‘Look What They Did to Amos’

By Editor Bob Terry

The seminary student pastor was distraught. It had been a rough weekend at the church he served. Accusations had flown and harsh, stinging words had been said. He feared his days were numbered as pastor and was surprised, even shocked, by the sudden turn of events.

The young man hurried to the office of Clyde T. Francisco, renowned Old Testament professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, in a former generation. It was Francisco’s teaching that had inspired the young pastor to preach from the Book of Amos and the pastor was sure his professor could help him understand the plight in which he now found himself.

Francisco listened carefully as the young man explained how he had been so moved by the study of Amos that he decided to preach a four-week Sunday morning series from that Old Testament book. He had energetically preached the truths of the Scripture, he assured his professor, but the reactions of the people was not what he expected. By the end of the fourth week the congregation was practically up in arms because of what he said.

Important to the story is to remember that the Book of Amos offers a biting indictment of the culture, practices and people of Israel — including their worship. The theology of the day concluded Israel’s abundant prosperity was a clear indication of God’s blessing. Leaders apparently believed the fact of poverty for some was clear evidence of their unrighteousness while the rich were righteous.

Amos challenges that conclusion. He declares that observing proper forms of worship is not sufficient for a right relationship with God. Religion that does not result in the right treatment of the poor and helpless is worthless, he proclaims.

One commentary notes that the Book of Amos teaches greed can destroy our thinking and living and make us indifferent to others; beliefs must be measured against God’s Word not against popular preaching; and proper observance of religious practices are of no value if they are not accompanied by practical righteousness in dealing with others.

Francisco listened attentively as the young pastor shared how he had applied Amos’ teachings to the community where he served and to the church itself. Then, leaning back in his chair, the professor asked, “Well what did you expect? Look what they did to Amos.”

The prophet Amos and the young pastor both paid a heavy price when they applied the teachings of God’s Word to the practices of those around them.

That true story came to mind as reports mounted of opposition to Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention. Moore made a splash among Christian evangelical leaders and conservative politicians when he took the reins of ERLC in June 2013.

His articulate, reasoned approach to issues earned him hearings among Southern Baptists as well as in the nation’s halls of power.

Political issues

But during the run-up to the election for the United States presidency, Moore alienated some of his former champions by his opposition to Donald Trump. He argued that character mattered in a president and after the infamous Access Hollywood tape aired, chided evangelicals who he said were giving up their witness to win an election.

Critics said Moore was politicking. Moore retorted he was trying to speak prophetically from Scripture to an important decision in American life.

Either way Moore’s comments resulted in opposition. Louisiana Baptists voted in their annual convention meeting to investigate ERLC to see if Moore and the SBC entity represented generally held viewpoints of that state convention. At least one former SBC president said his church was considering changing the way it supports SBC work because of Moore’s statements.

Several other church pastors across the nation made similar statements.

This is not an effort to cloak Moore with a prophet’s mantel or to imply anything negative about his critics. Rather this most recent incident demonstrates how difficult it is to ask an entity to apply biblical principles to public issues in behalf of Southern Baptists. Equally difficult is to ask an entity to speak to Southern Baptists about their positions and practices in light of biblical principles.

As Southern Baptists we have asked Moore and ERLC to do both.

A cursory reading of the history of ERLC, formerly known as the Christian Life Commission, shows the variations of SBC reactions. As long as the entity reflects majoritarian opinions we are fine but let it say something that challenges what most people already believe and we go after their very existence.

Challenge or reinforce?

That history may indicate we really do not want ERLC to challenge us with biblical principles. Rather we want them to use biblical principles to reinforce what we already believe.

Yet our history illustrates how wrong popularly held beliefs of Southern Baptists can be. How can we forget the painful confrontation between biblical principles and Baptist practices during the racial crisis of the 1960s and 70s?

The history also may indicate we have not yet learned how to live together in a faith family when there are disagreements. Instead of trying to learn from one another we seem bent on destroying those with whom we differ. Sometimes we appear incapable of talking about theological issues or social positions without attacking the personhood of those holding varying views.

Amaziah, Israel’s high priest, told Amos to get out, to go back where he came from and to stop preaching his message in Israel. My seminary pastor friend received a similar message. If some have their way, then Moore might be added to that list.

Baptists in churches and conventions would be better served it seems if we learned to talk with one another about differences. God might use such conversations to give us additional insights and better understandings. Perhaps God would increase our appreciation for the complexity of issues and how God is working through others as well as through us.

Perhaps God would increase our humility to help us understand a majority does not override the teaching of God’s Word or that concern about self rather than concern about others raises questions about one’s relationship to the Father.

Somehow, someway we must learn to live together in the family of God even when we disagree with one another.