EU - Responding to Joe Boot, Part One

Joe Boot has offered his thoughts on how Christians should understand "the practice of voting, the role of the state and the true nature of freedom" and what implications this has on how we think about the EU. I do not know Joe Boot but I know people who have been taken in by his argument. I felt compelled to discuss his presentation at length not so much to defend the EU but to question the idea that an aversion to rules, pride in one's Protestant heritage, deep suspicion of Roman Catholicism, and fear of Islam add up to a coherent Christian political vision.

(It's possible to get the gist of this first part by scrolling to the section that begins with the question "What are the implications...?")

The first section, on "Navigating Britain's EU Referendum Decision," sadly employs the sort of language we have come to expect in this referendum debate and sets the tone for what follows. Speaking of the IMF (described as "closely aligned with EU institutions") as "suitably obliging" the UK government excuses Boot from engaging with the economic argument presented by the IMF. A slur will do. And maybe to warn us against taking the arguments of the Remain campaign too seriously, he considers it important to notice how "highly emotive" it is; he does not note that this is true for the Leave campaign as well. Clearly, we are not to expect a balanced presentation in this post. This is a fight between big, bad Goliath and heroic David and Joe Boot intends to give David all the help he can. He is right about this:

"Remarkably, then, the popular case being put forward for remaining in the EU is conspicuously missing any substantive appeal to a sense of shared European values, the public good of European institutions for Britain, of a shared European identity, or the importance of an ‘ever closer union’ that has actuated the expanding European dream for decades. Instead we are essentially hearing appeals to people’s immediate fears of potential economic problems rather than a more robust defense of and advocacy for the European vision and its institutions, in which Britain is currently embedded and continuously funds with tax-payer money."

Except that this is not really remarkable, given who does the arguing. Did anyone really expect that David Cameron would admit that his much touted "British values" are actually shared across Europe? Does the Conservative party have more than a small handful of politicians who dare to speak of the shared Christian heritage of Europe? The failure to see the public good of European institutions or to admit a shared European identity or to speak up for shared European values is widespread within the Tory party and certainly by the time Joe Boot wrote his post the whole referendum debate was still a matter of Tories debating each other. But this itself does not yet us whether there are in fact shared European values etc.

The economic argument is predictable. We are asked to look at Norway and Switzerland, noticing that they are doing well outside the EU. As always, this ignores that main motivations for Brexit are the desire to limit immigration from EU countries and to do away with requirements to submit to EU standards. In what sense can Norway and Switzerland who have to abide by EU rules and standards and have a higher proportion of EU immigrants than the UK be held up as examples now? But our interest is not really in the economics and we agree on how impossible it is to make reliable predictions. Martin Lewis is eloquent on this.

So what about the distinctly Christian argument? Joe Boot notes that Christians want to have their view of all human institutions controlled by Scripture and that there are four such institutions which God clearly established, namely marriage, family, the church, and the state. The separation of marriage and family into two institutions is debatable but we need not concern ourselves with this here. The use of the word "state" is potentially problematic for the discussion at hand. It is not used in any of the Biblical references given and not defined by Boot. The most important reference he cites is surely Romans 13:1-7, a passage that speaks of God instituting "governing authorities" and appointing "rulers" rather than establishing "states", let alone "nation states". Within the Roman empire in which Paul's letter travelled there would have been a good few layers of "governing authorities" and "rulers" from city magistrates via local kings to the Emperor, just as residents in Monken Hadley find themselves subject to layers of authorities from the Barnet Borough Council and Mayor of Barnet to the European parliament and EU presidents via Greater London authorities and Westminster. What might be the distinctly Christian argument for withdrawing from the authority of one of those rulers? Boot will not go as far as to claim that only democratically elected rulers are instituted by God or that only governing authorities covering a mono-cultural group are legitimate but neither is he going to tell us more about a Biblical concept of statehood.

He highlights the distinction between structure and direction. 

"The structure of something concerns God’s laws and ordained pattern – for example, for the family, church, and state. The direction of these spheres concerns the orientation that they have. There are various structures in God’s creation but only two directions. We are either oriented toward God or toward idolatry in marriage, family, church, and state."

This is an important distinction because it allows him to affirm that when marriages or states "fail", it is not the structure of marriage or state that has failed but the various actors involved. The true meaning here is that when marriages or states "fail" this does not question the principle or the rightness of having marriages or states (governing authorities). But the way he puts the distinction allows him to overlook the possibility of structural problems and failures. Some marriages and states are set up badly. Hence the following is an oversimplification.  

"In short, political challenges are at root fundamentally religious and moral challenges."

Yes, often they are. But sometimes there are practical and structural problems that need addressing and can be addressed without having to accuse anyone of idolatry or immorality.

What are the implications for our understanding of the EU? 

"First, the inescapable reality of sin means that the close accountability of civil government and its public officials to the people being governed is central to a Christian understanding of statecraft. The more distant and removed from direct accountability governments and their bureaucracies are, the greater the threat to people’s freedom and self-determination under God."

This is of course a standard argument. The EU is bad because it's far away. There are some practical issues that would need to be addressed here about how accountability should and can work in a global economy but, being entrusted with teaching the word of God rather than with state affairs, what worries me most  is the phrase "central to a Christian understanding of statecraft". It is of course not backed up by any reference either to the Scriptures or Christian tradition. From where did the ideal of "people's freedom and self-determination under God" spring and how is it defined? Why and in what sense is democracy central to an understanding of statecraft that seeks to be Christian? (I myself would want to explore what Orthodox Christians, Western medieval theologians, and the Church Fathers thought about this. I suspect that Boot's version of Protestantism makes such questions irrelevant.) And if "Christian" means "controlled by Scripture", where is the Scriptural argument for the supremacy of (national) parliaments?

"Second, what especially arises from the Christian understanding of the state, that is peculiarly relevant here, is the importance of maintaining realistic expectations of political institutions and so limiting institutional political power in the light of sin."

Apparently the founders of the EU had Utopian dreams and usurping the role of God. Sorry, I just don't think that having too high expectations of what the EU institutions could do if we only let them is the problem of our time. And Boot assumes rather than argues that reducing the geographical reach of political institutions equates with limiting institutional political power. The opposite may be true in all sorts of ways. People might have fewer unrealistic expectations of a government that is further away. Also, those who set their hopes in "a planned society, created by political engineering" will seek to reduce federalist arrangements (governments at different levels) in favour of centralisation. The suggestion that Eurocrats are planning for a Gleichschaltung of Europe is fear mongering. The EU will not overcome the problem of sin but neither will the UK leaving the EU lead to a significant reduction of sin, let alone overcome the problem of sin. Joe Boot acknowledges this. Yet he skews the discussion by suggesting that the case for remaining in the EU rests on the hope of "providing socio-political salvation through technocratic means."

For Joe Boot this is as a black and white issue. On the one hand is an idolatrous vision of salvation through the state. On the other hand, a state that humbly sticks to its basic tasks, "the restraint of evil and the commending of righteousness" and leave other things to human institutions that are not mentioned in the Bible such as charities and corporations and therefore should be allowed to operate without too much communal oversight by way of law and order. Anglicans might be tempted to dismiss this as the result of a faulty "regulative principle" found in some versions of Presbyterianism (if it's not mentioned in the Bible, it's not allowed; so no organs and no national health service either). But the problem goes deeper. Boot does not have a sufficiently broad view of evil. If companies can gain an economic advantage in the marketplace by exploiting workers and ignoring safety standards, by selling fake products or by using misleading labels etc., is that not evil? And is it therefore not the responsibility of rulers to enforce certain rules and regulations? If certain ways of going about your trade or engaging in fishing and agriculture come at a huge environmental cost which is borne by communities that are not party to the transaction rather than by the seller and buyer, is that not evil that needs to be restrained? Is evil no longer evil if addressing it might interfere with free trade?

EU - Some Thoughts

Ros Clarke posted some questions on the EU. Here a few thoughts

Questions of principle:
1. Is there greater political accountability in the EU or out of it?

Political accountability here presumably refers to what Nick Clegg calls "the basic democratic principle that those who makes the laws of the land should be elected by those who obey the laws of the land" or something like that. (I have obeyed UK law for close to two and a half decades without having a say in who makes the laws but I am not complaining.)  Unlike some Brits Nick Clegg is not convinced that Westminster and Whitehall are more democratic than Brussels and Luxembourg. I reckon the democratic deficit in either is indeed higher than in Berlin and Stuttgart for all the problems there are in Germany as well. Surely political accountability could be improved both in the UK and the EU. Ironically, the latter has been resisted most forcefully by those who most want the UK to leave the EU. For them giving the European parliament a greater role would be an erosion of national sovereignty.

2. Are the curbs on political corruption greater in the EU or out of it?

Adding political layers may increase opportunities for corruption. Then again corruption comes from those with money and power and in our world those with the most money and power are multinationals. It stands to reason that smaller nation states have less power to curb undue influence from big corporations. As for other forms of corruption, I see no reason to think that expenses scandals and "jobs for the boys" maneuvers in Westminster are best prevented by taking the UK outside the EU.

3. Will the increasing economic ties between EU countries continue to force increasing political ties? And if so, what does that mean for national democracy?

It may depend on how one defines politics and political ties. One of the errors of our time is a tendency to look at economics as if trade could ever be a-political. There is an appetite for greater democratic accountability and this likely means stronger political ties.

4. Is there any inherent benefit to having a smaller government or a larger one?

Instinctively, I like the idea of small governments but we live in a very complex world where reduced state interference (which is what small government is mostly about, I suppose) means less regulation which in turn means greater freedom for the powerful to abuse people and the planet. Eating local food (and less meat) is obviously better for the health of the planet but in a deregulated universe the costs of flying in food from far away places is not borne by seller or consumer of the particular good but by the wider community and so with much else. Government of God's creation is our vocation as humanity created in the image of God and not as individuals but as communities. If we want communities to act together and if we want decisions that affect the whole community to be made by the whole community (or their elected representatives), there is a limit to how small we can allow the state to get. Health care is another example. In the days when doctors could do little more than prescribe a little medicine and let some blood, there was less need of a national health system. Now the finances involved in medical care are such that most of us think it best to have some sort of insurance system and a case can be made for this to be best in public hands. This is not compatible with really small government. The quickest way to reduce the size of government is to privatise the NHS. Some of course want this but few admit to it.

5. Nation or empire? Superstate or federal state?

What actually is a nation? And what is an empire? It is often said that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman, was it an empire? (Surely it is not simply a question of whether there is someone called an emperor. The likelihood of the EU acquiring an emperor seems slim.) What is a superstate?  I have no great fears of the EU becoming centralised. After all, even the UK, traditionally no less centralised than France, has been moving towards federalism with a parliament for Scotland, an assembly for Wales, elected mayors etc. 

6. What is the role of the monarchy in an EU nation?

Many Brexiteers seem to seriously believe that a United States of Europe is on the cards, a political entity which ushers passports for its citizens. I don't. National parliaments won't be abolished, why should the role of monarchies change?

Questions of pragmatics:
7. Does the EU really give us greater national security?

I doubt it. Nor would leaving the EU.

8. Has the EU been effective in preventing armed conflict in Europe?

How would one measure this? I suspect that the greater movements of people, not only goods, makes armed conflict within the EU less likely. The greater interrelationships make it more obvious that everyone would suffer.

9. Is there any reason we couldn’t have generous and compassionate immigration policies if we left the EU?

Not in theory but the British mood is for more self-serving immigration policies and the more removed from the EU the UK becomes the easier it is for British people to think that the arrival of thousands of desperate people on European shores is surely "someone else's problem".

10. Is there any reason we couldn’t establish good trade agreements with EU nations if we left the EU?

Define "good trading agreements". There is little reason to think that the EU would budge on issues on which it did not budge in relation to EFTA countries. So if you want to limit immigration of EU citizens, you should be prepared to trade with the EU without a trade deal.

11. If we left the EU, how likely is that to trigger similar decisions in other EU countries and potentially cause the whole project to fail? What would the consequences of that be?

I find this impossible to predict. There is little chance that the UK would turn into an economic and democratic paradise as a result of leaving the EU. I suspect that developments in the UK might well discourage others from attempting a similar move. 

Sundays after Trinity Sermon Series, Part 2

I am going ahead with the sermon series on various means of grace (temple, prophecy, monarchy, law, covenant), as outlined recently. The first post suggested topics which could be explored; this one suggests pastoral issues that could be addressed.

29 May (Proper 4)
1 Kings 8.22-23, 41-43 -  nihilism: God gives identity and purpose.

5 June (Proper 5)
1 Kings 17.17-24 - death: God's word ultimately proves life-giving.

12 June (Proper 6)
2 Samuel 11.26-12.10, 13-15 - greed: Subverting God's order diminishes us all.

19 June (Proper 7)
Galatians 3.23-29 - rebellion against God: God's law has aim and purpose.

26 June (Proper 8)
1 Kings 19.15-16, 19-21 - weariness: Where God is committed, God remains committed.

The role of the Temple speaks of the role of the church - a microcosm model of the universe, a reminder of humanity's mission, a means to help us fulfill our vocation.

The role of prophecy speaks to us about the role of the Bible. We find there that our death is not reducible to a natural event but a judgement on our ways. And yet God's word has not been given to judge the world but to save it, to give the dead son back to the mother - alive (1 Kings 17:23; Luke 7:15).

Democracy is good in many ways but without vision a people perish. Where there is no demos but only a conglomeration of individuals with competing claims and agendas, democracy can turn into "horse-trading" and the tyranny of the majority. Monarchy is a gift, offering cohesion, but readily abused. David's adultery is an abuse of office as much as anything else. But we have a king who is greater than David, greater than Solomon, under whose rule all flourish and in whose service is perfect freedom. Monarchy speaks to us of the messiah who orders our desires.

Sin is manifest in the breaking of God's law but its root is lack of trust in God. Those who trust that God has our welfare at heart believe that God's purposes are good and that his law is not arbitrary. The law has more than one function - traditionally reflected in the threefold division of the law (moral, civil, ceremonial) although division is not the best approach. As a complete body, the Mosaic law is given to point us to Christ and needs to be read this way.

"What are you doing here?" Elijah's gets asked twice. He answers in the same way both times, focusing on himself and what those around him are doing which is not the way to shake off weariness. Sadly, his claim that "the Israelites have forsaken your covenant" was largely true. But this is no reason to give up because at the end of the day the covenant stands or falls with God's commitment. As long as God does not disown the commitment he has made, there is hope. The new covenant shows God's commitment to his people through sin and death.

Why Solomon Built a Temple

(A theological reflection rather than an attempt to read the mind of Solomon.)

It has often been observed that the creation of the cosmos, the making of the tabernacle and the building of the temple are described in similar and sometimes identical language. In ancient Near Eastern stories the establishment of a temple marks the final victory over the forces of chaos. David wanted to build a temple when God had given him rest from all his enemies; he was not allowed. The initiative was to be God's. First he was going to build a house (dynasty) for David's son, then David's son would build a house (temple) for him.

Temple building is world building. (God famously made the world in seven days; Solomon took seven years for the temple which he then dedicated in the seventh month.) Israel's temple was a microcosm of the universe:

• the courtyard representing the lower and habitable part (note the large bronze basin called "the sea" on top of twelve bulls and the altar of earth and uncut stone), 
• the holy place representing the visible heavens, i.e. the sky, with its lights, i.e. sun, moon, and stars (note the use of blue and purple colours and of precious stones), 
• the holy of holies representing the invisible dimension (note the sculpted cherubim around the ark of the covenant and the figures of the cherubim woven into the curtains).

(This is not entirely uncontroversial but acknowledged by a good range of scholars. The evidence is gathered in G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God [NSBT 17; Leicester: Apollos, 2004].)

This microcosm speaks of the mission of God's people. The very first sanctuary was the garden of Eden. (My Doktorvater, Gordon Wenham, argued this in his 1986 essay "Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story" and it has since been widely accepted.) The first man and woman were set in a garden but their task was to rule over the earth as God's image-bearers. As Beale notes, 

"it is plausible to suggest that they were to extend the geographical boundaries of the garden until Eden covered the whole earth. They were on the primeval hillock of hospitable Eden, outside of which lay the inhospitable land. They were to extend the smaller liveable area of the garden by transforming the outer chaotic region into a habitable territory...[putting] 'finishing touches' on the world God created in Genesis 1 by making it a liveable place for humans in order that they would achieve the grand aim of glorifying him." (p. 82)

The vocation of humanity as priest-kings consists of managing and caring for the earth, maintaining its order and guarding against corruption - 'gardening' in the widest possible sense. The ultimate goal is to fill the whole earth with God's glory.

As Adam's commission was passed on to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Israel small sanctuaries were built 'like planting a flag and claiming the land' for God and his people in the case of the patriarchs and claiming the people in the case of the tabernacle, all anticipating the larger-scale construction in Jerusalem where God's election of a land and people become focused in a city and dynasty.

The commission was not passed on unchanged. Because of Adam's sin, the commission demands additional work (subduing evil) and receives additional grace (a special relationship with God).

"Abraham's descendants were to be a renewed humanity. They were to bear God's image and 'fill the earth' with children who also bore that image, being beacons of light to others living in spiritual darkness. They were to be God's instruments through whom God caused the light of his presence to shine in dark hearts of people in order that they too might become part of the increasing expansion of the temple's sacred space and of the kingdom. This is none other than performing the role of 'witness' to God throughout the earth." (Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission, 117)

Solomon built the temple because God's purposes for the whole world were to be fulfilled through the agency of David's son. Fast forward to the end of the Bible, Revelation 21-22.

Everything of which Old Testament temples were typologically symbolic, a recapitulated and escalated Garden of Eden and whole cosmos, will have finally been materialized. The holy of holies stood for the invisible heavenly dimension of the cosmos where God dwelt; the holy place represented the visible heavens; the outer court symbolized the visible earth (land, sea, the place of human habitation). God's special presence that was formerly confined to the holy of holies, which was the essence of temple reality, will at last encompass the whole new earth and heaven because of the work of Christ. At the very end of time, the true temple will come down from heaven and fill the whole creation, as Revelation 21:1-3, 10 and 22 affirm." (Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission, 369-70)

This is why the new heaven and the new earth = the new creation = the new Jerusalem = the true temple,

"the two outer sections of the temple ... have fallen away like a cocoon from which God's holy of holies presence has emerged to dominate all creation" (372)

This will have been accomplished by Christ in whom the church is the true end-time temple.

1 Corinthians 3:16 
Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?

Ephesians 2:20-22 
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.

1 Peter 2:5 
like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

The microcosm that speaks of the mission of God's people also enables it by being a meeting place. The temple is a place of revelation and sacrifice, "the communications switchboard connecting heaven and earth" (Peter Leithart), the place where heaven touched earth.

There was only one such place to ensure the unity of God's people, enacted as they assembled for the major festivals, under one king who proclaims and enacts judgement from this place.

It was to be "a house of prayer for all peoples" (Isaiah 56.7; cf. 1 Kings 8.41-43) which is why Jesus got so angry about the way in which praying was reserved for Jews with the court of the Gentiles being given over to commerce (Mark 11.15-17).

Why We Have Prophetic Books

“A theological explanation of the existence of the prophetic books may put it this way: God had called a people into a special relationship with himself, giving them a land of their own, addressing them in their cultic ceremonies with the assurance that he had made a covenant with them, and defining their character as his people in terms of a law. He had given them priests to instruct them, kings to maintain justice, sages to guide them, and prophets to warn and exhort them when they forgot who they were. It had not worked. neither Israel’s worship nor daily life was truly distinct from their neighbors. They were no true witness to the nations concerning the character of their God, and the fate of widow, orphan, immigrant, and the poor in their midst was no better than in other countries. With the rise of the great empire builders in the Middle East – Assyria, followed by Babylon and Persia – God determined to do a new thing, in effect to start over. The little kingdoms of Israel and Judah would lose their political existence forever, but out of the death of Judah, God would raise up a new people, who would understand about God what most of their preexilic ancestors had never been able to comprehend, and who would commit themselves to obeying his will to an extent their ancestors had never done. The first step in making that happen was to raise up a series of prophets, messengers of God, whose responsibility was straightforward. They were no reformers; it was too late for that. They were to announce what was about to happen, to insist that it would not happen because God could not protect them from their enemies, but that God intended to use the disaster for his own purposes. They were also preachers of the law; the standards of behaviour which, if obeyed, would produce a community of peace and harmony in which all would benefit. The standards had failed, so far, but when the disaster came, and all was lost, the words of the prophets were remembered. Other prophets begun to explain that God had a future in mind for a renewed people, and the combined message of judgment and promise was finally be taken with the utmost seriousness by the exiles in Babylonia. If there was to be a future for them as the people of Yahweh, they had better pay attention, and they did, for out of the exile experience did come a new people. Once the new community, Judaism, had begun to be formed there was no more need for divine messengers of that kind. , and eventually the Jews recognized they were no longer being addressed in that way. The more normal attributes of religion – organized worship and instruction in faith and ethics – were working with this transformed people as they had not worked with Israel prior to the exile. The kind of prophet represented in the canonical books is thus the one who appears when God determines that a radical change in human history must come about."

Donald E. Gowan, Theology of the Prophetic Books: The Death and Resurrection of Israel (Louisville: WJKP, 1998), pp. 9-10, offering in effect a synopsis of his book.

Sundays after Trinity Sermon Series

The Sundays after Trinity offer a good opportunity to offer a sermon series focusing on a biblical book or theme. I have reasons to be reluctant to abandon the lectionary provision. When we were last in year C I took the opportunity to exposit Paul's letter to the Galatians, following the lectionary provision. I covered the passages that the lectionary omitted in the evenings. A similar series on the Old Testament is harder to do because we have pew sheets that follow the "related" OT provision.

Here is a first draft of a series on covenant institutions, using the lectionary provision creatively.

29 May (Proper 4)
1 Kings 8.22-23, 41-43 -  temple: the particular and universal God

5 June (Proper 5)
1 Kings 17.17-24 - prophecy: the death and resurrection of the people of God

12 June (Proper 6)
2 Samuel 11.26-12.10, 13-15 - monarchy: power and submission

19 June (Proper 7)
Galatians 3.23-29 - law: preliminary rules from an eternal God

26 June (Proper 8)
1 Kings 19.15-16, 19-21 - covenant: form and freedom in relationships

Personhood

"The person is not a static thing. The person is always an event. The person is open to infinite dramatic possibilities. Insofar as the person becomes utterly repetitious, predictable, shallow, closed-off, unloving, and riven by fear, one is confronted with a distorted, wounded condition that is the opposite of genuine personhood. The person is both a gift and a calling. Personhood is from the beginning, but the flourishing of personhood requires eternity, requires a resurrected body no longer narrowed by the restrictions of fallen time. Yet human personhood must begin in time. The human person is first called into personal being by the loving smile of the mother—indeed, all of nature requires the nurturing sympathy and initial call of maternal love. Persons do not begin in striving, but in wondrous receptivity. Whatever accidents or cruelties of perverse malice that later come and put in question the goodness of existence, primal development will not happen without the womb, without a nesting and a love that welcomes the newborn into existence. A feral child, bereft of human community, will not acquire proper language, will not be capable of initiating or sustaining truly human relations. The person, in short, is intrinsically and fundamentally a relational being. Relations are not “added on” to an initially separate “atomized self.” The whole modern conception is built on a failure of understanding or upon a lie.

Yet this is only an analogy of being. Analogy points towards a reality that outdistances our conceptual comprehension and our imaginative reach. Nonetheless, we are creatures “made for revelation.” We are the face of nature given lips to kiss the divine. Before the conatus essendi [the result of all our striving efforts], there is the passio essendi [our being as fundamentally gifted prior to our choices, actions, and determinations]. Before the call of the mother, there is the call of the Father. The call of the Father is for the Son—and all of creation participates in the Logos. The logoi of creation find their root in this eternal event. This is why the true name of everything is Christological. This is also why the person transcends the limits of egological construction. The uniqueness of the person, the singularity of an irreplaceable being—and I personally extend this to all being, the beasts, the plants, the granules of sand, though the realization of singularity finds its optimal expression in spiritual being—this “self” is simply the loving will of the Father that the other should be. To refuse to love this self is an act of arrogant ingratitude. It is only in acceptance of the gift of personhood that one is metaphysically capable of love."

--- Brian C. Moore