https://www.newsweek.com/evangelicals-rejecting-jesus-teachings-liberal-talking-points-pastor-1818706

Quote:

---

"Multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching'turn the other cheek'[and] to have someone come up after to say, 'Where did you get those liberal talking points?'" Moore said.

"When the pastor would say, 'I'm literally quoting Jesus Christ' ... The response would be, 'Yes, but that doesn't work anymore. That's weak," he added.

---

I wish I could say I was surprised but, I'm not really.

schmendeler said:

---

https://www.newsweek.com/evangelicals-rejecting-jesus-teachings-liberal-talking-points-pastor-1818706

Quote:

---

"Multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching'turn the other cheek'[and] to have someone come up after to say, 'Where did you get those liberal talking points?'" Moore said.

"When the pastor would say, 'I'm literally quoting Jesus Christ' ... The response would be, 'Yes, but that doesn't work anymore. That's weak," he added.

---

I wish I could say I was surprised but, I'm not really.

---

I'm not at all surprised that Moore and big Eva would give such an interview and say such a thing. His latest book is about being a victim and he thinks he's a prophet sent to call theological conservatives to repent (no kidding, he wrote a CT article about it).

Aaron Renn had a good column about it and I'll see if I can dig it up. Moore and Keller were trying to carve out a new space in the evangelical movement uniting center left and center right and excluding the far right. Keller even wrote a book about it that Moore is following (second link).

Edit:

https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/russell-moores-latest-salvo-in-the?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Falls right in line:

Quote:

---

Yet that experience lets me recognize the fundamentalist motifs Moore employs. For example, one of his go to moves is to imply that his opponents are not saved. In this book, for instance, he writes, "I couldn't help but wonder if the plot twist to the story of American conservative Christianity was that what we thought was the Shire was Mordor all along." Mordor is an almost literal fire and brimstone reference. This is one of many ponderous, fundamentalist style denunciations in the book. Even the victimology is reminiscent of the persecution complex some fundamentalists have. This style resonates with millions of people, but I'm not one of them. I'm sure it plays better back in Moore's Mississippi hometown.

…

Similarly, Moore appears to view himself primarily as a victim, despite having spent 20+ years building an excellent and successful career within the movement and institutions he now denounces. If they really were as terrible as he claims, how does Moore justify having been part of them for so long?

…

More likely in my view is that conservative evangelicalism, despite its flaws, is not as bad as Moore suggests. And his new hostility is primarily a result of personal and political conflicts that shifted his views in a more extreme direction. That is, it is a product of the same polarization effect we are now all too familiar with, along with his affiliating with a new tribe of likeminded people who also found themselves in the evangelical minority position rather than the majority one to which they were accustomed (e.g., David French).

---

Edit: found the other post on Tim Keller and Russell Moore carving up evangelicalism.

https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/newsletter-78-big-eva-says-out-with?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Quote:

---

One of the key leaders doing this is Russell Moore. Moore is a former Southern Baptist leader and Gospel Coalition council member who is now the editor of Christianity Today magazine. The mere fact that he's now the editor there shows something is afoot, given that Moore was historically strongly complementarian and Christianity Today has long been egalitarian.

As I noted in a previous post, Moore wrote a column in March of this year saying that evangelicals needed to rethink their gender wars. Though obviously in a Moore style rather than a Keller one, it is an almost perfect instantiation of Keller's framework and strategy. He cleaves complementarianism into two halves, one analogous to Keller's Zone 1 types holding to a dangerous form of de facto fundamentalism:

---

.

The religious right wanted to make the Republican Party more Christian and while they succeeded in that they also made American Christianity more Republican. Influence doesn't work in just one direction.

lol, I've never ever heard someone say the sermon on the mount is weak and doesn't work anymore. If his congregation has comments like that then he's done a poor job teaching the bible.

Frok said:

---

lol, I've never ever heard someone say the sermon on the mount is weak and doesn't work anymore. If his congregation has comments like that then he's done a poor job teaching the bible.

---

Neat.

But about those who have heard it, all the blame is on the pastors doing a poor job, none at all on the state of things in conservative circles currently?

I'm sure there is some bias, but there were hardcore rightwing Christians saying they would prefer Trump to Jesus.

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/megachurch-pastor-robert-jeffress-would-vote-for-trump-over-jesus-the-bible-calls-for-a-strongman/

Frok said:

---

lol, I've never ever heard someone say the sermon on the mount is weak and doesn't work anymore. If his congregation has comments like that then he's done a poor job teaching the bible.

---

I see that all the time in how people talk about and treat those around them. Many probably don't when read the actual words of the sermon because they know what it is, but that doesn't mean they actually think it's applicable to life. It seems to often get shoved aside as a nice thought for a future world.

Ahh, yes, Pastor Jeffress....

schmendeler said:

---

Frok said:

---

lol, I've never ever heard someone say the sermon on the mount is weak and doesn't work anymore. If his congregation has comments like that then he's done a poor job teaching the bible.

---

Neat.

But about those who have heard it, all the blame is on the pastors doing a poor job, none at all on the state of things in conservative circles currently?

---

I'm just pointing out that this is simply a hit piece at conservatives and not at all a true representation of what is happening in churches. If someone's political bias is so strong that they see the sermon on the mount as irrelevant then I would say the pastor has done a poor job representing the Gospel to them.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Frok said:

---

lol, I've never ever heard someone say the sermon on the mount is weak and doesn't work anymore. If his congregation has comments like that then he's done a poor job teaching the bible.

---

I see that all the time in how people talk about and treat those around them. Many probably don't when read the actual words of the sermon because they know what it is, but that doesn't mean they actually think it's applicable to life. It seems to often get shoved aside as a nice thought for a future world.

---

Yes Christians should better represent those principles but the underlying message of the entire thing is that we don't and need a savior.

They say the church is full of hypocrites but that isn't true, there is always room for more.

Frok said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

Frok said:

---

lol, I've never ever heard someone say the sermon on the mount is weak and doesn't work anymore. If his congregation has comments like that then he's done a poor job teaching the bible.

---

Neat.

But about those who have heard it, all the blame is on the pastors doing a poor job, none at all on the state of things in conservative circles currently?

---

I'm just pointing out that this is simply a hit piece at conservatives and not at all a true representation of what is happening in churches. If someone's political bias is so strong that they see the sermon on the mount as irrelevant then I would say the pastor has done a poor job representing the Gospel to them.

---

Sometimes things happen and reporting on them as part of a trend associated with a current cultural/political movement is just news. Though some might take it as a hit piece.

Yeah, agreed. I can tell you anecdotally, I see the religious people in my circle have become much harder right politically in the last decade or so.

Macarthur said:

---

Yeah, agreed. I can tell you anecdotally, I see the religious people in my circle have become much harder right politically in the last decade or so.

---

That's everyone in every circle. Everyone is digging their trenches into echo chambers.

Quote:

---

At what point does it become a "hit piece"? If 1% of the congregation is that way, then is this a hit piece? What about 10% or 0.1%?

---

My feeling is that the article is trying to paint anyone that voted for Trump as somewhat being like that. Russel Moore wants to tell me that I'm a sinner for voting for Trump. Now he can lump me into a crowd that thinks the bible is too weak.

The center has moved so far to the Left that JFK would be considered MAGA today.

Frok said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Frok said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Frok said:

---

lol, I've never ever heard someone say the sermon on the mount is weak and doesn't work anymore. If his congregation has comments like that then he's done a poor job teaching the bible.

---

I see that all the time in how people talk about and treat those around them. Many probably don't when read the actual words of the sermon because they know what it is, but that doesn't mean they actually think it's applicable to life. It seems to often get shoved aside as a nice thought for a future world.

---

Yes Christians should better represent those principles but the underlying message of the entire thing is that we don't and need a savior.

They say the church is full of hypocrites but that isn't true, there is always room for more.

---

Is that an excuse for not trying?

---

Christianity does not teach that because of grace you don't try. I can easily point back at you and ask why don't you try to be a better person. Most of us know we could be better but our passions are at war within ourselves.

---

There's a difference between knowing you need to fix your flaws and actively promoting and cheering policies that contradict the teachings.

Behavior towards immigrants is one of the most obvious. Regardless of the logical case that can be made about limiting immigration (which can make sense even if you wind up disagreeing with it), we're seeing downright vicious behavior towards migrants and cheerleading/embracing the viciousness.

This is also seen with the whole "up by your bootstraps" mentality that passes off any social responsibility for helping people, no matter how minor, as immoral and the poor as immoral for any failure simply for the act of being poor.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Behavior towards immigrants is one of the most obvious. Regardless of the logical case that can be made about limiting immigration (which can make sense even if you wind up disagreeing with it), we're seeing downright vicious behavior towards migrants and cheerleading/embracing the viciousness.

This is also seen with the whole "up by your bootstraps" mentality that passes off any social responsibility for helping people, no matter how minor, as immoral and the poor as immoral for any failure simply for the act of being poor.

---

Immigration is tough. Biblically scripture supports borders but also commands help immigrants. I personally believe that you need secure borders to maintain order which is also Biblical.

And, if you believe in the rule of law and not anarchy than immigration laws should be enforced or changed.

I would bet that the majority of charitable organizations helping immigrants are Christian based.

I believe conservative Christians give more to charity in time and money to the poor than any other group.
And then you get into conservative/liberal ideologies and the role of government.

So in my opinion, you are painting a projected picture of what you believe. It is much like conservatives projecting all liberals as being "this way".

Historically, to my knowledge, no group of people have helped the poor more than Christians, many of whom are conservatives.

And yes, I think "pulling yourself up by your own boot straps" is admirable and works. But that does not take away social responsibility which I believe Christians have done better than any other group. And all freely given. Not forced by the government.

And while I believe in charity, even some government charity, I am not in favor of perpetual charity with zero work requirements. That creates dependency, depression, worthlessness, lack of responsibility, etc.

Are there Christian hypocrites? Sure. Read the Bible as Jesus really laid into the religious hypocrites more than any other group.

They have always and will always be around.

But it is not factual to use hypocrisy to deride all Christians. Still give more than any other group.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Behavior towards immigrants is one of the most obvious. Regardless of the logical case that can be made about limiting immigration (which can make sense even if you wind up disagreeing with it), we're seeing downright vicious behavior towards migrants and cheerleading/embracing the viciousness.

This is also seen with the whole "up by your bootstraps" mentality that passes off any social responsibility for helping people, no matter how minor, as immoral and the poor as immoral for any failure simply for the act of being poor.

---

And what about the violent behavior exhibited by illegal immigrants?

I think that's really is a strange deflection.

You do know that crime rates consistently show undocumented immigrants commit violet crime at a significantly lower rate than naturalized citizens?