Moore to the Point
By Russell D. Moore. Russell D. Moore serves as the teaching pastor at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Ky. In addition, Dr. Moore is the Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Find sermons and other resources to help Christians engage the culture from a biblical worldview at www.russellmoore.com.

You Are Not Your Worldview: Finding the Freedom to Let the Faith Defend Itself (2 Corinthians 4:1-6)

— Monday, March 8th, 2010 —

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

This sermon, “You Are Not Your Worldview: Finding the Freedom to Let the Faith Defend Itself” (2 Corinthians 4:1-6), was originally preached at Alumni Chapel at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on Thursday, March 4, 2010.

Great Commission Humility, Great Commission Power (Acts 18:24-28)

— Friday, March 5th, 2010 —

Great Commission Humility, Great Commission Power (Acts 18:24-28) from Russell Moore on Vimeo.

This sermon, “Great Commission Humility, Great Commission Power” (Acts 18:24-28), was originally preached on Sunday, February 28, 2010 at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. You can find more sermons and other audio from Dr. Moore at our media page.

Reflections on Adopting for Life 2010

— Thursday, March 4th, 2010 —

Now that I’m pulling myself out of the post-conference coma, I thought I’d give a few words of reflection on this past weekend’s “Adopting for Life” conference.

If I had to give a theme to the weekend, the theme would be “freedom,” a concept that is increasingly important to me. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, the Apostle Paul tells us, there is freedom (1 Cor. 3), and there was a sense of gospel freedom everywhere here, and in all sorts of ways.

Here’s what stood out to me from the weekend (in no particular order):

1.) Being with people I love, co-laborers in the orphan care movement, and listening to what God is doing. We’d sit at tables, all of us with children we’ve adopted, and talk about some of the peculiar challenges that come to adopting families. Then we’d listen to one another about what we’re seeing as needed work in the area.

At one point, I sat at the table and looked at Dan Cruver and Justin Taylor and Jason Kovacs and Maridel Sandberg and Tera Melber and Timothy Jones and so forth and so on, I thought about how much I love each one of these people and their ministries. It is evident in all these faces that God is doing something remarkable for the sake of the children of the world.

The unity of the Spirit was very evident. Many of us are quite different, different personalities, different churches, different theological nuances. The mission of Christ for the least of these, though, brought us together. That was glorious.

2.) Praying for one another, and for orphans and families and churches. On Friday night, the chapel floor here was filled with people on their knees, seeking the face of God, with brothers and sisters laying hands on them and praying. People hugged one another, encouraged one another, and (to that point) total strangers cried as they prayed for new friends.

I was able to pray with people who are infertile and grieving, with people who are thinking about whether God is calling them to adopt, with people who are discouraged about the prospects of starting orphan ministries. One man sought prayer in repentance for being an orphan maker, having abandoned his wife and children years earlier through divorce.

There was a freedom in prayer. It wasn’t “habbity-habbity-habbity, in Jesus name, Amen.” Broken people and hopeful people were crying out “Abba.”

3.) Andrew Peterson. Andrew Peterson is my second-favorite Christian musician, right after Michael Card. He still is, despite the fact that he made fun of country music right to my face, on Johnny Cash’s 78th birthday. He made up for it by wearing the “CASH” T-shirt I gave him the second day of the conference. I cannot overestimate how much I resonate with Andrew’s emphasis on Christ-shaped imagination, a theme that pours through his music. His rendition of “The Good Confession (I Believe)” always leaves me in tears, reflecting on how the gospel got from the white rocks of Caesarea Phillip to the blue carpet of Woolmarket Baptist Church, for me and in time.

4.) Lizette Beard. Lizette works for Ed Stetzer at LifeWay Research. She was in my first class I ever taught at Southern Seminary. She was adopted when she was a baby, and gave her testimony. Trust me; when the audio comes out, you will want to hear this. Lizette is one of the most gifted communicators I’ve ever heard. Everyone loved her presentation, especially adoptive families (and I’m including Maria and me) who were encouraged not to try to be “perfect.” Many people asked me after if she has “video series” and other such resources. LifeWay, you are missing an opportunity if you don’t unleash this gift! She’s got a lot to say, and she says it really, really well.

5.) Spending time with David and Heather Platt. Maria and I love the Platts, are grateful for what God is doing with them at Brook Hills, and thoroughly enjoyed talking about the joys and challenges of raising ex-Soviets in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. David’s sermon (on Ruth and Naomi) was jaw-rattling powerful. His and Heather’s humility and “normality” even more so.

6.) Working with my colleagues Dan Dumas, Jeff Dalrymple, and Robbie Sagers. Without any of these guys the conference never could have happened. And I’ll admit, I was a doubter. I said from the very beginning, “This is the first year, we’ll have twenty people. Let’s just meet in my office this time.” I was amazed to see the chapel packed with people singing and laughing and praying together. The conference was organized as expertly as any I’ve ever seen, with the events planning team pulling it off with excellence and Christlikeness. And Dan Dumas is a phenomenal crowd-motivator. We had a memorable time serving together, like nothing I’ve experienced in years.

7.) Secret conversations. One of my favorite things about the conference were all the “Nicodemus stage” folks I’d talk to. These are people who just aren’t sure about adoption or foster care or orphan ministry. They’re intrigued but not yet there. Some of them have one spouse who is there, and another who is not. For many of these folks, AFL2010 was a “safe place” where they could talk to people they may never see again and just “check it out” and pray. I think God is going to bless that.

I am thankful for brothers and sisters I love who worked so hard with me on this conference. And I’m thankful for all the men and women and children I now know and love as a result of this past weekend. I came home, and cried with thanksgiving that God is good enough to me to let me participate in this.

We Aren’t the World

— Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010 —

I have a post up on The Resurgence site today on misguided Christian outrage. The post responds to folks who’ve been asking me if I’m offended that the new version of “We Are the World” leaves out Willie Nelson’s line about the Lord from the 1984 version. I think there’s a bigger story here, about when and how Christians ought to be outraged.  You can read the article here.

How Much Do I Need to Know About My Potential Spouse’s Sexual Past?

— Wednesday, February 24th, 2010 —

Below is the latest installment of our “Questions and Ethics” series. As always, read the scenario below and let me know in the comments section what I should advise in the situation. What would you counsel?

Dear Dr. Moore,

I am a young single Christian woman. I made a commitment at a very young age to remain sexually chaste, and I’ve done so. I have dated other boys, but always just in groups in a very casual setting. Now, however, I am seeing a young Christian man who seems great in every way. We have dated for about a month, and I really like him. He treats my family (my father is deceased but my mother and sisters live near me) great, and all my friends like him.

Here’s my question. I am wondering what his sexual past looks like, in order to know what I’m getting into. Has he been with other women, sexually? If so, how many and in what way? Has he ever had a problem with pornography? With every week that goes by, I’m more and more in love with him, and I’m afraid to keep getting my hopes up only to have them dashed when we’re right at the point of marriage.

I’m not saying that any particular information would necessarily kill the relationship, but I’d sure like to know something about this to know what I’m getting myself into. It sure seems awkward, though, to say, “So tell me about your sex life?” Would that be forcing too much intimacy too soon? Is it right for a woman to be so forward with a man who’s not her husband? Do I ever need to know this?

My question: should I ask him about his past? If so, how should I ask it, and at what point in the relationship?

True Love Waiting

Okay, readers. What do you think? And, one more thing, how would your answer differ to her, if at all, if she were a man and the roles here were reversed?

Philippi Prison Blues: Finding Freedom in Gospel and Mission (Acts 16:25-34)

— Wednesday, February 24th, 2010 —

Philippi Prison Blues: Finding Freedom in Gospel and Mission (Acts 16:25-34) from Russell Moore on Vimeo.

This sermon, “Philippi Prison Blues: Finding Freedom in Gospel and Mission” (Acts 16:25-34), was originally preached on Sunday, February 14, 2010 at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. You can find more sermons and other audio from Dr. Moore at our media page.

Is Embryo Adoption Immoral?

— Monday, February 22nd, 2010 —

I received an email from a man who was upset about a couple in his extended family who are pursuing a so-called “snowflake adoption,” the adoption of a “frozen embryo” (to use, for clarity’s purpose only, the satanically clinical lingo of the current era). This couple had been led to do this after reading Adopted for Life, so he wanted to correspond.

How, he wondered, could I support this kind of adoption when I am opposed (and I am, strongly) to in vitro fertilization (IVF), donor assisted reproduction, and other technologies that violate the one-flesh union and the relationship between love and procreation.The same thing, he argued, is going on here with a donor embryo being implanted in an adopting mother’s womb.

First of all, there is no such thing as a “donor embryo.”

Someone can donate sperm or ovum or even a heart or a liver, but no one can “donate” an “embryo.” No one can “own” an “embryo.” An “embryo” isn’t a thing; he or she is a “who.” Our Lord Jesus is the pinnacle of the image of God (Heb. 1:1-3). He was an “embryo” (Luke 1:42-43). The “embryonic” John responded to our Lord’s “embryonic” presence in precisely the same way he responded to his adult presence on the banks of the Jordan River.

These so-called “snowflakes” are brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus are stored in cryogenic containers in fertility clinics as the “extras” of IVF projects. They already exist, and they already exist as persons created in the image of God.

And there are Christians called to adopt them, to bring them to birth through pregnancy, and to raise them in love. To be sure, the numbers of children who can be adopted in this way are a microscopic percentage of the whole. And the numbers even of those who can be safely brought to birth is even smaller.

Isn’t this simply an embrace of the kind of “Brave New World” Frankenstein technology we elsewhere lament?

No.

Adopting parents are not complicit in the “production” (I shudder to type such a horrible word in reference to a human creature) of these children. Again, the children are already conceived. The adopting parents are no more endorsing the technologies involved than parents adopting from an unwed mother are endorsing fornication or adultery.

Embryo adoption also doesn’t carry with it the violence to the one-flesh union that comes with surrogacy or sperm donation, in which one spouse’s genetic marterial is joined with a stranger’s.

Embryo adoption would be problematic if the adoptions themselves became a further commodity in the buying and selling transactions of the reproductive technology business or if these adoptions were a widespread incentive for couples to justify the decision to “create” and freeze additional embryos. This is not, though, presently the case and doesn’t appear to be likely to become so anytime soon.

Worse Than an Atheist: Work, Family, and Male Headship (1 Tim 5:8)

— Wednesday, February 17th, 2010 —

Worse Than an Atheist: Work, Family, and Male Headship (1 Tim 5:8) from Russell Moore on Vimeo.

This sermon, “Worse Than an Atheist: Work, Family, and Male Headship” (1 Tim 5:8), was originally preached on Sunday, January 24, 2010 at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. You can find more sermons and other audio from Dr. Moore at our media page.

Is It Okay for Me to Opt Out of Social Security? My Response

— Monday, February 15th, 2010 —

Last week I posted the following question. You weighed in here. Now it’s my turn.

Dear Dr. Moore,

I’m a young Baptist minister. As I was about to be ordained, I was told that I’d now be considered “self-employed” for purposes of paying my Social Security payroll taxes. This means the church won’t pay th part an employer typically pays for social security, but I’d pay the whole thing on my own.

I was told though that there is a way ministers can “opt out” of the Social Security system altogether. It’s kind of a “conscientious objector” clause. What it means is that I don’t pay Social Security taxes now, and I won’t receive any Social Security at retirement, or in case of disability.

The reason I did this is because, frankly, I don’t think Social Security will be around for me when I retire anyway. I’m in my twenties and, given the entitlement mess our government is in, I don’t see any way the system is still around when I would need it.

Is it ethical for me to have opted out of Social Security?

Sincerely, Socially Secure

Dear SS,

The Social Security system isn’t based on voluntary “contributions,” but rather on taxes. Your money does not simply go into a pool for your retirement or disability but into a large system supporting those currently drawing benefits and providing the basis for the next generation of retirees.

Now, you may agree or disagree with whether Social Security is a good idea. You may believe Social Security is economically unstable. You may be convinced it won’t exist when you need it. You may think the entire project is unconstitutional and an illegitimate function of government. Whatever.

It doesn’t make one bit of difference when it comes to the ethics of this situation.

The Scripture commands believers to pay “taxes to whom taxes are due” (Rom. 13:7).

Keep in mind, these taxes were commanded to be paid to a Roman government made up of polytheist dictator-worshippers. Some of the taxes given by the New Testament Christians would have gone to pay for crucifixion stakes. Some would have gone to feed wild beasts for the bloody circuses. Some would have gone to buy incense to be burned in honor of the self-proclaimed deity of the Caesar. The believers are commanded, nonetheless, to pay their taxes.

Our Lord Jesus refuses to call his followers to withhold taxes from Caesar. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” Jesus announces (Matt. 22:21). This isn’t because Caesar is so monumentally important but because money is not. It isn’t worth subverting one’s witness or one’s God-ordained deference to authority.

You may wonder whether Social Security will be here for long. That’s debatable. Jesus clearly knew the Temple wouldn’t be there for long (Lk.21:5-6). But he paid the tax to maintain the temple, all the same.

“The sons are free,” Jesus tells Peter (Matt. 17:26), but he directs him to pay the tax “lest we offend them” (Matt. 17:27).

That’s really important. The payment isn’t because the resources are so important, necessarily, it’s because they’re not. Why would you make the distinctiveness of your kingdom identity seem to be about something as short-sighted as whether or not you pay your taxes? Mark the distinctiveness where the offense really is: the gospel of a crucified and resurrected King Jesus.

The so-called “opt out” for Social Security exists to protect the consciences of those preachers of the gospel who believe that public insurance is sinful, or who believe public insurance as it relates to ministry violates principles of the separation of church and state. I’m glad this conscience clause exists, for the same reason I’m glad there is a provision for “conscientious objectors” in our military policy even though I’m not a pacifist. These exception clauses protect religious liberty for all of us.

A Christian who believes all war is wrong, and that serving in the military would violate his conscience and Christian identity, can ethically register as a conscientious objector. A Christian who disagrees with the Iraq War as a misguided waste of American resources, should not use the “conscientious objector” provisions to avoid military service.

One might believe the decision to invade Iraq was unwise. One might believe American operations in Afghanistan are futile, because one thinks the Taliban will simply reappear once the troops leave. But one wouldn’t be right to resist a draft (if there were one) for those reasons.

The provision is there to protect the consciences of those who can’t fight without believing themselves to be fighting against their god. If the provision is used to allow anyone who disagrees with a particular war or with a particular military strategy to “opt out” of military service, the provision will no longer exist for anyone.

The same is true with Social Security.

There are times when Christians are called to resist the state. And there are times when Christians are right to avoid the payment of taxes. One thinks, for instance, of early American Baptists who went to jail rather than pay special taxes for the support of the established churches. In those instances, the resisters believed the payment to be a direct confrontation of obeying God or obeying men (Acts 4:19-20). And they went to jail for it.

As you make this decision, ask yourself whether you plan to preach and teach your people that participating in Social Security (as payer or recipient) is a sin against God. If the “opt out” provision were revoked, would you willingly go to prison rather than pay the tax? And, would your prison time be because you saw the choice as between Christianity and idolatry?

If the answer to these questions is “no” (as it seems from your question), then you are not a conscientious objector to Social Security taxes. To then “opt out” of paying them would be to refuse to do precisely what Jesus commands us to do: pay taxes. It would also give reason for offense to the mission field you’re attempting to engage with the gospel. And, by turning a protection of conscience into a political statement or a pragmatic economic benefit, it would imperil religious liberty provisions for your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Social Security may or may not be around when you retire. I don’t know. I do know this: your money definitely won’t be around when you’re dead. So why waste your religious liberty on holding on to a little bit more of it for a little while longer?

What’s your question or ethical dilemma? Send it to me at questions@russellmoore.com.