By Davis Carlton

Russell Moore’s atrocious but sadly all too predictable response to Uganda’s criminalizing of sodomy demands a response.

Uganda has recently taken steps to prohibit sodomy by punishing promoters of the same with jail and applying the death penalty for those who are guilty of “aggravated homosexuality.” This just doesn’t sit right with Christianity Today editor-in-chief Russell Moore, who is certain that this type of “authoritarianism” puts one on the “wrong side of Jesus.” Moore penned an op-ed published in “Christianity Astray” to voice his sore displeasure over Christians who would dare to voice their support for measures aimed at keeping people from their God-given right to pursue all manner of degenerate sexual gratification. If you think that I’m reading Moore uncharitably, then buckle up. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Moore begins by noting the social media reaction to Senator Ted Cruz in his denunciation of Uganda. Cruz reacted in horror to the news that Uganda was actively trying to curb sexual degeneracy and he thus reflects the spirit of the age in which we live. Ted Cruz still has aspirations for national political prominence, having run for President as recently as 2016. Cruz’s first attempt was stopped short by Trump’s populist rhetoric, but if Cruz wants another shot at the Presidency he knows that he has to take the “right” stance whenever an issue like this arises. Cruz cannot afford to stay silent because he has to signal to the establishment that he is “safe” and won’t actually try to oppose the establishment with whatever power that they would entrust to him.

Cruz tweeted, “This Uganda law is horrific & wrong. Any law criminalizing homosexuality or imposing the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’ is grotesque & an abomination. ALL civilized nations should join together in condemning this human rights abuse.” Russell Moore was pleased with Cruz’s take, who he suggests is “not known for repudiating the far extremes of his base.” Moore is particularly irked that that there are some who had the temerity to disagree with Cruz’s common sense position that “Uganda shouldn’t criminalize homosexuality and execute gay people.”

Moore flat out states that those expressing disagreement with Cruz are fools who are beneath his contempt, stating that he normally wouldn’t engage with such fools in allusion to Proverbs 26:4 (“do not answer a fool according to his folly”). This is Moore’s modus operandi that is consistent with how he handled a question from a Baptist pastor questioning his absolutist commitment to what Moore terms “soul freedom” in his defense of building places of worship for false gods in a once Christian land. Moore is typically smug and treats genuine Christians to the right of him with disdain for what he considers their ignorance, apathy, and moral backwardness.

Moore behaves the same way in his response to those who defend Uganda’s opposition to sodomy who he accuses of “trolling” that “can lead to two catastrophic ends that should concern those of us who follow Christ.” Moore’s two concerns are that the new law in Uganda violates both the Law, “the unjust killing of human beings made in the image of God,” and the Gospel, “the bearing of false witness about what the Christian gospel actually is.” What follows proves definitively that Russell Moore understands neither the Law nor the Gospel and is at the very least unqualified for Christian ministry.

Moore calls the provision of the death penalty for those convicted of aggravated homosexuality “chilling” and implies that this makes Uganda a “repressive regime.” For his part, Moore acknowledges how a Christian could be stupid enough to think that Uganda is right to criminalize sodomy, “After all, they say, doesn’t the Bible dictate that “if a man has sexual relations with a male as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable [and] are to be put to death” (Lev. 20:13)?”

Moore pauses to assure his readers that he does believe in the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture on the basis of what Jesus says in John 10:35 (“the Scriptures cannot be broken.”) He also concedes “that marriage is a one-flesh covenant between a man and a woman and that sexual expression outside of that covenant is wrong.” Two interesting observations are in order. First, after telling his readers that he accepts the inerrancy of the Bible, Moore makes no attempt to ground his belief that marriage is a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman on any particular teaching of the Bible. Instead Moore insists that he is “a Christian who agrees with the teaching of both the Scriptures and the church—Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant, for 2,000 years.”

This brings me to my second observation. Moore seems to lump all sexual sins together when he states that “sexual expression outside of” marriage “is wrong.” This is true enough, but not all sexual sins are equally heinous. The reason that we should be suspicious of this kind of rhetoric is that many have tried to flatten all sins together in order to lump faithful Christians in the same category as those who practice all manner of degeneracy and promiscuity. In this understanding practicing sodomites, adulterers, and fornicators along with genuine Christians all struggle with sin, just different sins. Recently some have even attempted to further downplay the severity of sins like sodomy. This idea has been popularized by the likes of former Southern Baptist Convention president J.D. Greear who suggests that the Bible “whispers” about sins like sodomy while “shouting” about sins like greed, materialism, and religious pride. This is simply not the Biblical understanding as Paul makes it clear that sodomy is a heinous sin that God gives society over to as a judgment when they are in an advanced state of rebellion (Rom. 1:26-28).

Moore seems to show a greater concern for establishing himself within the context of historic Christian consensus than in using divine revelation for confirmation of what is right or wrong. Moore must be well aware that this historic consensus is quickly faltering, and that the same Christians of ages past would have considered sodomy to be far more serious than Moore seems willing to concede. Moore seemingly rejects or at least ignores the historic Christian understanding of the difference in severity of various sins.

In spite of all of this, Moore claims that his “repulsion at the Ugandan state violence in this law is not despite those commitments but precisely because of them.” Moore continues, “One does not honor the authority of Scripture if one obscures its meaning. Leviticus 20 explicitly condemns almost every form of sexual immorality—premarital sex, extramarital sex, and nearly every other kind of nonmarital sexual expression. Sexual sins are included alongside occultic practices, necromancy, and the cursing of one’s mother and father…Yet the penalties of death that come with those violations are situated in a very specific context in redemptive history. God revealed that the theocratic civil code, as well as its punishments, was for a purpose: to separate his people from the rest of the nations to prepare them to enter the inheritance of the land (Lev. 20:26).”

The Mosaic Law is given within a particular context of redemptive history. No one is questioning that. However, Moore is wrong to state that the only reason that God gave this revelation to Israel was to separate them from other nations. This was certainly a purpose, but the Israelites were also told that they were to be an example to the other nations of justice and righteousness (Deut. 4:5-7). This establishes that the Law of God also has an ultimate evangelistic purpose. Jesus also affirms the justice of the Law which included the Mosaic criminal code when He said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:17-19).

Moore demonstrates an amazing lack of understanding when he states, “To cite such passages of the old-covenant civil law as a mandate for a civil state outside that covenant is a misinterpretation that doesn’t fit with any historic, apostolic teaching of Christianity. In fact, it’s in line with those who would argue against any ethical content of the Christian faith by saying, ‘Yeah, well, if the Bible’s true, we couldn’t eat shellfish either.’” Russell Moore also compares the argument for the criminalization of sodomy “to those who would say, ‘Well, the church in the Book of Acts shared their possessions in common’ as an argument for the state-imposed communist totalitarianism of Lenin, Stalin, or Mao.”

Russell Moore assumes that the apostolic abrogation of the Mosaic dietary restrictions means that the entirety of the Law no longer applies under the New Covenant. By this reasoning any principle taught in the Law that isn’t at least repeated by Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament would no longer apply. This wouldn’t just nix the penal code for criminal behavior, but also moral precepts like the prohibitions for activities like incest or bestiality. It is easy to demonstrate a difference between the particular Mosaic dietary laws and the more general condemnations of sexual crimes enumerated in the Mosaic code. The dietary code was particular to Moses and was for the purpose of distinguishing Israel from the other nations.

When Noah disembarked from the Ark after the Flood, he was told “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything” (Genesis 9:3). The dietary restrictions weren’t tied to something inherent in creation the way that other moral laws were grounded, so Moore’s comparison of shellfish to sodomy is irrelevant at best. Moore’s statement about the sharing of the early church recorded in the book of Acts is even more pathetic. The sharing spoken of by Luke was a voluntary and charitable decision made by individuals within the church. There was no compulsion from either the state or the church and it’s also clear from the context that private property was still retained. This has nothing to do with the leveling entailed by communism. Russell Moore is arguing in bad faith.

A central premise of Russell Moore’s article is that “Not everything that’s a sin is a crime. To equate all sin with crime, without the authority to do so, is itself a sin against God—to take the name of the Lord our God in vain.” No one is saying that “everything that’s a sin is a crime.” This is nothing more than a straw man. Of course not all sin is crime. The relevant question that Moore avoids asking is: how do we know what sins are also crimes which are punishable by law? Has God revealed this to us somewhere in His word? The answer to this is yes. Paul and Peter both predicate obedience to government upon the idea that God instituted government to punish evil and reward good (Romans 13:1-4 and 1 Peter 2:13-14). The Apostles don’t treat the evil to be punished or the good to be rewarded as though they were arbitrary categories subject to the whim of the reigning tyrant. Civil rulers no more have the authority to do so then church leaders have to invent new doctrines.

The author of Hebrews, referring to the revelation that God had already given the people of Israel, states that “the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution” (Heb. 2:2). Likewise, Paul lists several severe sins, sodomy featuring prominently among them, noting that “those who practice such things deserve to die” (Rom. 1:32), and “that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.” (1 Tim. 1:9-10). This is sometimes called the civil use of the Law, and John Calvin explains that it functions “by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.7.10).

Moore concludes with another ridiculous argument, “If the historic Christian vision of marriage and family is true and good and beautiful, as I believe it is, then we demonstrate that truth, goodness, and beauty to our unbelieving neighbors through our witness—not by threatening to kill them.” This kind of rhetoric is sadly all too effective in the modern church, but is lacking in substance. Moore could just as easily have made the same statement while substituting murderers and pedophiles. Like many Christians who have been deluded by the modern world, Moore simply doesn’t consider sodomy to be as severe as the Bible presents it. Moreover no one is saying that appropriately punishing crimes as the Bible describes precludes something like church discipline or personal witness. The question that Russell Moore and others in his camp must answer is how are we to distinguish ordinary sins from crimes that ought to be punished by the state? How can Moore answer this question without being entirely arbitrary?

Russell Moore is fond of gloating whenever the remains of Christian social order in the West are torn down as this is supposed to provide opportunities for “real” evangelism. On the other hand, liberal causes are championed by Moore as “Gospel issues” that must be socially and politically enforced. In this upside-down world, punishing sodomy is wrong because we are living under the new covenant and for some reason this means that we aren’t to concern ourselves with civil justice as it is defined in the Bible. At the same time we ought to oppose immigration restriction as well as efforts to deport those who have come here illegally because of the professed Christians among their number. These individuals Moore considers to be his true “family” because they supposedly belong to the “family of Jesus Christ” which somehow exempts them from respecting the boundaries and laws of other countries. Russell Moore calls good, evil and evil, good; the very thing condemned by the prophet Isaiah (5:20).

We need no further proof than to observe that the picture that Moore chose to use in Christianity Today as the head of his article shows a gay pride protest against Uganda, complete with the pride flag which stands for what the Bible clearly and unambiguously calls an abomination. Russell Moore is a hireling who condemns faithful Christians opposed to his absolutist libertarian stance on permitting idolatry under the guise of “religious freedom” while using his platform to promote causes that God truly hates. Moore has even received funding from George Soros in order to push his radical and anti-white, mass immigration agenda. Russell Moore is many things, but an actual Christian isn’t one of them.