We have previously discussed the cultural Marxist heresies of the Southern Baptist cuckservative theologian Russell Moore, who currently serves as the president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Moore reached a new low this week, however, besides ousting the Confederate Battle Flag from a historically Southern denomination, in defending his active support for the increased institutionalization of anti-Christian religion in the United States, when he was asked about his commission’s support for the erection of an Islamic mosque in Bernards Township in New Jersey.
The planning board representing Bernards Township, which is 82% white, back in December 2015 voted down an application from The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge to build a 4,252 square feet mosque on Church Street. The Islamic Society filed a lawsuit accusing the planning board of violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, passed by Congress in 2000. An amicus brief was filed on behalf of the Islamic Society, fighting for the establishment of the mosque on the basis of religious liberty. In addition to Moore’s ERLC, the brief was also signed by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey.
With that in mind, Pastor John Wofford from Armorel Baptist Church of Armorel, Arkansas, during this week’s annual meeting of the SBC, inquired how Moore could actively work towards the establishment of a temple for false worship, especially in light of the well-known violent and militant nature of this particular false religion. Moore defended his stance with mockery and haughtiness:
Moore’s heretical response is at odds with the historic doctrines of Christianity for a number of reasons:
1. Firstly, the historic Reformed confessions clearly teach that, on the grounds of biblical passages such as Lev. 24:16, II Kings 18:4, II Chronicles 15:12, 19:8-11 and 34:33, the civil government has the duty to suppress false religions in the public domain.1 Even chapter 24 of the historic Second London Baptist Confession (1689) list among the duties of the civil government the protection of good and punishment of evil (chapter XXIV). Thus, even according to the historic doctrine of Moore’s own ecclesiastical tradition, he confuses good and evil when he says Baptists have to stand up for the civil “freedoms” of everybody.
2. In principle, Moore is right in saying that Christians should support freedom for all. The problem is that he confuses the traditional Christian concept of liberty with the Enlightenment view of liberty. Christ taught us that liberty is dependent upon truth (John 8:32). The nineteenth-century French counter-revolutionary philosopher, Hugues-Félicité Robert de Lamennais, beautifully teased out this infallible claim:
Liberalism can never reach the liberty for which it strives, for the false principles that guide its quest necessarily distance it from liberty. Because it denies divine authority, it denies the possibility of all legitimate authority. . . . Because it denies the existence of an immutable, universal law of justice and truth, universally obligatory, it denies that any authority has any rule other than its own thought and desire, and is obliged to either destroy all authority and consequently society, or to accept slavery.2
Moore is not defending true liberty. He is defending the continued conquest and enslavement of Western Christian peoples by foreign powers. Islam, like all false religions (including secular humanism, cultural Marxism, and Judaism), infiltrates a society and culture with lies leading to slavery and death.
3. Moore wishes to be the apparent champion of limited government against the error of Erastianism. But Moore is again making a logical-philosophical error, revealing his heretical adherence to the false libertarian notion of liberty. All governments – even anarchist societies – inescapably have a theological foundation. Scripture critiques anarcho-libertarian-sanctioned idolatry in Israel prior to the era of the monarchy (Judges 17:5-6). In this sense one can speak of all forms of government as being “theocratic” or “establishmentarian.” The only question is: Who is the nation’s theos? Which religion will be established?
In light of Moore’s open-borders policy, one can easily deduct that his so-called “principled pluralism” is merely a veil for his apologetic for the continued advance of the kingdom of the gods of multiculturalism and egalitarianism in the West. His true agenda is betrayed by his description of the establishment of churches of Christ as a form of “self-interest.”
4. Finally, Moore’s semi-Marcionite antinomianism falsely dichotomizes law and gospel. Christ taught us that if we love Him, we will keep his commandments (John 14:15). This really isn’t difficult to understand, though it clearly remains a huge stumbling block to all antichrist modernists like Moore. His claim that the national institutionalization of Christianity creates false Christians is as absurd as saying that criminalizing murder makes men hypocritical non-murderers. I can’t imagine Saudi imams telling their followers that Christianity needs to be equally tolerated publicly in their country to keep their Islamic hearts pure.
May God grant the true (now largely invisible) church in the South the courage to speak up against the anathemas of Moore and the heretical SBC leadership, who, in the spirit of all the godless kings of ancient Israel and Judah, are working actively to destroy true religion.