A continuation of the interview with Louis Moore on his tenure in “Baptistdom” denominational offices and his book, “Witness to the Truth.”

You are frank about how the local church can let down their parishioners: “When the chips are down, don't expect your fellow church people to care for their own.” There seems to be a theme in the book about being disappointed in people who were duplicitous, who would say one thing to your face and do another, who were friends at one point but who criticized your actions another time? Your Catholic neighbors seemed more Christian than your Baptist friends.

Southerners have long had a major problem with a cultural inclination toward talking sweetness while acting aggressively in roundabout ways. Psychologists call this passive-aggressive behavior. Because of their Southern background, Southern Baptists have too often, regrettably, incorporated this style into their behavior as well. I personally prefer people who “say what they mean and mean what they say” instead of sugar-coating negative actions with sweet words.

There is a standing joke about church politics. What is your overriding experience about working in denominational offices in that regard?

People working in denominational agencies, on church staffs, and involved in church politics can be as mean, vicious and underhanded as people in secular or office politics anywhere. I frequently hear from church-staff members or pastors who act surprised at the politics that occur in their offices. My usual response is, “This doesn't surprise me. People are people anywhere you go.”

I really think the naïveté and the expectation that church people will act differently contributes to the problem. The SBC, for instance, has a horrible problem with so many pastors and church-staff members being fired every year. That's no way for Christian people to treat one another. And it is often done in a sugar-coated but ruthless manner. I’d like to see the SBC as well as other denominations develop a web site listing all the “pastor-eating churches” that over and over hire bright new pastors, then beat them to a pulp before sending them packing. The size of the list would probably surprise a lot of people. The ministry is a difficult profession at best.   

What do you say today to people who might deride the church and its politics after reading your book?

People are people regardless whether they wear a clerical collar or some other religious garb or whether they refuse to ever darken the door of a church. The Bible teaches us how we are to act toward one another, but we Christians often act as if those teachings don't apply in our particular situations.

My support for the church as an institution is based on Christ’s creation of it and his statement that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Christ knew how weak and sinful his early church leaders were. Yet he still established the church anyway. The church is the best institution we have—absolutely not perfect but the best available right now.

You wrote about gossip, behind-your-back cutting remarks, written into that culture’s genetic code. Is this much of the same stripe where today people say Christians don't live up to what they preach to others?

Everyone seems to get caught up in fascination when church leaders stumble sexually and fall. The stereotype is that sexual sin is the number-one sin issue in the church today. I absolutely do not believe that. Yes, I've known many pastors and church leaders who’ve messed up in that area of their lives.

But I've known far, far more who have violated the Ninth Commandment about not bearing false witness against their neighbors. Gossip is the top sin in the church today. I found it certainly to be the trademark of Baptistdom. As a religion reporter on a secular newspaper for nearly 15 years, I observed it in other denominations as well. For good reason the Bible says the tongue is mightier than the sword.

You describe the nature of “First” churches that can probably be said of any denomination using that term. What is your point of view on First churches?

Regardless the denomination, when a church has the word “First” in its name, that automatically can communicate the idea of “traditional,” “establishment” and “unprogressive.” Typically, a “First” church has its roots in the early years of its city or locale.

That means the city's older, more established leadership and families probably attend there or were once members there. These churches reached their zenith years ago and are often coasting on their histories and pasts. Of course, exceptions to this stereotype exist.

But for the most part these “First” churches are less innovative, progressive or creative, except of course when they've experienced some kind of cataclysmic event such as a fire, shooting, near-closure or something so dramatic that it has shaken the leadership’s and congregation’s foundation into action.

It has been observed that there is a streak of authoritarism and autocracy in churches in general (let alone their denominational offices). I take it you found that in spades in the SBC? Is it the same today?

Absolutely!  The higher up the food chain you go, the more likely you are to find authoritarianism and autocracy in church hierarchies. Control seems to be a big issue for far too many SBC denominational leaders, particularly the agency heads and seminary presidents. But the SBC is not the only denomination that has this problem. Top-ranking leaders in other denominations are attracted to it as well.
 
You write that little has changed under the Conservatives from what it was under the Moderates. What do you say to people who read your book and want to have nothing to do with Christianity or the organized church? You mince no words in the allusion you make to Orwell’s Animal Farm: You write, “The Baptist pigs have taken on the odor and style of the humans they sought to replace in the halls of power within the denomination..”

---

The SBC structure today under the Conservatives is very similar to what it was under the Moderates. Yes, the Conservatives did away with some of the smaller commissions and agencies. These were mostly inconsequential anyway. Their work today is mostly still ongoing only under the umbrella of a larger agency.

The basic patterns of operation for the denomination remain the same. The personalities of some of the Conservative leaders are very similar to the personalities of some of the previous Moderate leaders. The main difference involves labels. Frankly, I believe some of the reigning leaders today would call themselves Moderates and espouse different stands had the other side won.

I am personally very disappointed with a number of things about the Conservatives. At the top of the list is the lack of freedom of the press within the denomination today. To me freedom of the press involves open and candid examination of all sides of an issue in an atmosphere of give and take. Too many Baptist journalists today, as well as under the Moderates previously, seem to define freedom of the press as their right to preach ad museum about their position on a particular issue.

The Conservatives rode into power proclaiming opposition to large bureaucracies (especially hidden, large salaries for executives), the Moderates obsession with statistics, and a number of other issues. Once in power they seemed to forget those agendas.

The SBC as well as many other denominations are in dire need of an overhaul that prepares them for the future in which equal access, authenticity and egalitarianism will be so much more important than structure, bureaucracy, power and control.

This is what I say to people who are disgusted with the church or organized religion and want to have nothing to do with it: “I understand your point of view. I've been in your shoes. However, I learned long ago that my faith is in God, not churches, church institutions or church people. I can’t give up on the church because God has never given up on the church. I’m sure God must look at churches today and just shake his head in disbelief that so many of them are the way they are — obsessed with money and material things, obsessed with human recognition rather than the recognition of God, marching to the beat of their cultures instead of God's Word, and too similar to the world in which they are supposed to be lights in the midst of darkness.”

How did you maintain your sanity? Wasn't there an emotional toll on you and the family? You say very pointedly, “I now realized that in this bewildering church bureaucracy, I could trust absolutely no one.”

Fortunately, my wife, Kay, is also my best friend. She stood by me when I felt as though I was walking through hell every day in the heart of SBC life. I also had some close friends in Houston and some other places whom I could call and talk with about the situation. Our pastor, Charles Page (First Baptist Church of Nashville), provided encouragement, listening ears and comfort. He had found Baptistdom to be as strange as I found it to be. And, of course, God was my anchor even when his church people were acting like a bunch of jerks.

---

---

When Billy Graham ran a ‘trial balloon’ past Louis Moore

Regrettably in the book I accidentally left out the story of Billy Graham’s visit to my office at the Houston Chronicle and our lunch together several blocks away at Houston’s Petroleum Club, courtesy the editor of The Chronicle at the time. As soon as Billy stepped into my cubicle and sat down, colleagues crowded around my door, peering over the portable walls to catch a glimpse of the man.

A few minutes later we walked to the Petroleum Club; I felt as though I was in a parade. Along the way people stopped and stared. Then when we arrived at the club filled with Houston’s elite, the wealthiest and most powerful in Houston’s establishment ceased eating and stared for what seemed like an eternity at my luncheon companion.

Billy sidesteps question

I asked Billy what he thought of the reactions along the sidewalk and in the restaurant. He humbly and graciously demurred, indicating he had not even seen them. I thought that was less than an honest answer. Either that or he is very non-intuitive and observant, and I don’t think he is either.

This event was four days before Billy turned 65. While I had requested the interview, Billy obviously had something he wanted me to write about; it wasn’t his upcoming Houston crusade. Carefully and gently he shared with me his dream to see his son, Franklin Graham, succeed him as head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

Being a “hound of religion news” I knew I had not read this elsewhere. Graham carefully planted the story in my mind, but left the details vague and, of course, stated that it was all up to God whether his desires worked out. After the story appeared, I was besieged with BGEA staff, who were clearly concerned about what the aging evangelist had told me.

One even tried to insinuate that I had misquoted Billy. I knew I had gotten the story right, so I offered transcripts of the interview taken from my tape recorder. In that exchange I realized what Billy had done: With much political acumen he floated a “trial balloon” with just enough  hedge words to give himself some flexible wiggle room afterwards.

Graham’s political skills

I always smile when I think about how crafty and clever Billy was in that interview. Did he “use” me to float that idea to his board and employees? Absolutely. Did it bother me? Absolutely not! I was glad to get the scoop, but more than that I was happy for the reminder once again that only God is above politics and political intrigue. Not Billy Graham. Not Pope John Paul II. Not W.A. Criswell. Only God is non-political and above the ways of men and women.