America’s recent election not only revealed a magnified crevice between two sociopolitical groups, the first being the producer/nationalist class and the second being the dependent/globalist class, but it also manifested a long minimized but very real partition between the aristocratic theological intelligentsia Evangelical ruling class and the pedestrian Evangelical laity class. One of the major personalities among these Evangelical elites has been Southern Baptist, Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. And to this, Southern Baptists in general, should be gravely concerned.
Mr. Moore demonstratively made it his mission during this past election cycle to relentlessly campaign against Donald Trump on what he generally tracked as moral disdain which allegedly forced Moore to pronounce political anathema against Trump but it did not stop there. His implication was against Southern Baptists and more widely, orthodox Evangelicals who supported and ultimately voted for Donald Trump. To plead for Donald Trump was tantamount to voting in support of immorality, racism and misogyny hence, you must be akin to this in some way, at least this is the unapologetic manner in which he crusaded in the minds of a vast number of Southern Baptists and Evangelicals at large as I have observed.
And as I write this, I am tempted to go backwards and revisit Moore’s numerous articles in which he wrote at length about his contempt for the bellicose, immoral, unwashed and intolerable Donald Trump, a man for whom is conscience could not vote but more than that, a man against whom he sought to turn many Southern Baptist/Evangelical consciences but that didn’t happen. I don’t, however, have to turn to Moore’s past articles, I need only look to a recent post-election piece in which his full, ruinous pristine moralizing is on display.
Writing at his website and for distribution elsewhere, Moore published a piece titled, President Trump: Now What For the Church? And here are but a sample of Moore’s continued misleading and disingenuous characterizations regarding Trump and those who voted for him, yes, the 80% of Evangelicals.
Moore - The sort of conservatism that many of us had hoped for—a multiethnic, constitutionally-anchored, forward-looking conservatism—has been replaced in the Republican Party by something else.
My Response – Sorry Russell, but the very people who elected Tim Scott, one of only two black U.S. Senators, were a constituency from South Carolina that also supported Donald Trump at almost a 90% level. Further, Mr. Moore, those voters supporting Donald Trump did so because of his forward looking conservatism that had a female campaign manager who was the first woman to head a presidential battle in the general election and win, not to mention bringing Dr. Carson onto his team as a major campaign adviser and who will likely play a hearty role early in his administration.
So excuse me, Russ, if I may and I will, who or what are you referring to when you lament that the multi-ethnic Republican party has been replaced by something else? Because it certainly isn’t Mr. Trump or his supporters. This leaves us two choices Mr. Moore, either you are incompetent and unable to see what is in front of you or you are simply dishonest and in either case, unfit to represent Evangelicals and certainly, the Southern Baptist Convention with all of its deplorable members.
Moore continues:
Moore - This means that conservative evangelicals are politically homeless—whether they know it or not.
My Response – Mr. Moore, you do realize that the Vice President Elect is a conservative Evangelical, right? You do realize he is second in power, correct? I almost want to use the juvenile expression, “what planet are you on because it isn’t earth?”, but I will not.
This is simply more delusion in his mis-characterization of the administration America elected, an administration, by the way, which will follow one of the most divisive and disruptive in recent history. But the last eight years apparently do not faze Russell Moore, at least not in any manner that would cause him to mount a reasonable and expected protest. That, instead, was left to the little people he claims to represent in their ouster of leftist values for this nation while they performed the necessary dirty work in voting for Donald Trump.
Who, then, exactly does Russell Moore represent?
This introduction leads me to my main question which wonders precisely who Russell Moore represents within the Southern Baptist Convention and more broadly, Evangelicals because, as we understand by his efforts with The Gospel Coalition and beyond, the SBC is not his only desired constituency? Russell Moore certainly does not represent 80% of Evangelicals which I am going to safely surmise is also about the same percentage of Southern Baptists who voted for Trump.
Russell Moore was not only on the wrong side of history but devoted himself to the leftist moralizing narrative of anti-Trumpers and disdain for Donald Trump's supporters, many of which were Southern Baptists. If Southern Baptists are so wrong in so large a number on such a pivotal and critical worldview, at least according to Moore, then there is an incompatibility problem the size of Godzilla before anyone within the SBC can move on with any sensible confidence in Russell Moore as a genuine representative of its members.
The Average Christian Joe and Jane
The average Christian (most people for that matter) does not aspire to capacious influence. A vast majority of the population have the goals of a good job/career, satisfying marriage, a healthy and safe life, well-loved and educated children and for Christians, of course, growing in and serving God via the gifts and opportunities given in life. And frankly, for most people, this is all they either have time for or were designed however, do not be mistaken, they are not stupid in their average pursuits.
Unfortunately, this is how I see the Russ Moore’s of the world treating their constituencies, like children who need lectured accompanied by finger-wagging about the dangers of robust alpha men and women who fight wars and like to watch the enemy die when we all should be playing nice with one another, surrendering to those who would import destructive ways to a nation to which we belong and ultimately bring collapse to the boundaries of freedom which are ours. At the expense of a nation they would posture. These are not leaders, these are religious neo-pharisites who risk your liberties and mine while their lives are assured comfort and privilege.
Why? Why do these kinds of men who are not genuine leaders and builders but lecturers and crusaders, rise up in a church they genuinely do not represent?
The answer lies in the ambition of the man or woman. People who covet influence do so because they believe they are smarter than most people. Usually these kinds of people are hyper-idealists and due to this, the political arena becomes a magnet. This, as we know, is where Moore was birthed with respect to his notability, as a Democrat. I am not claiming clairvoyance thus, ascribing these motivations to Moore but I am saying they regularly are part and parcel with the kind of position he holds. But what I am saying is that the chasm between what Moore proposes and what the majority of SBC members hold to as a worldview and theological preference, needs a great deal explaining before you can convince me Russell Moore is the result of an organic promotion by SBC members to his position, one that is ratified by natural majority support, all of which I see glaringly absent.
On the other hand, there is a group of men and women who are compelled, not by idealism but realism. They usually are reluctant but ultimately driven by truth and concrete ideals which they know must be preserved and elevated for the benefit of whatever group they see needs such shepherding. These kinds of leaders generally represent the every-day common sense of freedom-loving people, worldwide. Their instinct isn’t to lecture but to lead. They aren’t posturing critics rather, men and women with real solutions to real problems.
It is time to show Moore, the door?
Whatever Russell Moore is, he certainly does not represent 80% of Southern Baptists from what I have learned not only during this election but before its cycle, on a number of ethical and theological matters. I believe he, while possessing a higher-than average IQ, is subverted by his idealism and view that through expatiated moralism he can shame Southern Baptists into acquiescing to his brand of Christianity and politics. Throughout this entire cycle, Moore has constantly wagged his finger at Christians supporting Trump and ultimately found himself too immaculate to force upon himself the smudge of voting for Donald Trump, a thing he sought to convince the entirety of Evangelicalism to do thus, denying Trump/Pence the White House and permitting the ultimate destroyer, Hillary Clinton who was to bring with her the consummation of far-left progressivism as a way of life irreversibly forced upon America’s culture and legal system.
That is the permanent status Russell Moore sought to impose upon this country. Why? Again, I beckon to the raw premise above but for specifics, I point you to the many posturing and feathery essays Moore has available at his website from which you are to form your own conclusion. They will be there as a monumental episode of embarrassment in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention which must never be permitted to be repeated though sadly, I am not sure the lesson will have been learned fast enough.
I have no doubt that Russell Moore knows Christ and some theology and he certainly may want to see the world saved but he is unfit for leadership among Southern Baptists seeing the tremendous distance he has placed himself from the majority of its membership. He is far more fitted for a left-leaning para-church organization such as The Gospel Coalition who, via its co-founder Tim Keller, gladly embrace the social gospelism Moore has long touted in its proprietary PCA brand which which has come about over the last two decades.
Do I believe he will be forced out like he should be or that he will suddenly be seized by a conscience that is utterly embarrassed by an awakening to his self-righteous posturing which almost aided in bringing a continued but greater anti-Christian darkness to this nation, politically, in his aim to defeat Trump thus, help elect Hillary Clinton ? No, I do not think either are likely to occur, at least not real soon because of the many allies he has who hold power in the SBC.
What I do believe, however, is that many Southern Baptists, just like many Americans, who supported Trump not only will be vindicated by a robustly constitutional Christian friendly nationalist administration in Trump/Pence but as the days go by, they will have within themselves a refusal to tolerate the keyboard dictates of idealistic and over-paid philosophers like Russell Moore and a wave will rise, slowly but surely. The poison of Moore’s ideas will be much clearer as Trump/Pence succeed and people will come understand just how unfit Moore is for the position he now fills as the ethical voice of the SBC.
Part 1, here
Part 2, here
Part 3, here
My Observations and Considerations
My hope, here, is to more effectively qualify a response to this issue for my readers. I have no doubt that numerous believers face, to some degree, the dilemma of sexual sins of thought, word and/or deed and having read the kind of counsel offered by Dr. Russell Moore, they instinctively come away from his prescription knowing that something isn’t quite right but have not been able to identify and articulate their concerns.
However, permit me to add that I am certain Russell Moore is both earnest and genuine in his guidance. As well, I believe he demonstrates a seriousness in his desire to orient people toward what he believes is Godly thinking and acting, though I regularly find myself at odds with his theological products and certainly here. Hence, I do not want anyone thinking my objective is a caricaturization of Moore. Nevertheless, his advice on the matter reflects a commonly sloppy and overly pious approach which has inflicted needless collateral damage to the lives of faltering humans and particularly Christians.
Marital infidelity
God is absolute and clear in his Word. Marriage is intended to be that of a man and woman being faithful in every manner possible, to one another. This, especially, includes sexual fidelity. Adultery is shameful and sinful. Proverbs 6:29 states regarding the one that goes to his neighbor's wife and commits adultery:
29 So is the one who goes in to his neighbor’s wife;
Whoever touches her will not go unpunished.
That passage has in view two kinds of suffering from this level of transgressing, both human and divine. Thus, it is clear that not only are there human consequences but divine ones as well. Of course not every single person and every single violation are equal and God deals with each one of us in particular (as do humans). But even so, we will be corrected and reproved by God, even if human disclosure does not occur. Proverbs 3:11-12 states:
11 My son, do not reject the discipline of the Lord
Or loathe His reproof,
12 For whom the Lord loves He reproves,
Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights.
Therefore, let me be clear. In no way am I minimizing deleterious effects of this sin and its violation before God. However, how it is resolved with respect to human relationships and to whom we own a confession has an extended Biblical consideration and is not left up to our rationalizations which seem sanctified and spiritual but which may be, in fact, creating further and gratuitous conflict and injury in a marriage.
Prudence
First and foremost, when you commit marital infidelity where the other spouse does not share such knowledge, there is no absolute counsel from the Scriptures or practical Biblical wisdom which demands and treats as the highest order of conduct, the disclosure of such a sin. The book of Proverbs contains a very weighty principle regarding our sins. Proverbs 12:23 share this wisdom:
23 The prudent keep their knowledge to themselves, but a fool’s heart blurts out folly.
Now it is true that revealing an offense is not necessarily equal to blurting it out but the Proverb treats keeping knowledge of something to one’s self as “prudent”. Prudence is the practice of perspicacity regarding what we reveal to others and what we do not. We use forethought and consider how it will affect the person(s) with whom the information is revealed.
When we accept Dr. Moore’s prescription, that we are always obligated to confess infidelity, we do so in the absence of prudence. Prudence considers the damage to the relationship and the spouse, who at the moment may be very contented and who, through this knowledge, may receive an injury from which he or she cannot recover, which brings me to my next point.
Exacerbating the damage through confessing to a spouse
When someone is unfaithful they have damaged themselves. As well, their marriage will experience some by-products of unfaithfulness such as the offending spouse having created an appetite for intimacy with foreign parties. However, the faithful spouse has not received a personal offense. The integrity has failed on one end and needs resolved on that end.
So when a spouse has been unfaithful but repented and returned as a faithful party, while there may be by-product(s), the re-invested spouse will, as time increases, regain matrimonial momentum in their repentance and renewed faithfulness. Thus, the institutional effects may be minor, if noticeable at all to the innocent party.
Why, then, would there be a compelling interest in revealing the episode of infidelity to the innocent spouse, particularly if one has confessed their offense to God and returned to fidelity with the marriage developing positively as it should?
The truth is, we often are only furthering the damage of our offense when we confess it to the unknowing party. We are, in effect, generating a greater problem where one need not be. There is no default Biblical mandate to confess our sins of thought, word and/or deed to our spouses, even infidelity, only to God.
This is not to say disclosure is never necessary but it unquestionably should not be assumed as essential any time a Christian is unfaithful. What benefit comes from pulling a spouse into such a matter, particularly when there is no real threat of disclosure by other parties? You actually rend the marriage further and enlarge the bruise which I dare say may be a sin, in and of itself.
The Purpose of Confession and using your Spouse as your Personal Priest
While I may be pressing this point with multiple references, I believe it warrants emphasis. What is the ultimate purpose for confessing marital infidelity to a spouse who does not know about it and likely will not know about it? It surely cannot be for their sake, particularly if they are happily invested in the marriage. As Russell Moore suggests, it is to somehow restore integrity to the relationship (my paraphrase) and to complete one’s repentance. However, the truth is, the irreconciliation only failed one way and only needs corrected on the end where it failed. I believe that frequently, such a confession is a selfish act to relieve a person of guilt by using their spouse as a personal priest instead of turning to God for absolution.
Moore refers to the removal of the guilt which is present when one is unfaithful. His view is that this guilt cannot be relieved unless the innocent spouse is informed and offers forgiveness. Your spouse cannot forgive you unless they know about your infidelity and unless they know about it, they are not injured. In other words, until you disclose your infidelity your spouse is not offended, they are innocent. Only you are the injured party, injured by your own sin. Your remedy is repentance before God and a re-commitment to your marriage.
Bearing your own Burdens
As Christians we ought to learn to bear our own burdens. We should not draw others into our internal and private failures and demand absolution and unconditional love as if they are God. In my view, the selfishness of this kind of approach is understated.
It is the child who uses other people to assuage their guilt when disclosure of personal failures and a guilty conscience are not needed. It is the adult who accepts the conscience which comes when they commit offenses and it is the adult Christian who believes God’s promise of forgiveness (when they name their sins) and moves on in life.
Are you saying there never is a time to confess to others, particularly marital infidelity, to your spouse?
I am not suggesting that we never have to confess our sins to others; this would violate what I pointed to in James. However, context and its variables are part of the consideration and as we see in James, Matthew and in the passage in 1 Corinthians, these have to do with people denying sins of which they are being confronted by others. For a few specific cases, but not limited to these, I offer two concrete occasions where I believe it would be unprincipled to fail to disclose infidelity to your spouse.
First, in the case that the innocent party is very likely to have this information shared to them by a party outside of the marriage. This is when we should use wisdom and control the event of the disclosure to the innocent party and offer whatever information is necessary. This is a prudent confession and cares for the innocent party so that they are not blindsided by the information from transient parties and humiliated.
Secondly, we must confess our offenses if our actions produce consequences of which our spouse needs to know because it will directly affect the marriage such as getting another person pregnant, getting an STD or an affair which will cost the offender his or her employment and so on. Again, this keeps the innocent spouse from being blindsided, humiliated and even further injured.
Concluding Comments
In most cases of marital infidelity I believe there to be few absolutes which can be broadly prescribed when it comes to admitting unfaithfulness to a spouse. Some spouses can handle such admissions, forgive in a timely manner and move on to a renewed and healthy marriage. Others, however, would be crushed and permanently debilitated by such a discovery, even though it may have been a single and isolated event and many years ago.
Treating your spouse with the assumption that he or she can deal with this information, will be willing to forgive you and that your marriage will become stronger and healthier than before is an assumption no one, particularly a Christian, can afford to make. Every case has its own set of variables and everyone is different. This may seem like obvious advice but it appears to me that the obvious escaped Dr. Russell Moore in his broad and indiscriminate prescription of confessing infidelity to an unknowing spouse.
Qualifier - I do wish to be emphatic here. I have no desire to prescribe to anyone's conscience before God the idea that it is foolish and weak to offer such a disclosure to your spouse. It can be, in some of the instances I have pointed out, but if your conscience is inconsolably torn and you find yourself with no sufficient remedy to your betrayal other than confessing this to your spouse, forbid me from being the dictate of your conscience.
However, this is precisely why I have written this four-part response, because sometimes a person's conscience is fraught with guilt based on false concepts. My encouragement and instruction is a biblically perspicacious handling of such failures and a conscience which is strengthened by truth, not weakened by errant absolutes.
Maybe you believe it is noble to make such confessions but you may do more damage than good and there is nothing noble about that. It may end up being a greater act of love to keep such indiscretions to yourself and bearing this privately, before God, as a failure but one in which God has forgiven you instead of dumping this onto your spouse to deal with. Keeping them innocent may be the greater virtue.
Part 1, here
Part 2, here
Part 4, here
Part 3: Third Section of Moore’s Advice
Having said that, I want to say to you be prepared for the consequences of your sin. And I think that you need to make it very clear when you confess this to your wife that she is more important to you than the risk that may come along with your confessing this to her. And so you need to own your sin. You need to communicate this to her as a sin, and do not give any indication that you blame her at all.
And I would also say don’t take her first reaction to be necessarily her last reaction. She is going to feel betrayed. She is going to feel outraged…and let her express the grief and the anger that comes out of this. You have been carrying this sin with you now for several years. It could feel to you almost as a relief to get it out in the open in front of her. But this is the first time she is hearing about this, and so, you can’t expect her to forgive you immediately, reconcile with you immediately, move on. She has to grieve this, and she has to express the sort of anger that she has. Let her do that, and then wait patiently for her to forgive you. Don’t expect that she owes you some sort of immediate reconciliation. You are going to have to spend in many ways the rest of your life in your marriage rebuilding the trust that is there, even when she does forgive you.
Consequences
This final portion of Russell Moore’s prescription for whether or not to disclose marital infidelity, contains some concerning idealizations regarding the process as well as a wrongly assigned consequence. He states that when one discloses their adultery to their spouse that person needs to, “be prepared for the consequences of your sin”. Actually, what follows is not a consequence of the sin but the consequence of having divulged the matter. If the wife, in this case, never learned of the offense there would be no such consequence.
The actual consequence of the sin is the sin itself and any of its direct products (which may include divine initiatives of discipline toward the offender). Admitting infidelity to one’s spouse is an indirect consequence, at best, and one that is not a default repercussion. It is up to the offending party whether or not to involve their spouse which then, they must be accepting of its consequences.
Owning sin
Dr. Moore directs that the offending party needs to “own” their sin. I agree. However, by pulling an uninvolved spouse into the matter we need to be clear, we are now requiring her share the wound which up until now, she was not sharing in the injury. In other words, what Dr. Moore is actually directing the guilty party to do is to pass the injury around and extend its damages to his spouse, not owing and bearing it himself.
Assumptions about forgiveness
Here, Russell Moore suggests, regarding the reaction of the now injured spouse, that it will take time and that the offending husband should not take her first reaction, “to be necessarily her last reaction”. He then goes on to describe what he anticipates to be a processing cycle with the wife eventually forgiving him but warns that, “You are going to have to spend in many ways the rest of your life in your marriage rebuilding the trust that is there, even when she does forgive you.”
The rest of your life?
My initial reaction is one of astonishment that Moore believes every spouse can handle such knowledge and more so, that it will always eventually result in forgiveness (though not stating this directly his weakly qualified counsel assumes this outcome). But even then, the kind of forgiveness Russell Moore seems to be relating to us is one that is conditional, where the rest of a marriage is spent rebuilding a trust. Frankly, if it takes the rest of a marriage to rebuild a trust then the marriage is destroyed, in effect. Moreover, I would never teach any spouse that they have the liberty to force their offending spouse to spend the rest of their marriage enslaved to a point of failure in the marriage.
But to the earlier comment Dr. Moore makes, that her first reaction may not necessarily her last. Right, it might not be but what if it is? The marriage is destroyed and when not disclosing this information and possibly bearing the burden of the offense within one’s self, alone, and receiving the forgiveness of God, may have been the solution that kept the marriage together instead of destroying it. This leads me to my own observations which I will share in Part 4.
