SBC’s Russell Moore Signs Statement with Muslim Leaders, Claiming “Common Ground”
If you don’t think the American Evangelical Intelligentsia would sell their birthright for a bit of peace and prosperity, you don’t know them. They are sniveling, weak, effeminate men without spinal columns, courage, or guts. They are shells of humanity, with the good stuff taken out and replaced with cream puffery.
When Pulpit & Pen discovered that the National Association of Evangelicals had secretly embraced an expansion of gay rights in exchange for promises of religious liberty, I thought I couldn’t see much worse. And then I saw the information I’m about to give to you and I saw that, as always, it could get much, much worse.
Let me give you a disclaimer. Of all my years following Russell Moore, the ERLC, and the progressive-liberal intellectuals who are subversively driving evangelicalism to the hard-left, this might be the worst thing I have seen to date. And given my knowledge of the ERLC and their chicanery, that’s saying something.
Coming across my Google alerts, I saw an article by Richard Ostling which highlighted what I feel to be the most over-looked news story of 2018. On November 29, a group of evangelicals led by the SBC’s Russell Moore and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) president, Leith Anderson, joined with a group of non-Christians and cultists in the name of
As Ostling points out in his article, the typical mainstream denomination leftists you would expect to lead the way in such ecumenical enterprises haven’t even signed onto the document yet. But Russell Moore and the NAE are leading the way.
Ostling points out that the document takes no stance on important ethical issues:
The charter has won a notably varied list of initial endorsers because it purposely avoids taking stands on the “sometimes bitter debates” over how to apply these principles, in particular clashes between religious traditionalists and the LGBTQ community. Think Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado. Says the charter, “although it is not always possible to uphold both non-discrimination and religious liberty claims in particular cases, both claims should be taken seriously, and both sides should seek common ground.”
What the “American Charter on Freedom of Religion and Conscience” does is – like the NAE document reported on earlier today – surrender our rights to act according to our religion for the concession to merely ideologically hold to our religion. It’s nothing short of treasonous.
The document basically says, “Make us do anything you want, as long as you let us believe what we want.”
The five-thousand-word document is available via pdf here.
The goal of the document, according to its introduction, is everything you would expect a feckless, cowering, ecumenical claptrap would be:
Their aim is to restore civility to public discourse on religion and freedom of religion and conscience in America; explore the meaning and value of freedom of religion and conscience as a foundation of American democracy and national and global prosperity; and build a multi-faith, non-partisan coalition working to affirm freedom of religion and conscience as a vital safeguard for people of all faiths and none.
The document’s goal is to promote a form of globalism by gutting America of its theological underpinnings, minimizing its Christian heritage and over-emphasizing its committment to pluralism. The document reads:
In a world of strong and undeniable diversity, all imposed absolutisms, coercive universalisms, and movements of religious and secular ideological cleansing are the open enemies of freedom, equality, and justice for all.
The document seems to emphasize secularism, and goes well beyond supporting a separation of church and state.
I’ve read this document thoroughly, and let me tell you, there is a 100% reason to assume that the signers of this statement – from everything written therein – would support both gay marriage and abortion in the name of “religious freedom.” Zero doubt…none.
No doubt the Islamists eagerly signed onto the documents because of statements like this one:
We are opposed, therefore, to any
governmentalpolicy that would discriminate against individuals or groups based on their religion. Likewise, we reject rhetoric and actions by governmental leaders and others that demonize individuals or faith communities based on their religion or that hold entire faith groups collectively responsible for the evil deeds of a few.
What’s in view, probably, would be
The document places oppressive religions like Islam in the same category as Christianity and credits them all with equal contributions to the American way of life:
In America, religion helped to spur the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and the Civil Rights Movement. We also acknowledge, however, that some have at times used religious claims in support of prejudice, oppression, or violence. But the majority of individuals and communities motivated by faith have provided an overall thrust in America toward grassroots civic renewal and progress. Throughout our history, people of faith have empowered robust charitable giving and caring, essential educational institutions and initiatives, and vigorous political criticism and reform. These acts of kindness, charity, and service have unleashed the power of social innovation and entrepreneurship and have enriched our civic life immeasurably.
The document is clearly the most ecumenical document I’ve ever read, and perhaps has ever been attempted in the history of man. It reads:
It does not attempt to ground unity and civility in enforced conformity concerning the substance of particular religious or secular doctrines. Rather, this covenant secures unity and civility on the basis of voluntary agreement on foundational moral and political principles—principles of human dignity and human rights.
Let me ask you, Christian reader, from where comes our belief in human rights? Is it not in the Imago Dei? Is that not a uniquely Christian doctrine altogether unshared by Buddhists or Sikhs? From where comes the concept of morality? Can you acquire morality without theism? Is there a “secular” foundation of ethics? If there was a coherent foundation of secular ethics, could Christians ever agree as to what was in substance ethical?
Refuse. Utter refuse.
The document has the gall to quote Jefferson, Madison, the Federalist Papers, and Alexis De Tocqueville. Ostensibly, this is to send the message to the undiscerning reader that their statement is just a continuance of some grand American tradition. It is not. This document is a great betrayal of the grand American tradition.
According to Tocqueville, America’s
The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.
Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts-the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.Alexis De Tocqueville
This, of course, is precisely the opposite sentiment of this horrible ecumenical document.
What the American Charter document demonstrates is that for Russell Moore and the Evangelical Intelligentsia, there are no limits on ecumenism. They will hold hands with anyone and everyone in the name of living a little bit longer under an oppressive globalist regime they’re personally helping to empower.
[Editor’s Note: Contributed by JD Hall]