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?

4 thoughts on “Liberal Washington Post loves Southern Baptist Russell Moore & Hates Jerry Fallwell. Why?”

  1. The Post writer didn’t attack anyone. He said he was disappointed in the level of discourse the “Christian leaders”, and I use that very loosely here, has come to.

    The argument that someone has a moral obligation to choose a lesser of two evils has a shallow understanding of personal moral integrity. It is truly a shame that the church has become so drunk on political power that it’s decided to debase fellow believers for their freedom of a clear conscience and right to independent thought.

    “And ye peoples, to whom God gave the liberty to choose your own magistrates, see to it, that ye do not forfeit this favor, by electing to the positions of highest honor, rascals and enemies of God.” -John Calvin

    1. Shallow? Hardly. As Christians we hold to deontological ethics. So, in a fallen world, we have conflicting moral commands like in last election. The higher commandment takes precedence.

      Also, Calvin’s advice is good, but in election between a pro-infanticide candidate and pro-life candidate, allowing more evil by not voting would be sinful.

      Lastly, as Dr. Geisler said, the best doctor might not be the most Christian.

  2. Thank you for bringing up Dr. Geisler. Even he could not stomach the “lesser of two evils” in 2016 and pulled his initial support very publicly. Also, deontological ethics and utilitarianism (which is what you’re doing) are not the same thing.

    Republicans held the majority on the Supreme Court when Roe was passed, when Roe was upheld and have declined to do anything about Roe on multiple occasions in Congress. But ignoring these facts is easier than understanding motives behind political slogans and “campaign issues”.

    But back to your main post… The Post publishes Dr. Moore because he hasn’t displayed a baseline drive for power, unlike many in the SBC. It is most likely how he’s come to be the leader for ethics within the SBC.

    1. Geisler and Grudem both ended up, despite concerns, casting their votes for Trump. Further, Geisler specifically defended voting for the lesser evil by saying that the most Christian doctor is not always the best doctor.

      Deontological is based on duties and in Geisler’s work (which I defend) it is based on God’s divine commands. Utilitarianism is a man-centered results philosophy. Huge difference. Here is Stanford’s summary showing deontological ethics as opposed to consequentialist theories.

      So, yes, they are hugely different. However, as I’ve written about many times, one must determine what God-given rule applies. My argument: When voting, no rule applies more than preventing the murder of innocent children.

      I don’t think any Christian could dispute that is the highest duty of the state as ordained by God.

      Also, Geisler’s Graded Absolutism was specifically devised to help navigate competing moral commands. So, when a command like saving babies conflicts with another command, say, not voting for an adulterer, the higher command must be obeyed. This is based on sound scriptural exegesis and sound reason. So, the idea that it is utilitarian is wrong. If you want to see more, you can read this article where Geisler touches on the concept, or for even more, see his book Christian Ethics.

      As for the GOP’s issue with Roe, because some Republicans are bad on abortion it does not then follow that the GOP is as bad as the party of infanticide. Demonstrably (see Alabama versus Illinois, New York, etc.), they are not.

      Back to Dr. Moore, as I’ve shown, for an ethics professor, he is naive and wrong. Geisler, Grudem and William Lane Craig all defend lesser evils or some type of system of this. Why does Moore reject it and Mock it?

Comments are closed.