore’s role. And Moore will have no one to blame but himself for being so one-sided in his approach to this election.

Joshua Dawes 15-09-2016, 10:09

I am disappointed by this post. I am disappointed not because there may be some validity to the concerns voiced, but rather that it would be posted in this forum. We have given way to gossip instead of to accountability to our brothers. This is a concern that needs to be brought directly to Dr. Moore not posted on a public website for dissention and disunity to be stirred up. Please don’t allow ourselves to put our own political agenda in front of unity in the body. Please don’t allow our individual preference to come before the Glory of God as displayed in his church.

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 10:46

I have expressed concerns in the past to Dr. Moore’s office. Apart from the matter of being completely ignored by ERLC leadership, there is the issue of public comments and the discussion of current events in the public square. Dr. Moore attacked Trump and his followers PUBLICLY. He did not speak with Trump first. He did not contact all Trump supporters first. He made public statements as a public figure. Thus, it is appropriate to hold him accountable for such remarks using the same kind of public venues. It cannot be considered fair for Moore to level charges PUBLICLY while requiring others to offer their criticisms PRIVATELY. That is a double standard.

I think the basic error here is attempting to treat this as a *local church matter* and follow Matthew 18 guidelines, when in fact, this is a *public journalism matter* that is perfectly acceptable for discussion in religious communication forums such as newspapers, blogs, broadcasts and other public media.

Joshua Dawes 15-09-2016, 10:58

I would love to agree with you but my concern comes when we now see gossip being spurred on from this post directly. Evidence of that is displayed in the fact that there are over 40 comments on this post whereas very few other posts in this forum have generated more than 6 or 8 comments. I am just very concerned that we have not built up the body or our brothers in any way by this response. If brothers or the body were being built up I would understand but from the responses seen to this point I fail to see that as happening.

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 11:34

A post last year by Michael Cox generated 473 comments. Comment counts vary based upon relevance and controversy. You may think we are not “building up the Body” but our goal, much like Dr. Moore’s, is primarily is to inform readers regarding issues and topics.

Thus, we are creating awareness of an issue, in the same way that Dr. Moore’s tweet did on January 18th, generating 918 “likes” on Twitter: “Evangelicals can love a golden calf, as long as Aaron promises to make Mexico pay for it.”

In the tweet, one can argue that Moore is not building up the body, but rather, he is tearing down evangelicals who support Trump.

This is a Southern Baptist news and opinion blog. We are going to talk about Southern Baptist news and opinions.

Joshua Dawes 15-09-2016, 12:40

You did not inform readers. You simply attacked Russell Moore. If your intention was to inform you missed the mark there as well. Again I never claimed I even agreed with Dr. Moore on this or other issues I am just disappointed that these discussions will definitely be used primarily as an example of how we are not unified. It is quite sad. My response was not one to compare you vs. Dr. Moore. I am just disappointed in the attack and gossip that has taken place.

Ed Chapman 15-09-2016, 12:49


I have no problem attacking Russell Moore. He’s a public figure. He’s made statements. He’s made statements as if he is speaking FOR ME, in my stead. He is speaking as if he is the protestant pope, and I do not appreciate any spiritual leader speaking in my behalf.

Ed Chapman

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 13:58

I did indeed inform readers. I presented six examples of Russell Moore defending segments of humanity as image bearers of Christ. I then contrasted these six examples with one example in which he failed to defend image bearers of Christ from being attacked by a Presidential candidate. I also informed readers of my opinion that Moore has been criticizing (gossiping about?) Trump much more than he has been criticizing (gossiping about?) Clinton. This kind of literature is known as an editorial. Editorials are not to be equated with gossip. While they may be critical at times, the people they criticize have often been critical themselves.

I think you are just calling this an “attack” and “gossip” when in fact it is an editorial piece on a blog that focuses upon religious news and opinions. By such a measure, every Christian editorial in every newspaper that describes something the editorialist does not like could be called by the name “gossip.” I think that is a poor conflating of two completely different concepts. Please do not engage in gossip by falsely accusing editorials of being gossip.

Ed Chapman 15-09-2016, 15:22


You had stated:
“I am just disappointed that these discussions will definitely be used primarily as an example of how we are not unified.”

My reply:
Are you unified? Or, should we lie and pretend that there’s not a problem? In my realm, it’s called a mask, with a happy face, when in reality, you are miserable inside, crying tears, lamenting.

Take off the mask and be honest about issues that your religious leaders are running amuck with in statements representing you when some of those statements, in reality, do not represent you personally at all. Have some guts to stand up for yourself, and disagree publicly, where it’s warranted. Do not pretend that there is no problem when in fact evidence shows that there is a problem. I’m not a fan of phony Christians putting on a happy face mask.

Ed Chapman

Lydia 15-09-2016, 16:05

Joshua, if Russ Moore wants the limelight, he had best put his big boy britches on. You guys try the “disagreeing is an attack” whine all the time. Russ Moore Took it upon himself to speak for many people who don’t agree with him. He deserves to be called out boldly and resolutely. In fact, every time he receives a byline in an OP Ed secular publications we should voice our disagreement in letters to the editors, etc.

Lydia 15-09-2016, 12:56

Learning to be thinkers instead of parroting what your leaders tell you to think is part of building up the body and growing in wisdom. I do realize that disagreement with leaders is considered a church discipline issue to you guys so I don’t expect you to understand the value. You all value clones and parrots, IMO. Let’s face it your ministry career will suffer if you publicly disagree with Moore. Many of us know exactly how it works.

Josh 15-09-2016, 17:57

You say clones and parrots I say presenting Biblical truth. And that should sound the same. And disagreeing with Russ Moore does not hurt most people’s careers. At all.
Do you believe in church discipline? And what is your biblical case for despising elders so much? What is your biblical case for people in the pews voting on what doctrines they want preached to them?
And I get the feeling you actually know nothing about how the reformed circles work. I am in them and your description is entirely foreign to me.

tom 15-09-2016, 19:27

Lydia knows what she is talking about! BTW why do you attack Lydia simply because she questions the reformed world.

Josh 15-09-2016, 20:25

Lydia does not know what she is talking about. Perhaps she has some anecdotal stories but her characterizations of the whole movement are well wide of the goal post. And im not attacking her and she doesnt simply question the reformed movement. She assigns evil motives to men she doesnt know and degrades people in the movement. Im simply pushing to the root. Im asking for biblical exegesis not generic degrading statements.

Lydia 15-09-2016, 22:05

Josh, so I would have to know, say, Bill Clinton personally to know he was a philanderer? I would have to know Driscoll personally to know he is publicly vulgar and a fraud? Do I really have to list the fraud for you, too? Or CJ Mahaney, I would have to know personally to know he was an Apisotle leading the “People of Destiny”, a shepherding cult that protected child molesters? Is that how it works?

Josh, I am guessing you don’t know Trump personally. So……..:o)

Josh 15-09-2016, 22:59

No of course you don’t have to know somebody personally to be able to judge their character. But you need a WHOLE lot more ammo than Driscoll, Mahaney, and that one time Matt Chandler messed up church discipline to characterize the reformed circles in the way that you do. The reformed circle is large and has many, many non-famous pastors that are loving their flock and serving Jesus who form their own opinions about things.

Ed Chapman 15-09-2016, 20:12


I do not believe in church discipline. I believe that Matthew 18:17 is the congregation, not the pastor, not the elders. Furthermore, Matthew 18 requires 2 or 3 witnesses of the actual incident, IF the party denies it to begin with. But, what I am finding out, is that what is happening is that 2 or 3 people are confronting the accused that never witnessed the incident at all. The Matthew 18 is not supposed to be church discipline, nor is it to be a mandatory “reconciliation” process, either. The Matthew 18 is supposed to be between party A and party B only, without tattling to the pastor as if a child runs to mommy tattling on little sister. It’s so convoluted with pastor/elder involvement it’s pitiful, and deplorable, and in my mind, wicked. The pastor has control that he should not have.

Josh 15-09-2016, 21:00


Thanks for the interaction. I will have to disagree on a few points but I appreciate your thoughts. I don’t believe the witness have to have witnessed the sin and I don’t believe the text says that. I can’t speak to what happens unscripturally but the text lays out what should happen very clearly. It is supposed to be between party A first, then party ABCD, then the church. I don’t get how you would read from the text that id there is no repentance than it should not go past party A and B. It specifically says that is should. And I would call elder/pastor involvement shepherding.

Ed Chapman 16-09-2016, 00:57


Yes, the witnesses have to witness the accusation, hence the word witness. This is the kind of nonsense that is being taught in the church that witnesses don’t need to witness the incident. What kind of craziness is that? Police get statements from witnesses who saw the crime. I don’t know where your kind of nonsense began, but it sure isn’t from the bible.

Deuteronomy 17:6
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Deuteronomy 19:15
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Hebrews 10:28
He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Matthew 18:16
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

And the rest of what you said is totally inaccurate as well.

If party A sins against party B, and party A denies it, and there are no witnesses who saw the incident, IT STOPS RIGHT THERE.

But if two or three witnesses saw the incident, other than the victim, then those witnesses confront Party A, and if he confesses, it STOPS RIGHT THERE.

But, if Party A denies it, THEN it goes to the congregation to decide what to do, NOT THE PASTOR.

I can’t believe what you people read into it. Just total nonsense.


Ed Chapman 16-09-2016, 08:23


You had said:
“And I would call elder/pastor involvement shepherding.”

My response
Yes, I know, most churches have that misconception.

In another thread, I gave OT reference to the word “pastor” that all they are supposed to do is to feed us with Knowledge and Understanding.

And, if you look further into the words Knowledge and Understanding from the OT, pretty much used together, you will see CLEARLY that all that entails is to READ the bible to us.

Back in the OT, the BOOK of the Law of Moses was LOST. Someone found it. That person gave it to the king.

In reading that story from the bible, you will see the words “Knowledge and Understanding”.

The bible is like a jigsaw puzzle in which you can find words that relate to words, and then it’s all a connect the dots common sense stuff.

I have no idea where people like to equate the word Pastor with Shepherd. And then to tell people that the bible tells you so is insane. And then to tell people, or, command people to show you exegesis about, that is also insane. Find it yourself. It’s not there. If it is, then God just now put it there.

Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman

Ed Chapman 15-09-2016, 20:18


Elders have but one role, and that is to be a MENTOR to individuals, giving wise counsel, all because they have lived life, and know how to avoid pitfalls. It goes with the same that I was taught as a child. Respect your elders, hence the word “elders” in a church. They are supposed to know more about life, because they already lived it, and they are considered wise because of it. They are supposed to help people in their troubles. But what I am seeing is that elders are YES MEN to the pastor who has total control and power that he was never meant to have to begin with. A pastors job, according to the bible is to FEED us knowledge and understanding. In other words, just read the bible to us. The Church turned into something that it was never meant to be, a place of dictatorship, not a refuge for the hurting.

Josh 15-09-2016, 21:06


That is an interesting definition of elders. I believe that is one definition of elders. Older people should have wisdom and mentor people. Do you deny there is an office of an elder in the pastoral epistles? What is the office of an elder? Are you saying there is an office of mentorship? And there are many ways to structure elders in the church. I have seen it multiple ways. One elder with control who gets input from other elders. A board of elders with veto power. A single pastor with deacons that really act like elders. Elders don’t have to be yes men to pastors. In my experience with elders in churches, that is certainly not the case. But, I do know they exist. I come from a church that is not reformed that had moved towards a yes men elder approach. I think it unhealthy. But I don’t think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Ed Chapman 16-09-2016, 00:42


I stand by what I said and how I said it. I am not going to expound on “offices” or “boards”.

I do indeed think you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Begin again at the drawing board. Start over, NOT laying that same foundation that is currently in place.


Ed Chapman 16-09-2016, 00:50

OK, Josh, I will expound on offices and boards for just a moment. My church, the congregation has voting power, not the elders. However, elders are PART of the congregation, so they have voting power as a member of the congregation. The elders mentor, and that is their office. In my church, the elders hold no power, the pastor holds no power. The congregation holds the power over both elders and pastor. They are told by Jesus not to Lord over God’s sheep, therefore, they don’t.

The problem with church’s today, power and control lies with pastors and elders, for which, biblically, they were never meant to have. And what’s funny (not really, it’s really a tragedy), is that they have convinced the congregation that this is what God set up).

Ed Chapman

Mr Torchy 15-09-2016, 07:49

I’m afraid you boys have been bring that upon yourselves for the last several decades.

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 07:51

Mr. Torchy,
Please use your full name in future posts rather than a pseudonym. Thank you.

Johnathan Pritchett 15-09-2016, 08:25

I don’t understand this “tearing someone down” business. If it is that, then so? Get out of show business.

Sanctimonious blather is no meaningful retort to valid criticism.

Moore’s job isn’t just speak TO Southern Baptists, it is to speak FOR Southern Baptists to culture and the political machines in Washington.

Moore has failed in his job. While his constant one-trick pony show against Trump may have earned him the good graces of the NY Times and other rags like that, if he doesn’t spend whatever capital he has amassed there soon to speak FOR Southern Baptists, then he has essentially been a Democrat hack communications operative. That was his old job, not the one he has now.

That he wasn’t invited to meet with Trump, and Floyd had to go instead, demonstrates abject failure, not success, for a person in that position. His job isn’t to write blog articles and Tweet clever missives. His job is to represent the SBC.

He needs to get it together soon or be fired. This isn’t about Trump or Clinton even. This is about Moore’s job performance at the job he is tasked to do, not what he wants it to be for his own ends.

Lydia 15-09-2016, 13:05

“Moore has failed in his job. While his constant one-trick pony show against Trump may have earned him the good graces of the NY Times and other rags like that, if he doesn’t spend whatever capital he has amassed there soon to speak FOR Southern Baptists, then he has essentially been a Democrat hack communications operative. That was his old job, not the one he has now.”

This is exactly it.

David Rogers 15-09-2016, 07:31

Not sure which is worse: being called a “deplorable” or “namby-pamby, pantywaisted, weak-kneed” and a “fool.”

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 07:49

Granted, Jeffress has been using language just as harsh as Moore’s tweets against Trump earlier this year at Liberty. I wish we did not have to resort to this kind of name-calling. I believe it is unnecessary and unhelpful. Alas, negative campaigning has always been a part of politics.

Having said that, I believe Moore has made TEN statements critical of Trump for every ONE statement critical of Clinton. That’s really the bias I am seeking to redress here. If this continues, and Trump wins the election, then I really do believe Jeffress will become the de facto SBC spokesperson and will have greater access to the administration. I am not sure where Moore “fits” in a Trump administration. Southern Baptists have normally enjoyed much better relationships with Republican candidates and Presidents.

But your point is well taken. Name calling is juvenile. (I suppose I just engaged in it right there. Sorry.)

Mr Torchy 15-09-2016, 07:51

Being called any of these names is water off a duck’s back for someone who’s learned the spiritual lesson of “sticks and stones”.

Lydia 15-09-2016, 13:07

“Deplorable” has a more Calvinistic reprobate feel to it. :o)

Jeff 15-09-2016, 07:36

It’s pretty simple, actually. The Republican Party has built a strong base on the backs of Evangelicals, but has consistently acted in ways that are counterintuitive to Christian morality. Donald Trump is the most obvious example of this practice. Knowing he needed evangelical support to win the primary, he met with evangelicals and stole their language for political expediency. Some leaders (Robert Jeffress is the worst example of this) have embraced Donald Trump as someone Christians should support, even making the case it was our moral obligation to do so. Moore has called out the hypocrisy amongst his fellow Christians by showing the error in supporting such a guy. He’s not one of us. Clinton has not tried to align herself with evangelicals. That’s the difference. It’s worth noting 2 things. 1. Moore has spoken out against Clinton and 2. Moore hasn’t said anything political in quite some time. He’s probably doing what’s wise and washing his hands of the whole debacle.

Side note. I’m waiting for the SBC Today article about Russell Moore speaking at Dallas Theo Seminary and his shout out to his dispensational roots that led him to be a Christian.

Mr Torchy 15-09-2016, 07:53

IMO….Moore tried too hard to polish his own star and it back-fired miserably.

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 08:04

Clinton CANNOT align herself with Evangelicals because she is PRO-CHOICE personally and in terms of her party platform. I don’t think Southern Baptists have been *duped* by Trump. I think Southern Baptists have weighed Trump’s strengths and weaknesses, along with Clinton’s strengths and weaknesses, and found more in Trump they can support than they have found in Clinton. This is *not* the same thing as saying that Trump’s weaknesses do not matter at all, just that weighing everything in balance tips the scales to Trump over Clinton.

Regarding your side note, I am glad to hear that Moore spoke positively at DTS about his dispensational roots. He has not always spoken about dispensationalism so favorably. I am pleased to hear that he can change. Hopefully, he will also be able to change the way he responds with fairness and balance to both political parties in the future, which is the point of this post.

Lydia 15-09-2016, 13:20

I vote strictly with the hope of no more government growth. I gave up on smaller government because even evangelicals like bigger government these days.

One never has guarantees in that department but we do know the one candidate who will definitely grow the government even bigger so the establishment has even more power to pass laws for us for which they are exempt. That is immoral in my book.

The bigger the government the more opportunity they have to mandate things that Christians don’t like.

It never ceases to amaze me that evangelicals don’t seem to be able to connect those dots these days.
Encroaching government control over our lives and everyday choices seems to be the new normal.

I personally would like to see more small businesses but that is almost impossible in the state of Regulation we are in today. Therefore we have more and more huge multinationals dictating rules for employees that Christians do not like.

I have come to see the Neo Cal movement as loving big government because of the control Factor. That movement is all about control of people and authoritarianism. It’s what they understand.

And I would remind Russ Moore and his followers that unelected judges of the SCOTUS basically legislated gay marriage into existence because our congress was too cowardly to debate and vote. Can you say, Roe vs Wade? Unelected judges for life legislating. I realize our education system is wanting but do people realize how serious that is?

These are things to think about if you seriously want change. A message has to be sent to the establishment. We are done.

Tom 15-09-2016, 08:04

Would it satisfy people on both sides of the political spectrum to say that both Donald Trump and HRC are “deplorable’ presidential candidates?

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 08:11

I think most Americans already believe that. It is certainly the consensus I hear. My concern in this post is that Moore is quite likely to say that Trump is “deplorable” while Hillary is an “image-bearer of Christ.” If we are all sinners, if we are all deplorable image bearers, then this observation should be presented equally on both sides of the political aisle. However, we have not been experiencing this kind of balanced approach at all. Trump’s harsh statements have been ridiculed, while Hillary’s have been overlooked. I think that kind of bias is wrong.

Mike 15-09-2016, 09:01

Two things are germane to this conversation: 1) Rick and others previously have called out Moore for all his political posts during this election cycle. Now that he has gone quiet, they are still not satisfied. This is simply a character attack, not a competency critique; 2) many conservatives have pointed to Trump’s conversion via Dobson’s comments, etc. If we believe that Clinton is lost, but Trump is saved, shouldn’t there be a different standard of judgement for the name calling, etc? We should expect Clinton to talk & behave like a lost person, while expecting Trump to behave in a more Christlike manner. Thus he deserves a greater degree of accountability from Christians.

Rick Patrick 15-09-2016, 09:32

(1) I would say that the proper response to balance one’s bias is not to be silent all of a sudden, but to correct one’s bias by means of speech in the opposite direction of the previously biased remarks.

2) The matter of Trump’s salvation versus Clinton’s salvation is an unresolved issue. Until we manage to procure a copy of the Lamb’s Book of Life, Trump’s professed Presbyterianism and Clinton’s professed Methodism will always be a matter for debate.

Regardless of one’s salvation status, I believe we should treat Presidential candidates with the same standard. I don’t believe we should declare “open season” on name calling against fellow Christians while refraining from name calling against unbelievers.

Lydia 15-09-2016, 08:33

Perhaps guys like Russ Moore from the Neo Cal movement have redefined “moral” 4 presidential candidates only in a different way they defined moral for pastors. After all they promoted Mark Driscoll, subsidized Acts 29 churches and anyone who is keeping up knows about all the moral scandals in that world. Then we can talk about the moral Integrity of CJ mahaney and his Shepherding cult protection of child molesters. RussMoore and all the guys promoting that movement don’t really have a leg to stand on when it comes to discussing “morals”.

So Driscoll was fine as a pastor but no Trump as president? The inconsistency of that movement never ceases to amaze me. I am hoping one day their little boy followers will grow up and think for themselves. Or their older water carriers will stop. You guys are a joke.

norm miller 15-09-2016, 09:09

Thank you, Pastor Rick, for holding Moore’s feet to the fire. Though this thread has ranged a bit from the point of your post, your point still remains: Moore’s bias is showing.
And in case anyone wants to know, I am following Russell Crowe’s advice in “Master and Commander”: I am choosing the lesser of two weevils.

Ed Chapman 15-09-2016, 10:25

I am a Christian. I am voting Trump. I spent many years in the US Navy. I joined the US Navy under Ronald Reagan. I remember the days of Jimmy Carter. I remember the relative peace that we had under Ronald Reagan. He had the guts to fight that many Christians mocked him for. In this day and age, things got worse since Reagan, and personally, I want things to return to that relative peace days that we once had. People were, for the most part, happy in those days. I don’t know many people that would not like to relive the 80’s all over again.

We Christians seem to be just sitting around letting the enemy get away with all sorts of atrocities around the world, all because they don’t think that Donald Trump is Christian enough for them. The self righteousness of Christians amazes me sometimes.


Karen 15-09-2016, 13:37

Russell Moore retweeted that those who vote for DT are more likely to be addicted to pornagraphy and divorced. He called DT moral sewage! Deplorable comment pales in comparison. Where is accountability when ERLC becomes nasty mean and a resounding cymbal and clanging gong?

Lydia 15-09-2016, 15:55

As to the anti Trumpers thinking they are voting “morals”, must I remind them that ship sailed years ago when the entire country was told by the Clintons there is a different meaning for “is”. And Hillary is the one who brought in and paid Betsy Wright to handle the “bimbo erruptions”.

Bill Mac 15-09-2016, 20:11

I think Moore was probably more prolific in anti-Trump posts when there was still time to avert the disaster, but now it’s too late. Trump supporters have made their bed and now they expect all of us to lay in it.

Lydia 16-09-2016, 05:57

Bill Mac, I do agree with Trump that the Clintons could murder people in public and people would still vote for her. I am amazed at what people overlook from “public servants” but then people like Russ Moore like the Frank and Claire Underwood types. They have a lot in common, too. Evidently you guys have a different definition of moral.

I don’t think you should worry. They have the connections and power of the establishment to pull this off even if she is physically incapacitated. Maybe our Manchurian President will refuse to step down if that occurs, ‘for the stability of the country’.

Moore overstepped the bounds. The little tyrant sought to speak for many who disagree with him. He should be fired. He has no credibility.

Bill Mac 16-09-2016, 08:04

” I do agree with Trump that the Clintons could murder people in public and people would still vote for her.”

Trump in fact made this claim about himself. Unfortunately, he’s right.

I am not a Clinton supporter. Not everything in life is binary.

Josh 16-09-2016, 00:52

That’s too bad. I was interested to see where you went with it. I have never seen anybody reduce the office of an elder to an person that has lived life and can mentor. I dont believe it is exegetically possible to get there.
Tell me one system of ecclesiology that has produced perfection. Each and every system on this side of heaven will have some bath water to throw out.

Josh 16-09-2016, 01:06

I have heard horror stories of member led church governance.pretty much everybody has heard multiple horror stories. I know of a church that had a meeting on changing pews to chairs and a guy had to be physically restrained he was so angry. Why not throw the baby out with the bath in these as well? Btw, I think there are some great stories as well.

Lydia 16-09-2016, 05:47

Josh, yes. Many churches are corrupt. I guess that means they need a pimply faced tyrant influenced by the state church Calvin to reign them in. :o)

Andrew Barker 16-09-2016, 07:44

Pimply faced tyrant ….. with a goatee! It so adds to the ‘gravitas’ :-)

Josh 16-09-2016, 01:02

See my other response as well. I still dont see how you get mentor from the office of the elder. How is an elder different than pastor shepherd? Where do you see congregations voting in pastors in the NT? Timothy was to appoint elders. Where do churches get congregational voting in the Bible?

Ed Chapman 16-09-2016, 01:05

I guess common sense is not required in your church, huh? Were you ever told to “Respect Your Elders” when you were a child? Did you understand what that meant, other than the word “older”? Why would you have to respect them? Just because they are older?

Come on, Josh, put a little bit of common sense into it.


Josh 16-09-2016, 01:14

Common sense? Respect your elder? That’s the office of the elder in the pastoral epistles? I’m not talking about what my parents taught me about my elders. I’m talking about what the Bible says. About exegesis. the office of the elder is interchangeable with pastor in the nt.

Ed Chapman 16-09-2016, 01:22


Yes, common sense. I am talking about what your parents taught you. They are not called elders (EVEN IN THE CHURCH) just because they are “older”.

The Bible does not expound on the word “elder” other than the word itself.

And, if you look in the OT God states that the purpose of a pastor is to give KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING.

Therefore, the word “elder” and “pastor” is NOT interchangeable.

Josh 16-09-2016, 01:30

I’ll interact with this more tomorro but the conclusion will that yes, the nt uses them interchangeably. But your last statement does not logically follow the previous statement. Plus, their were no pastors in the ot so your arent going to find as complete of a definition of a pastor in the ot as you would the nt.

Ed Chapman 16-09-2016, 01:34

I’m not so sure that you actually read the bible, Josh, because all of your comment is incorrect.

Jeremiah 3:15
And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Andy 16-09-2016, 07:34

Hi Ed & Josh,

1. Elders seem to have more than simply a mentor function in the NT. They are described as:
-Gathering with the apostles to consider important matters (acts 15)
-Gathering as a “council” to lay on hands to a young minister (1 tim. 4:4)
-ruling well, preaching, & teaching (1 Tim. 5:17)
-They are several places described as being appointed, so it was some kind of recognized role.

2. I don’t know for sure if one can make a strictly BIBLICAL case that that the various terms are always synonymous…in fact:
a. The qualifications we cite from Timothy & titus only mention “overseers”, not elders OR pastors.
b. Elder & Overseer SEEM to both be described as roles of some kind of authority, though always in different passages, and not directly equated. perhaps some elders were also overseers, or vice versa, or all were both? I’m not sure we can say for sure.
c. Most interestingly, PASTOR (which is simply the word “SHEPHERD”) only occurs ONCE as a noun in the NT when not refering to either Jesus, or an actual sheep-herder: In Eph. 4:11, God gave the chruch: apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers. Surely not all of these terms are synonymous with each other and with elder and overseer? Elsewhere, Elders are exhorted to “shepherd” the flock (verb). But it is merely a description of activity, not title. I don’t think it’s wrong to call a church leader a pastor. It certainly describes much of their role. But Elder & overseer are used more. To be strictly biblical, we would use those terms as well. Rejecting biblical terms because we don’t like their implications, or they way they have been misused by others, is not a good path to go down.

3. Regarding Jeremiah 3:15 (a) it doesn’t say that giving knowledge and understanding is the PURPOSE of the shepherd, only that it is something they will do. (b) The verse itself doesn’t really address either way whether shepherd/elder are the same role.

4. This thread is supposed to be about Russell Moore, isn’t it? :-)


Ed Chapman 16-09-2016, 20:35


Here is where I am in a little bit of a disagreement with you…by the way, good job for the most part. But, I would say that the role of a pastor is limited to what the Bible states the role of a pastor is. That role is from the OT. We are humans, not sheep. We are not to be whipped. We don’t get sheared. We don’t lap water, etc. Since we are humans, we do need food, and the food that is fed is the word of God.

We don’t need a pastor to tuck us into bed at night, nor are they to wake us up in the morning, nor are they to get into our business for 6 days per week. We go to church on Sunday…not 7 days per week. We are not to be left out in the cold at night, etc.

There is a reason that the word shepherd is not used, but pastor is, altho both words are related. Somethings are meant for sheep, other things are meant for humans.

Pastors are to leave me alone, unless I want fed, and when I want fed, they are to feed me knowledge and understanding. Point blank, that is it. They are not to dictate to me as to how to brush my teeth, what to feed my dog, etc. They are to leave me alone, unless I want their help. They are not to interject themselves into my life as an unwanted guest.

I was pretty harsh in that statement, but I was harsh to make my point that pastors have but one role, and that is to feed me, feed me the Word of God, and that is it.

The OT discusses a lot about pastors, probably which is why they are not called Shepherds. We don’t call Jesus, “Pastor Jesus”, if it really were synonymous.


Ed Chapman 16-09-2016, 20:43

Yes, it was about Russell Moore, BUT, someone asked someone else if they believed in church discipline, and I interjected, saying a big fat NO. That someone is…drum roll please….Josh.

But I’m sure that Russell Moore would whip me like a shepherd to get me back on track, huh?


Josh 16-09-2016, 09:23

Andy and Ed
Thanks you for that. Didnt have time to break it down today. Not to mention that the Hebrew word is roim which means shpeherd in this context. Again, pastor not even an office in the OT.
Also, my people didnt come up with xhurch discipline. It’s been around at least since augustine andi havent been able to look into much further from a historical perspective.

Josh 16-09-2016, 20:47


I really dont get your rudeness. My question was in context and it wasnt to you. It was about Dr. Moore but since he is a calvinist somebody brought it up.

Ed Chapman 16-09-2016, 20:54


Please don’t take offense. It’s not rudeness I am exhibiting. It’s my charming snarky sarcasm. Not meant to offend. You are a fellow Christian brother of mine. I just don’t understand why people believe what they believe sometimes. I mean, we can read the same thing, but we seem to get 30 different interpretations as to what it states, and all 30 different people all think they are right, and the other 29 are wrong. It’s the ultimate goof of all time. And I love it, cuz it gives me something to debate about. Please don’t take offense, Josh.

Josh 16-09-2016, 20:59


No worries. I love snark and sarcasm. Hard to read tone especially when you don’t know somebody. I’m curious, what denomination are you? Are you sbc? Some of what you said reminded me of a good friend I have and his church. I cant remember what is was though.

Ed Chapman 17-09-2016, 00:42


Not SBC. I am non-denomination. My philosophy is:

In a denomination, someone else already decided for you what you are to believe, and you must conform, or get kicked out. Usually, the person that decided died about 400 or so years ago.

In a non-denomination, the preacher reports, we decide (Berean). We non-denomination folks are allowed to disagree without retribution. If we don’t agree, we are free to leave on our own accord.

Some denominations want to punish you with a so called Matthew 18 process putting you in a discipline status. If any church tried to do that to me, or any member of my family, I would REALLY be a shepherd to them, feeding them the word of God, making them eat every page of the bible til they puke.

Having the SBC infiltrated by Calvinists is the worst idea ever. And what’s sad, is that some SBC members are OK with it. I am dead set against Calvinism.

Ed Chapman

Paul Solomon 17-09-2016, 07:56

Interesting article. I am not sure why R. Moore doesn’t speak out against the deplorable comment.

I would say she is wrong but I do not expect much more from here based on her public stated moral compass concerning life. For Trump, if he sets his moral compass as pro-life, then I expect him to communicate that way. That is my expectation of him. Not his historical position but his current one.

I expect sinners to sin. I expect lost people to sin. I pray that we who know Christ would live above that and when we fail, we quickly repent and allow God to restore us.

Maybe R. Moore doesn’t expect more from Clinton but does from Trump. Thus, he calls out the one he expects more from.

I think this is what your article does as it calls out R. Moore because you expect more from him based on his compass. You are not calling out the liberal press because you expect their silence or at the most their one day, one line criticism. Can this be why R. Moore is silent towards Clinton’s comment?

Montie Matlock 18-09-2016, 07:23

Then spake Solomon… I have surely built thee an house to dwell in. 1 Kings 8:12, 13.
Solomon, the prince of peace, alone could build the temple. If we would be soul-winners and build up the church, which is God’s temple, let us note this; not by discussion nor by argument, but by lifting up Christ shall we draw men unto Him.
—J. Hudson Taylor


Leave a Reply

 characters available

Security Question * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.