Moral Character and Public Officials

In 1998, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) released a statement on moral character and public officials. Many will recall this was at the height of tensions between the Clinton administration and the GOP. The Culture Wars were raging and many Evangelicals were in a state of apoplectic rage, convinced that Clinton was a communist determined to bring America down. They and their allies were doing all they could to combat his administration.

After the stunning victories of 1994, the Right suffered defeat in 1996 as Clinton won a second term. Mid-terms were on everyone's mind in 1998 and by the end of the year the GOP dominated House of Representatives would move to impeach Clinton. The subsequent Senate vote in February 1999 would fail and Clinton would actually leave office more popular than ever. In many respects the hypocrisy of the Right, came back to bite them, their moral umbrage was rejected as insincere. And it was only later that everyone learned just how hypocritical and disingenuous it really was as something of the moral character of the GOP leaders would be revealed – or rather lack thereof.

It was in this context that the SBC released this document. Well do I remember all the rhetoric and even sermons about character and how Clinton had demeaned the office by his life, character, and conduct, before and while in office.

Character was everything it seemed and the Right thought they had their man with George Bush in 2000, but already the hypocrisy had returned. The drug use that had drawn so much criticism to be directed at Clinton was glossed over when it came to Bush – who patently had been far more abusive in that area. Why? Because Bush had a narrative of his conversion which ironically was later revealed to be a fabrication.

Obama generated rage but they never could assault his character and as far as the drugs issue, that ship had sailed.

And then Donald Trump arrived on the scene. By the end of the Obama years the character argument was officially dead. Donald Trump makes Bill Clinton look like a Boy Scout.

A few people took note of this in 2016, reflecting on how the Evangelical support for Trump marked not just a watershed but really the end of the original movement that had begun with Falwell's Moral Majority in the 1970's. One could argue the defective and frankly pathetic character of Jerry Falwell Jr. also played a role in this.

But as is often the case, many of these voices simply rolled over and ended up backing Trump and even collaborating with his administration. Character no longer matter. All they cared about was winning.

A few highlights from the SBC text are worth looking at:

WHEREAS, Some journalists report that many Americans are willing to excuse or overlook immoral or illegal conduct by unrepentant public officials so long as economic prosperity prevails; and

WHEREAS, Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment (1 Kings 16:30; Isaiah 5:18-25)

Be it further RESOLVED, That we implore our government leaders to live by the highest standards of morality both in their private actions and in their public duties, and thereby serve as models of moral excellence and character; and . . . Be it finally RESOLVED, That we urge all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office, and to elect those officials and candidates who, although imperfect, demonstrate consistent honesty, moral purity and the highest character.

Here's the link to the full text:

https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/resolution-on-moral-character-of-public-officials/

And not only did the Evangelical movement (and the SBC) abandon this stand with the advent of Trump, something else happened. They turned against those who continued to argue for character.

In 2016 David French pointed out that when Russell Moore tried to apply these standards vis-à-vis Trump he was excoriated.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/do-southern-baptist-conventions-resolutions-contain-partisan-caveat/

I'm not a fan of French by any means, but he raises solid points in this article – even if it is at the National Review.

Certainly by these standards Church leaders who fail to uphold these expectations and imperatives should also be held accountable. Are they not guilty of strengthening the hands of those that do evil? Are they not approving of immorality and as false shepherds encouraging the Church to do the same? Read the excerpt once again-

WHEREAS, Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment (1 Kings 16:30; Isaiah 5:18-25)

By this reckoning, those leaders and even Christian leaders who supported and still support Trump are guilty of searing the conscience of the culture, spawning unrestrained immorality and lawlessness and bringing judgment. It seems pretty clear they've made a devil's bargain.

This would of course disqualify many within the SBC such as Franklin Graham, but at the very least Albert Mohler should be called out. The Far-Right accuses him of being 'woke' and other such nonsense. His real error is to be found in his support for and endorsement of a criminal and a grossly immoral man – Donald Trump.

Mohler is disqualified as a Church leader. If he had buckled in 1998 and supported Clinton, it would have cost him his job.

His current support of Trump should today.

I noticed he was critical of Trump's suggestion that the Constitution be set aside so the 2020 election can be overturned. And yet, if Trump is the nominee, will Mohler endorse him? We'll see, won't we?

As far as I'm concerned he's already abandoned any moral standing – and frankly so has the SBC. Its public policy arm was run for years by Richard Land, one of the most morally bankrupt Christian leaders the Evangelical movement has ever seen, and one still actively working to undermine and destroy the Church – even while he thinks he serves Christ and His Kingdom.

The SBC's actions in 1998 were already misguided. The motivations were wrong and rooted in many false assumptions and yet how innocent it all looks now some twenty-five years later. Why isn't this still a major news story – at least in Christian circles? The SBC, the biggest Protestant denomination in the country has made a major reversal over the past twenty-five years and many of its leaders have done a 180 degree turn on fairly substantial moral issues. That seems a pretty big story to me.