Moore and the ERLC

[Reformed1689]

I don't know much about Moore and the ERLC but can someone explain their issues against Moore and the ERLC and why?

In the case of the ERLC, I should think that a leader could ask the meeting to pass motions to abolish this horrible expenditure as neither the Dems nor the GOP in the denomination can be very happy with the bitter partisanship that has been displayed by the ERLC. Let's just say that maybe the SBC is not good at politics just as the American State Department is not good at diplomacy.

 

[Revmitchell]

The issue I have is the push by him on social justice. Now when you bring it up to him he will go to things like "how can you be against the church helping oppressed people in human trafficking?" or other similar things. This is a deception because no one takes issue with that and in fact I have rarely seen him or any of his ilk talk about it.

What I have seen is that with regards to social justice the only thing I really see being pushed hard is the #metoo movement and racial reconciliation. So he needs to drop all the talk about anything else because no one is focusing on those things not even him. He uses social justice in a general sense to defend it but in practice he only focuses on the two most controversial things.

Now he has been a part of the push to get women preachers in the convention and we all know that will lead to women pastors. Further, using CRT as a tool to measure the culture is not needed and ungodly. Those of us who are against it do not trust those who want to use it. We know that it will lead to being a tool to interpret scripture even if they will never admit that is what they are doing and even if that never happens (and it will) it is still ungodly.

I do not trust the guy.

 

[Reformed1689]

The issue I have is the push by him on social justice. Now when you bring it up to him he will go to things like "how can you be against the church helping oppressed people in human trafficking?" or other similar things. This is a deception because no one takes issue with that and in fact I have rarely seen him or any of his ilk talk about it.

What I have seen is that with regards to social justice the only thing I really see being pushed hard is the #metoo movement and racial reconciliation. So he needs to drop all the talk about anything else because no one is focusing on those things not even him. He uses social justice in a general sense to defend it but in practice he only focuses on the two most controversial things.

Now he has been a part of the push to get women preachers in the convention and we all know that will lead to women pastors. Further, using CRT as a tool to measure the culture is not needed and ungodly. Those of us who are against it do not trust those who want to use it. We know that it will lead to being a tool to interpret scripture even if they will never admit that is what they are doing and even if that never happens (and it will) it is still ungodly.

I do not trust the guy.

Thank you, that is helpful.

 

[church mouse guy]

Thank you, that is helpful.

Why don't you just go to your favorite search engine and check and see what Moore has said and done or go to the ERLC website and see if you like what Moore has done instead of dragging me into a new thread?

 

[Reformed1689]

Why don't you just go to your favorite search engine and check and see what Moore has said and done or go to the ERLC website and see if you like what Moore has done instead of dragging me into a new thread?

Why even post this?

 

[StefanM]

The issue I have is the push by him on social justice. Now when you bring it up to him he will go to things like "how can you be against the church helping oppressed people in human trafficking?" or other similar things. This is a deception because no one takes issue with that and in fact I have rarely seen him or any of his ilk talk about it.

What I have seen is that with regards to social justice the only thing I really see being pushed hard is the #metoo movement and racial reconciliation. So he needs to drop all the talk about anything else because no one is focusing on those things not even him. He uses social justice in a general sense to defend it but in practice he only focuses on the two most controversial things.

Now he has been a part of the push to get women preachers in the convention and we all know that will lead to women pastors. Further, using CRT as a tool to measure the culture is not needed and ungodly. Those of us who are against it do not trust those who want to use it. We know that it will lead to being a tool to interpret scripture even if they will never admit that is what they are doing and even if that never happens (and it will) it is still ungodly.

I do not trust the guy.

On the social justice issue, to be fair, it does make sense to focus on the most controversial elements because that's where the real debate is. Advocating for social justice inherently involves some clash with the status quo (or else there would be no need to raise concerns about social justice), and the most controversial topics are the topics most ripe for clashing with the status quo. If the status quo has no resistance to change, no debate is needed.

That being said, I don't like the term "social justice" because it has become far too loaded. What it means is in the eye of the beholder, but when the left uses the term, it usually means far more than what the Bible would permit us to endorse. And when it's used by Christians who are simply trying to honor the principles in Scripture, it often sends a message other than what is intended.

(When I mention the left, I mean the real left--I'm not talking about centrists or people simply a little to the left of conservatives or people who just don't like Trump.)

I'm not willing to toss out CRT entirely as a point for discussion, but I do get your point about not being beholden to it. Sometimes it can provide insights (that we will probably need then to evaluate with other models). At other times, it is unhelpful or potentially harmful.

After all, I think we can probably learn something from just about any school of thought, as long as we are careful to reject what is factually incorrect or biblically unjustifiable. I don't know where we need to draw the line, but I'm cautiously open to the idea of continuing the conversation.

 

[Reynolds]

On the social justice issue, to be fair, it does make sense to focus on the most controversial elements because that's where the real debate is. Advocating for social justice inherently involves some clash with the status quo (or else there would be no need to raise concerns about social justice), and the most controversial topics are the topics most ripe for clashing with the status quo. If the status quo has no resistance to change, no debate is needed.

That being said, I don't like the term "social justice" because it has become far too loaded. What it means is in the eye of the beholder, but when the left uses the term, it usually means far more than what the Bible would permit us to endorse. And when it's used by Christians who are simply trying to honor the principles in Scripture, it often sends a message other than what is intended.

(When I mention the left, I mean the real left--I'm not talking about centrists or people simply a little to the left of conservatives or people who just don't like Trump.)

I'm not willing to toss out CRT entirely as a point for discussion, but I do get your point about not being beholden to it. Sometimes it can provide insights (that we will probably need then to evaluate with other models). At other times, it is unhelpful or potentially harmful.

After all, I think we can probably learn something from just about any school of thought, as long as we are careful to reject what is factually incorrect or biblically unjustifiable. I don't know where we need to draw the line, but I'm cautiously open to the idea of continuing the conversation.

I fail to see why we should focus on social justice at all .

 

[Reformed1689]

I fail to see why we should focus on social justice at all .

Well I think that goes to how you define social justice.

 

[StefanM]

Well I think that goes to how you define social justice.

I agree. People talking about social justice may be using the same words but different dictionaries.

In principle, it can be an extension of loving your neighbor as yourself.

 

[Reynolds]

Well I think that goes to how you define social justice.

Any way you define it, its not a convention issue. Should be left to the individual churches.

 

[Revmitchell]

On the social justice issue, to be fair, it does make sense to focus on the most controversial elements because that's where the real debate is. Advocating for social justice inherently involves some clash with the status quo (or else there would be no need to raise concerns about social justice), and the most controversial topics are the topics most ripe for clashing with the status quo. If the status quo has no resistance to change, no debate is needed.

That being said, I don't like the term "social justice" because it has become far too loaded. What it means is in the eye of the beholder, but when the left uses the term, it usually means far more than what the Bible would permit us to endorse. And when it's used by Christians who are simply trying to honor the principles in Scripture, it often sends a message other than what is intended.

(When I mention the left, I mean the real left--I'm not talking about centrists or people simply a little to the left of conservatives or people who just don't like Trump.)

I'm not willing to toss out CRT entirely as a point for discussion, but I do get your point about not being beholden to it. Sometimes it can provide insights (that we will probably need then to evaluate with other models). At other times, it is unhelpful or potentially harmful.

After all, I think we can probably learn something from just about any school of thought, as long as we are careful to reject what is factually incorrect or biblically unjustifiable. I don't know where we need to draw the line, but I'm cautiously open to the idea of continuing the conversation.

No no social justice has long been defined by the public and is clearly understood. I do not see it as being fair i see it as compromising on biblical standards..

 

[Reformed1689]

No no social justice has long been defined by the public and is clearly understood. I do not see it as being fair i see it as compromising on biblical standards..

I'm not going to lie, I never even heard the term "social justice" until earlier this year with MacArthur.

 

[Reformed1689]

Any way you define it, its not a convention issue. Should be left to the individual churches.

I don't know, here is Article 2 the purpose of the SBC. I have bolded a line for emphasis.

Article II. Purpose: It is the purpose of the Convention to provide a general organization for Baptists in the United States and its territories for the promotion of Christian missions at home and abroad and any other objects such as Christian education, benevolent enterprises, and social services which it may deem proper and advisable for the furtherance of the Kingdom of God.

 

[Reynolds]

I don't know, here is Article 2 the purpose of the SBC. I have bolded a line for emphasis.

I dont like a lot of the BF&M.

 

[Reformed1689]

I dont like a lot of the BF&M.

I guess my point is that according to the documents it would actually fall as a convention issue.

 

[Reynolds]

I guess my point is that according to the documents it would actually fall as a convention issue.

Yep, but my point is that the convention is over reaching. At the rate the SBC is going, before long they will have state and district overseers.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yep, but my point is that the convention is over reaching. At the rate the SBC is going, before long they will have state and district overseers.

Perhaps. But at least it's not like the UMC with a trust clause that if your church tries to leave they take your property.

 

[Ziggy]

What did it for me with Moore was his wasting time with worrying about whether robots in the future might need to be evangelized. Say what?

 

[agedman]

I have been through this document but have a hard time understanding why anyone with a good Bible and Spirit leading would find it a problem.

Now it may be that my own bias is distorting and here is were I unsuccessfully consulted opposing views. They were dismal at best and sometime uninformed.

So I turn now to this thread, and the greater wisdom of the BB.

What is the problem with this document?

Please be precise in pointing to the specific section and quoting so I to can find the problem.

The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel | For The Sake of Christ & His Church

 

[Reformed1689]

I have been through this document but have a hard time understanding why anyone with a good Bible and Spirit leading would find it a problem.

Now it may be that my own bias is distorting and here is were I unsuccessfully consulted opposing views. They were dismal at best and sometime uninformed.

So I turn now to this thread, and the greater wisdom of the BB.

What is the problem with this document?

Please be precise in pointing to the specific section and quoting so I to can find the problem.

The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel | For The Sake of Christ & His Church

I'm actually a signer of the statement.