You can tell a lot about a man by his enemies. That’s true. You can also tell a lot about a man’s friends. So, why does the liberal, progressive Washington Post love a so-called “conservative” Southern Baptist? Why did the Washington Post publish a love letter to Russell Moore and a philippic against Liberty University president Jerry Falwell, Jr., a Trump-supporting evangelical leader?  The post was written by a Liberty alum for the religion section.

Again, why would the liberal Washington Post publish a defense of Russell Moore and attack a Trump supporting Jerry Falwell, Jr.?

The answer is likely the same as in 2016 when the liberal Washington Post published and quoted Russell Moore’s attacks on Donald Trump and Trump voting evangelicals. Remember those?

In October 2016 just before the November election, Russell Moore wrote, “If Donald Trump has done anything, he has snuffed out the Religious Right” for the Washington Post. In this article, Russell Moore attacked evangelical Trump voters.

He wrote, “These evangelical leaders have said that, for the sake of the ‘lesser of two evils,’ one should stand with someone who not only characterizes sexual decadence and misogyny, brokers in cruelty and nativism, and displays a crazed public and private temperament — but who glories in these things. Some of the very people who warned us about moral relativism and situational ethics now ask us to become moral relativists for the sake of an election.”

Let me refer you quickly to something today’s liberal Washington Post love letter to Russell Moore pointed out. Dr. Moore has a Ph.D. in Theology. Specifically, “He has served as provost and dean of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville and an ethics professor at various Baptist seminaries.”

Ethics Professor.

An Ethics Professor ridiculed lesser of two evils moral thinking and said those applying it were moral relativists.

How can anyone take Russell Moore seriously?

His thinking characterizes what respected theologian and philosopher William Lane Craig described as evangelical moral naïveté.

Dr. Craig said of those attacking Lesser of Two Evils, “I think there is a kind of immaturity among some people about moral decision-making where they think that moral decision-making is a matter of choosing between the good alternative and the bad alternative. That is a very naïve, almost childish, view of moral decision-making. We are frequently confronted with moral choices in which we have no good alternatives or, alternatively, we have two good alternatives to choose from and you have to then choose between two goods. But sometimes you have to choose between two bads.

I highly recommend reading or listening to Dr. Craig’s podcast on this topic. This is what a professor sounds like, not the progressive talking points published by Russell Moore.

But, Russell Moore wouldn’t find himself getting a love letter in the Washington Post and his enemies attacked by the Post without echoing Orange Man Bad!

There is a lot more one could say here about voting and how it isn’t situational ethics. However, I’ll direct readers to an examination of Dr. Norm Geisler’s Graded Absolutism to show that evangelical support for Donald Trump isn’t immoral or situational.

Christians should ask why the Washington Post favors Russell Moore. The answer is obvious—he furthers their liberal, progressive agenda.

Is this who Southern Baptists want speaking for them?