A Biblical Refutation of Russell Moore's Argument

Summary of Russell Moore’s Article

In the piece titled “What Happens When You Look Away from the Minneapolis Shootings” (Christianity Today, Jan. 28, 2026), Moore argues the following:

Key Themes

1. Moral Blindness Across Issues

Moore begins by referencing a 1981 column by novelist Walker Percy about seared consciences, describing people who ignore moral evils depending on what side benefits them.

2. Application to Recent Violence

He then connects that idea to two widely publicized shootings in Minneapolis involving federal agents (one involving Renee Good and the other Alex Pretti). He contends that some Christians are reluctant to condemn these deaths or rationalize them, depending on their political or tribal alignment.

3. Moral Accountability Beyond Politics

Moore warns that refusing to confront obvious wrongdoing, especially when it aligns with one’s political identity, leads to a hardened conscience and blurred moral judgment.

4. Romans 13 and Christian Responsibility

He laments that some Christians use Romans 13 to avoid critiquing state violence, implying a call-off of moral scrutiny if the state is involved.

5. Warning Against Tribal Moral Rationalization

Moore argues that conditioning moral outrage solely on “my side vs. their side” erodes moral discernment and ultimately distances believers from biblical moral truth.

Read the full article here:https://www.christianitytoday.com/2026/01/look-away-minneapolis-shootings-ice/

Why Moral Clarity Cannot Be Built on False Equivalence

Russell Moore’s article attempts to sound prophetic, balanced, and morally courageous. But beneath the rhetoric lies a serious problem: Moore constructs a false moral framework by collapsing fundamentally distinct categories of moral action into a single emotional narrative. In doing so, he confuses biblical ethics, misuses Scripture, and subtly shifts Christian moral reasoning from objective truth to subjective tribal psychology. His argument is rhetorically powerful but theologically weak.

Core Takeaways

• Moore describes a moral temptation where people justify or ignore violent deaths depending on political loyalties.

• He connects this to a broader Christian failure: prioritizing consistency within a tribe over obedience to God’s standards.

• The article insists that holding power accountable, even state power,  is a Christian duty.

• Moore frames this as a conscience issue, not merely a political one.

1. The Central Error: False Moral Equivalence

Moore’s entire article depends on one fatal assumption: That abortion and police killings in protest contexts are morally analogous. They are not.

Abortion:

• Is the intentional killing of an innocent human being

• Who is not threatening anyone

• Who is completely defenseless

• And whose death is the goal of the action

Police or State Violence:

• Occurs in complex, real-time conflict situations

• Often involves threat perception

• Can be morally wrong, tragically mistaken, or justified

• But is never intrinsically equivalent to abortion

Abortion is always the direct and intentional killing of the innocent. State violence is sometimes sinful, sometimes tragic, sometimes necessary. Moore collapses moral categories into emotional reactions. That is not prophetic; that is ethical confusion.

2. Moore Replaces Moral Law with Moral Psychology

Moore reframes sin not in terms of God’s law, but in terms of tribal bias.

His real concern is not, “What does God command?” but, “Are you being consistent with your emotional reactions across political tribes?” This is a massive shift.

Scripture defines sin by divine command, not by emotional symmetry, for “by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20) and “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4).

Moore replaces objective moral law with subjective moral consistency.

But God does not judge us by whether we are emotionally balanced. God judges us by whether we are obedient to His revealed will.

3. Moore Misuses Romans 13 and Biblical Authority

Moore repeatedly appeals to Romans 13 to suggest that Christians must adopt a posture of suspicion toward state authority.

But Romans 13 teaches the opposite of Moore’s framing, “For he is the minister of God to thee for good… he beareth not the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4).

The state is ordained by God to punish evil, restrain violence, and use force when necessary.

That does not mean the state is infallible, but it does mean the state is not morally equivalent to murderers.

Moore subtly moves Christians from submission with discernment to permanent moral suspicion of authority, which is far closer to anarchist political theology than biblical Christianity.

4. Moore Confuses Conscience with Emotional Reaction

Moore claims that a “seared conscience” is revealed by how emotionally disturbed you are by various deaths.

But Scripture defines conscience very differently:

“I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.” - Acts 24:16

A healthy conscience is:

• Oriented toward God’s commands

• Not toward media narratives

• Not toward political optics

• Not toward emotional consistency

Moore’s model is not biblical conscience; it is therapeutic moralism.

5. The Abortion Comparison Is Morally Offensive

Moore’s use of Walker Percy is revealing. He equates a mother aborting her unborn childwith a citizen dying in a protest conflict. This is ethically grotesque.

The unborn child:

• Has committed no act

• Presents no threat

• Has no agency

• Has no defense

No police shooting, however tragic, matches that moral category.

Jesus never treated accidental deaths, political violence, or tragic conflicts as morally equivalent to “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck… than that he should offend one of these little ones” (Luke 17:2).

Moore flattens moral gravity, but the Bible never does.

6. Moore’s Real Theology: Moral Relativism in Evangelical Language

At the end of the article, Moore essentially says, “If good and evil are just power categories, then none of this matters.” But that’s precisely what his argument produces. He claims to oppose relativism, but his framework is relativistic.

• Moral judgment is driven by tribal identity

• Not by divine law

• Not by moral absolutes

• Not by clear ethical categories

This is not Christian ethics. It is postmodern moral reasoning baptized in religious language.

7. The Biblical Framework Moore Ignores

Scripture distinguishes clearly.

Innocent Life

“Thou shalt not kill.” - Exodus 20:13“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” - Genesis 9:6

Government Authority

“The powers that be are ordained of God.” - Romans 13:1

Moral Categories

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil.” - Isaiah 5:20

The Bible does not blur categories. It sharpens and clearly defines them.

The Deeper Problem with Russell Moore

Russell Moore consistently reframes Christianity around:

• Cultural credibility

• Moral nuance

• Emotional optics

• Political moderation

But biblical Christianity is built on:

• Moral clarity

• Objective truth

• Divine authority

• Fixed ethical categories

Moore wants Christianity to sound reasonable to the modern world. Jesus never tried to do that.“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.” - John 15:18

Final Verdict

Russell Moore’s article is not prophetic. It is therapeutic, relativistic, and rhetorically manipulative. It confuses moral categories, flattens ethical distinctions, replaces divine law with emotional consistency, and baptizes postmodern moral psychology in Christian language.

In the name of compassion, it loses truth. In the name of balance, it loses moral clarity.In the name of conscience, it abandons biblical ethics.

And that is far more dangerous than any culture war.