Theology Thursday - Ernest Pickering on "New Evangelicalism"

I’d actually argue that the Bible believing church is, implicitly, an anti-slavery society. Moses tells us that man-stealing is a capital crime, and prescribed strict limits for the practice including immediate release if they were seriously injured. (cue image of Frederick Douglass’ back) No “brown sugar” or bed-wenches for slave owners without strict limits—a female slave who was desired by her owner that way had all the rights of a wife, and really a little more. No stripping women to whip them. Sending them out after a limited period of time with resources so they could make their own way.

Paul adds to that by commanding a degree of kindness by masters, and most significantly by telling them to leave off threatening. Now parse that one out for a bit; imagine trying to get unpaid laborers motivated without threats. Paul’s administering, more or less, a death blow to Roman-style slavery in the church, and it’s worth noting that even among the pagans, Caesar Augustus decreed that no slave under the age of 30 could be freed. Evidently Roman slave owners had figured out that free men work harder, too, and wanted to get rid of the hassles inherent with owning slaves. In the South, most owners hired overseers—paid thugs, really—to do the whipping for them.

As a result of all this, Bible-believing churches became anti-slavery societies that decreed that no man who owned slaves or otherwise profited from the trade could be members. You simply cannot reconcile the peculiar institution with Biblical limits on slavery.

So Pickering simply ignores history and Scripture, really, in service of his—and Bob Jones’—rather indefensible repudiation of the civil rights movement, which again, I can’t reconcile with Galatians 3:28 or James 2:2-3. And yes, Larry, in a world where the evening news was telling about Dr. King, Bull Connor, Rosa Parks and bus boycotts, and the like on a daily basis, and where my great uncle would soon compare Ole Miss to his experience as a war correspondent, the odds that either Pickering or his readers would not make the connection between “be a good slave” and the Civil Rights movement are infinitessimal.

Let’s not defend this nonsense, brothers. Let’s admit it, repent of it, and learn our lessons.

I was in a church that took a strong separatist position including being involved in anything that approached what the leadership considered the social Gospel which to them involved being involved in showing love, mercy, and charity to those outside of our church. When our community was practically destroyed by a hurricane we were forbidden to participate in relief efforts such as handing out donated water with groups that involved other churches. We had 5 faculty families who lost their housing and they were forbidden from accepting any kind of assistance from groups that had churches involved. BTW, the church also did nothing for those families.

Sometimes it looks like some of us would refuse to carry an accident victim on a stretcher unless we had 3 others of our kind to help.

That’s not a command to the church as the church. it is a command to individuals.

Last I checked, the church is comprised of members. Individual members.

C’mon, man. You can do better than this. If someone handed out gospel tracts on a street corner, we would approve, and rightly so. If that same person helped his neighbor with some house work so that he had a chance to give the gospel, is that any less valuable?

[Don Johnson]

Mohler has said something to the effect that the fundamentalists were basically right but by their separatism they lost the opportunity to be an influence. It was on a podcast some years ago, I should have kept it for reference, but didn’t.

My point isn’t that he is exactly like the New Evangelicals in direct application, but in basic philosophy. I think this is behind the “co-belligerency” stands. In most cases, its a bridge too far and is a distraction from the Great Commission. The social gospel infects men’s hearts over more issues than merely feeding the hungry. I think you are way too optimistic about his philosophy and that you (and many other posters here) don’t have a good grasp of the culture of the 50s and 60s. You all tend to look at the past from a very “presentist” perspective, hence the judgementalism towards the previous generation of fundamentalists.

There are some things said here that bear some clarification. First, I am not sure where you are sensing the “judgmentalism towards the previous generation of fundamentalists” in my posts. I read through my posts on this thread and thought I was pretty charitable to both Ashcroft and Pickering. My main contention is that many of his criticisms do not apply to the CE’s of today. I also pointed out my disagreement with his take on social issues, but also explained how I understood why he made those statements in his context. I very much appreciate the legacy of Pickering and Ashcroft.

Secondly, I am always wary to presume to know the motives and intentions that lay behind an individual’s actions. Unless they have made direct statements revealing their intentions, I am reticent to assume I know what they are. Your contention that Mohler acts the way he does for the sake of “influence” may be true but can you back that up with a direct statement of his that he makes these compromises for the sake of “influence.” (I know you mentioned an article that you can’t remember about Mohler’s assesment of the fundamentalists, but to paint a man’s motives with such a broad brush based on an article you can’t remember where it was sourced bears some consideration) It is also important to understand what is meant by “influence.” Do you mean that Mohler is looking for secular validation and prestige or that he is looking to influence the world for the kingdom? In other words, when we start questioning motives, we start down a path of assumptions that we can’t really ever know. Perhaps I am too optimistic in trying to not discern and then judge a person intentions, but that is just how I am wired I guess.

Finally, you made mention of “social gospel” “infecting men’s hearts” and, if I understand you correctly, you are applying this to Mohler’s cobelligerent work with Catholics and Muslims, etc. Now let me be clear, were I in Mohler’s position, I would not have done those things. That being said, I don’t think his heart has been infected by the social gospel. It is one thing to believe that the gospel has social implications. The social gospel is something entirely different. When a Christian engages in social work, it does not have to be at the expense of the gospel. I think the charge that Dr. Mohler is being influenced by the social gospel goes too far. He is very clear on the message of the gospel. While we can debate whether or not the church should be involved in social work (personally, I think it can, so long as it does not become the main thing a church is about), we must make sure we are talking about the same thing. Christians with social concerns are not necessarily buying into the social gospel.

Last I checked, the church is comprised of members. Individual members.

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. If you recall, I was speaking of the church as the church. Not the church as individual members. That is a key distinction in New Testament ecclesiology.

You can do better than this.

Perhaps, but what, in your mind, would be better than a historic argument on New Testament ecclesiology and the church’s mission? Remember, all I asked for was New Testament evidence on the mission and actions of the church as the church on these sorts of issues.

If someone handed out gospel tracts on a street corner, we would approve, and rightly so. If that same person helped his neighbor with some house work so that he had a chance to give the gospel, is that any less valuable?

I am not aware of anyone who would have objected to either these things. Are you?

Again my request was simply that we talk about what God has revealed about the nature of the mission of the New Testament Church.

I’d actually argue that the Bible believing church is, implicitly, an anti-slavery society.

Bert, should we take this as an admission that you don’t have any NT evidence that Pickering was wrong. Pickering is referring to a historic argument about ecclesiology and the NT church, so while there may be some holes in it, it is not without significant support and significant merit. There’s a reason why the social gospel movement of the late 1800s and the NE tilt towards social consciousness was such a change. Because it was a change.

Arguing that abolition or other social causes is not the mission of the church is not the same as saying that they are good institutions or that they are not sinful ones, nor is it the same as saying that Christians should not engage against these things. It is simply a discussion about what God has revealed about ecclesiology and whether or not the Scripture is sufficient on that matter. Again, as often you invoke sola Scriptura and not going beyond Scripture, you seem to demur a bit on it here.

You are correct that Paul condemns kidnapping or manstealing. It is also correct that the NT commands slaves to be good slaves for the sake of the gospel, and it commands masters to be good masters because they too have a master in heaven. But it does not forbid slavery. Why? Perhaps because slavery in NT era is, in many ways, a different entity in many respects than what most people think of. It was quite a bit different in many respects than you seem to acknowledge here. It was quite often not free labor. It was, for some, a preferred status. And it was the status of many highly skilled people. So let’s not ignore the complexity of it. It is not completely what is typically thought of in terms of slavery. We can’t have a good discussion on it until we

And yes, Larry, in a world where the evening news was telling about Dr. King, Bull Connor, Rosa Parks and bus boycotts, and the like on a daily basis, and where my great uncle(link is external) would soon compare Ole Miss to his experience as a war corresponde(link is external)nt, the odds that either Pickering or his readers would not make the connection between “be a good slave” and the Civil Rights movement are infinitessimal.

I don’t know how you can read the 60 year old thoughts of now dead people may top the list. Furthermore, there are a good number of people who have no use for these things you condemn and would condemn as much if not more than you would who would hold Pickering’s position regarding the mission of the church. So as you say,

Let’s not defend this nonsense, brothers. Let’s admit it, repent of it, and learn our lessons.

I don’t think anyone here is defending nonsense. But I do think we need to take to heart the Scriptures and what they actually say. Surely they are sufficient for these things, are they not?

I note several quotes above with regard to Pickering’s thoughts on neo-evangelicalism and academia. For example,

Quite a bit of “assuming motives” on the part of Pickering here. For example, the old saw that neo-evangelicals simply wanted to be respected by liberals—perhaps some did, but if we take a look at the state of fundamental “educational” institutions at the time, exactly what choice did neo-evangelicals have? If they wanted to do real academic work, they weren’t going to be able to do it in fundamental institutions at that time. Pickering’s own theological degrees were from Dallas, after all, just as Clearwaters’ were from Kalamazoo College and the University of Chicago. They knew from experience that evangelicals couldn’t do academic work in the fundamental orbit.

and

The trouble I have with Pickering’s rhetoric mostly transcends the time frame; it’s that Pickering is assuming motivations in a fairly perjorative way when he knew from personal experience that there really wasn’t much of a place for academic level work in fundamentalism.

and

I don’t expect affirmation from academics because I know they don’t believe the truth that I do and teach. I will talk with and minister to them if they tolerate it, but trying to get a book published by Harvard University Press (for example) is going to entail sacrifices and compromises that I am not willing to make and neither should any seriously committed Christian.

All this from the same group that regularly criticize fundamentalism for its supposed lack of “scholarship.” Somehow, that irony is lost on the masses.

Furthermore, it’s easy for many of us to play armchair quarterback nearly 60 years after Pickering wrote what he did, too soon forgetting that the man undoubtedly had a first-hand understanding of the actions, motivations and relationships involved. Whose perspective on the metastatic cancer that is neo-evangelicalism is more accurate? I’m going with the man who had a front row seat.

I think we need to be careful using terminology of “social gospel” without mentioning Walter Rauschenbusch (the father of the “social gospel”) and Brian McLaren (the modern “social gospel” evangelist). The “Social Gospel” argues that Jesus is increasing his kingdom on earth through the social work of the church. Hence, missions is packing meals for Feed My Starving Children, or taking a trip to Honduras to dig latrines, or donating water filters to villages in Africa, or handing out sandwiches and blankets to the homeless. These are good things to do. I would dare say that these are even Christian things to do. But these are not the ministry of the gospel. Sometimes, an empty stomach will be a hindrance to the gospel - so you offer a meal with a gospel presentation. The risk in this is creating “rice Christians” (an older missions term).

Second, I think we need to be careful in discussing the concept of slavery (and I would add feminism and homosexuality to this) that we don’t end up arguing for William Webb’s Redemptive-Movement hermeneutic.

Schreiner on Webb: http://d3pi8hptl0qhh4.cloudfront.net/documents/sbjt/sbjt_2002spring4.pdf

I posted this on another thread, but it certainly deserves to be mentioned again here. Pastor Carlton Helgerson was once an influential player in Neo-Evangelicalism in its fledgling days and God delivered him from it. He provides a first-hand account in his booklet titled ​The Challenge of a New Religion and includes a thorough definition, description and exposé of its doctrine.

Some notable quotes:

Much has been written in opposition to the questionable practices of neo-evangelicalism. Books have also appeared in defense of such practices. Yet few seem to understand what this movement really is. Something needs to be said that will explain the nature of this movement, especially for the benefit of any who might assume that our aversion is limited to its methods.

As one who was deeply involved in the movement in its beginnings and who has since watched and studied its development, I can testify with knowledge.

Neo-evangelicalism is a slanted way of thinking which, like a virus, has infected many of us to some degree. I beseech my brethren to recognize the seriousness. To what extent has this virus entered our thinking? We should let judgment begin in our own hearts lest we criticize in others what we unwittingly nurture in our own minds.

Since both proponents and opponents recognize that mixture and compromise characterize the movement, it is not unreasonable to caption it as a new religion.

An obvious departure from Biblical fundamentalism is the assumption that some parts of the Bible are less important than others. This fallacy, which too many believers already take for granted, has done much damage in not a few Bible churches.

Neo-evangelicalism professes to be most anxious to propagate the gospel. It claims that the chief purpose of God is the salvation of man. This is an error.

Because of its ingrained philosophy and slanted theology, it employs unscriptural methods. It believes that the end justifies the means. Being wrong about God’s message, it follows that neo-evangelicalism will not pay attention to God’s method.

[Philip Golden Jr.]

Don Johnson wrote:

Mohler has said something to the effect that the fundamentalists were basically right but by their separatism they lost the opportunity to be an influence. It was on a podcast some years ago, I should have kept it for reference, but didn’t.

My point isn’t that he is exactly like the New Evangelicals in direct application, but in basic philosophy. I think this is behind the “co-belligerency” stands. In most cases, its a bridge too far and is a distraction from the Great Commission. The social gospel infects men’s hearts over more issues than merely feeding the hungry. I think you are way too optimistic about his philosophy and that you (and many other posters here) don’t have a good grasp of the culture of the 50s and 60s. You all tend to look at the past from a very “presentist” perspective, hence the judgementalism towards the previous generation of fundamentalists.

There are some things said here that bear some clarification. First, I am not sure where you are sensing the “judgmentalism towards the previous generation of fundamentalists” in my posts. I read through my posts on this thread and thought I was pretty charitable to both Ashcroft and Pickering. My main contention is that many of his criticisms do not apply to the CE’s of today. I also pointed out my disagreement with his take on social issues, but also explained how I understood why he made those statements in his context. I very much appreciate the legacy of Pickering and Ashcroft.

First, you mean Ashbrook, I am sure.

My comment “You all tend to look at the past from a very “presentist” perspective, hence the judgementalism towards the previous generation of fundamentalists.” was meant to refer broadly to the general tenor of posts here at SI, not to you speficifically. Perhaps if I had said, “Y’all” it would have been more clear?

I would say that your posts tend to be pretty even handed, though I think you are making unwise decisions about the ecclesiastical scene.

[Philip Golden Jr.]

Secondly, I am always wary to presume to know the motives and intentions that lay behind an individual’s actions. Unless they have made direct statements revealing their intentions, I am reticent to assume I know what they are. Your contention that Mohler acts the way he does for the sake of “influence” may be true but can you back that up with a direct statement of his that he makes these compromises for the sake of “influence.” (I know you mentioned an article that you can’t remember about Mohler’s assesment of the fundamentalists, but to paint a man’s motives with such a broad brush based on an article you can’t remember where it was sourced bears some consideration) It is also important to understand what is meant by “influence.” Do you mean that Mohler is looking for secular validation and prestige or that he is looking to influence the world for the kingdom? In other words, when we start questioning motives, we start down a path of assumptions that we can’t really ever know. Perhaps I am too optimistic in trying to not discern and then judge a person intentions, but that is just how I am wired I guess.

I think the obsessive concern over judging motives is unfortunately a debate killing tactic. We all judge motives all the time. Sometimes we are right and sometimes we are not. But the charge is used as a trump card to shut debate down. It’s like the term “legalism.” What do you say after that?

As for Mohler, granted it is extremely unfortunate that I didn’t keep that podcast. Neverthess, he did say it. The influence he was talking about was Christian influence over secular society. He, along with many, remembers when Christians had a lot of influence over public morals. He thought fundamentalists in their practice of separation from the world lost that influence, but thought the evangelicals still had it to some degree. I personally have not noticed that evangelicals who pursue this influence are having any bang-up success to speak of, but perhaps they are???

[Philip Golden Jr.]

Finally, you made mention of “social gospel” “infecting men’s hearts” and, if I understand you correctly, you are applying this to Mohler’s cobelligerent work with Catholics and Muslims, etc. Now let me be clear, were I in Mohler’s position, I would not have done those things. That being said, I don’t think his heart has been infected by the social gospel. It is one thing to believe that the gospel has social implications. The social gospel is something entirely different. When a Christian engages in social work, it does not have to be at the expense of the gospel. I think the charge that Dr. Mohler is being influenced by the social gospel goes too far. He is very clear on the message of the gospel. While we can debate whether or not the church should be involved in social work (personally, I think it can, so long as it does not become the main thing a church is about), we must make sure we are talking about the same thing. Christians with social concerns are not necessarily buying into the social gospel.

It isn’t the social gospelf of Rauschenbush to be sure, but I think Christianity has largely wasted a lot of energy, to no avail, in joining hands with unbelievers to reverse the tide of moral decay. This is exactly what the New Evangelicals were trying to do, its what Right to Life is trying to do, its what ECT is trying to do, its what the Manhattan Declaration is trying to do, its what Mohler’s cooperation with Mormons was trying to do. At best its a distraction from the gospel, but I think it is actually worse than that. It is a building of ties in cooperative efforts with people who aren’t brothers.

Ron Bean, I think, mentioned disaster relief in one of his posts. When an emergency situation happens, everyone needs to pitch in to help. He described a bad reaction from a local church. That’s too bad, almost incredible. But that’s not what I am talking about. Joining hands with unbelievers in attempting to mount a campaign for morality isn’t the mission of the church.

[KD Merrill]

I posted this on another thread, but it certainly deserves to be mentioned again here. Pastor Carlton Helgerson was once an influential player in Neo-Evangelicalism in its fledgling days and God delivered him from it. He provides a first-hand account in his booklet titled ​The Challenge of a New Religion and includes a thorough definition, description and exposé of its doctrine.

Some notable quotes:

Much has been written in opposition to the questionable practices of neo-evangelicalism. Books have also appeared in defense of such practices. Yet few seem to understand what this movement really is. Something needs to be said that will explain the nature of this movement, especially for the benefit of any who might assume that our aversion is limited to its methods.

As one who was deeply involved in the movement in its beginnings and who has since watched and studied its development, I can testify with knowledge.

Neo-evangelicalism is a slanted way of thinking which, like a virus, has infected many of us to some degree. I beseech my brethren to recognize the seriousness. To what extent has this virus entered our thinking? We should let judgment begin in our own hearts lest we criticize in others what we unwittingly nurture in our own minds.

Since both proponents and opponents recognize that mixture and compromise characterize the movement, it is not unreasonable to caption it as a new religion.

An obvious departure from Biblical fundamentalism is the assumption that some parts of the Bible are less important than others. This fallacy, which too many believers already take for granted, has done much damage in not a few Bible churches.

Neo-evangelicalism professes to be most anxious to propagate the gospel. It claims that the chief purpose of God is the salvation of man. This is an error.

Because of its ingrained philosophy and slanted theology, it employs unscriptural methods. It believes that the end justifies the means. Being wrong about God’s message, it follows that neo-evangelicalism will not pay attention to God’s method.

These passages contain no indication of what theological problems are actually inherent in neo-evangelical theology. Not a bit. These quotes are, really, great examples of the kind of “scholarship” that guys like Ed Carnell were eager to get away from.

Regarding the claim that it’s “indisputable” that reputation was the driving force for neo-evangelicals, that’s false, and really betrays a chicken/egg confusion. Reality is that, whether they were right or wrong, neo-evangelicals saw their fundamental brothers as needlessly isolated (see Ron Bean’s comment on hurricane relief; the isolation continues in places), and they wanted to end that isolation and re-enter the arena of ideas. (which is, Larry, not just getting degrees, as any number of guys with a sheepskin doing manual labor can tell you)

So the goal was to re-enter the arena of ideas with the hope of bringing the Gospel into that discussion. Their distress over the mockery and rejections they got are not simply at not getting acclaim, but rather represented sadness that they had not successfully entered the arena of ideas.

Over the long haul, though, I’d argue that they succeeded, and even corrected in large part the major criticism leveled against them; weakness on inerrancy. In terms of academic quality, they’ve got really a two decade head start over fundamental institutions at least. Let’s be blunt about the matter; evangelicals of various stripes far outnumber fundamentalists, and while they won’t be seen as FBFI-style fundamentalists, their theology is largely orthodox. They’ve absorbed the lesson Christ taught “he who is not against you is for you” of Luke 9:50, the lesson that Paul refers to in Philippians 1:18.

It had been years since I read Helgerson’s book. I remember when it was new. As I read the passage I was reminded again of the tactic of creating and an unnamed, shadowy, undefined, unnamed foe by describing the foe in generalities. At the time, for me anyway, it created a distrust and suspicion of anyone outside our camp. Occasionally the “Mark and Avoid” group would call out someone by name: Graham, Palau, and later Falwell; but generally the foe remained unidentified.

Yes, a lot of us do judge motives, but that doesn’t make it a smart thing to do. As a rule, it ends up as a “straw man” argument (I’d argue McCune’s book falls into this category) because there are usually multiple reasons that a person could have done something. It also falls into the general category of “ad hominem”; because Ed Carnell was motivated by a desire to exert more influence and receive more recognition, we can safely ignore his arguments.

I would have to guess that the clear violations of Ephesians 4:32 inherent in ad hominem and straw man attacks on neo-evangelicals most likely made them less likely to pay attention to whatever substantive criticisms fundamentalists had at the time.

[Bert Perry]

These passages contain no indication of what theological problems are actually inherent in neo-evangelical theology. Not a bit. These quotes are, really, great examples of the kind of “scholarship” that guys like Ed Carnell were eager to get away from.

Regarding the claim that it’s “indisputable” that reputation was the driving force for neo-evangelicals, that’s false, and really betrays a chicken/egg confusion. Reality is that, whether they were right or wrong, neo-evangelicals saw their fundamental brothers as needlessly isolated (see Ron Bean’s comment on hurricane relief; the isolation continues in places), and they wanted to end that isolation and re-enter the arena of ideas. (which is, Larry, not just getting degrees, as any number of guys with a sheepskin doing manual labor can tell you)

So the goal was to re-enter the arena of ideas with the hope of bringing the Gospel into that discussion. Their distress over the mockery and rejections they got are not simply at not getting acclaim, but rather represented sadness that they had not successfully entered the arena of ideas.

Over the long haul, though, I’d argue that they succeeded, and even corrected in large part the major criticism leveled against them; weakness on inerrancy. In terms of academic quality, they’ve got really a two decade head start over fundamental institutions at least. Let’s be blunt about the matter; evangelicals of various stripes far outnumber fundamentalists, and while they won’t be seen as FBFI-style fundamentalists, their theology is largely orthodox. They’ve absorbed the lesson Christ taught “he who is not against you is for you” of Luke 9:50, the lesson that Paul refers to in Philippians 1:18.

With the exception of the Southern Baptists (And the return of Westminster Seminary to a more historic position), where has the Evangelical world corrected weakness on inerrancy? If anything, evangelicals are shedding or redefining inerrancy at an alarming rate.

With something like 15 million members, isn’t an official SBC position on inerrancy pretty significant? That’s a full 20% of all fundagelicals if I remember correctly. There are also denominations—e.g. EFCA and PCA—that have never wavered in this to my knowledge. So while there were neo-evangelicals who introduced weaker versions of inerrancy, and while there are churches and even denominations that pursue this, weakened inerrancy is not, as far as I can tell, that prevalent among evangelicals.

Another good sign was a few years back—Steve Davis commented on this one—about Converge (the old Baptist General Conference) eschewing open theism.

To be certain, there are places where I (or you) might differ with the applications of inerrancy some churches/denominations make—the hermeneutic might appear different—but all in all, evangelicalism does not appear to be in a headlong rush to theological liberalism.

Unfortunately, Bird made a far better defense of inerrancy in that book than Mohler made. But if you look at some of the recent multiple views books (Inerrancy, historicity of Genesis, Adam), the Evangelical left is winning the debate/discussion from an intellectual/writing level. Vanhoozer and Enns make a better argument than Mohler made - even though I agree with Mohler. Mohler wrote his chapter like a theological politician. Enns wrote his like a liberal OT guy, and Vanhoozer wrote his like a philosopher.

I would draw a distinction between the churches, especially the rural churches and the city churches/academic institutions. Converge/CBA/Free churches in the rural areas are much more conservative than their city counterparts. I’m not certain of any Baptist in MN who would call Bethel seminary a “conservative” institution theologically - and Bethel is really the school for Converge students (Northwestern U of St. Paul is a more conservative school).
I am less familiar with the PCA, but it is only a matter of time for the EFCA to head towards a less-conservative position - if TEDS is still considered the “E-Free” institution. Vanhoozer? Thinks that someone has an “epistemological right” to believe in the historicity of the fall of Jericho “until proven otherwise” (still claims that such a position is friendly to inerrancy). Hoffmeier? Stumbles over the Exodus in places, and falls flat in his defense of the “why” of the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis. And the number of “conservative” scholars and theologians who accept some form of evolution or scientism is increasing, not decreasing.

In other words, on a popular level - the people seem far more theologically conservative than the academicians. But as we learned a hundred years ago with the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, as go the institutions, so go some of the churches. On a local church level, I think that the larger issues that we will have to deal with will be inerrancy, sexuality, and origins.

[CAWatson]

Unfortunately, Bird made a far better defense of inerrancy in that book than Mohler made. But if you look at some of the recent multiple views books (Inerrancy, historicity of Genesis, Adam), the Evangelical left is winning the debate/discussion from an intellectual/writing level. Vanhoozer and Enns make a better argument than Mohler made - even though I agree with Mohler. Mohler wrote his chapter like a theological politician. Enns wrote his like a liberal OT guy, and Vanhoozer wrote his like a philosopher.

I would draw a distinction between the churches, especially the rural churches and the city churches/academic institutions. Converge/CBA/Free churches in the rural areas are much more conservative than their city counterparts. I’m not certain of any Baptist in MN who would call Bethel seminary a “conservative” institution theologically - and Bethel is really the school for Converge students (Northwestern U of St. Paul is a more conservative school).

I am less familiar with the PCA, but it is only a matter of time for the EFCA to head towards a less-conservative position - if TEDS is still considered the “E-Free” institution. Vanhoozer? Thinks that someone has an “epistemological right” to believe in the historicity of the fall of Jericho “until proven otherwise” (still claims that such a position is friendly to inerrancy). Hoffmeier? Stumbles over the Exodus in places, and falls flat in his defense of the “why” of the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis. And the number of “conservative” scholars and theologians who accept some form of evolution or scientism is increasing, not decreasing.

In other words, on a popular level - the people seem far more theologically conservative than the academicians. But as we learned a hundred years ago with the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, as go the institutions, so go some of the churches. On a local church level, I think that the larger issues that we will have to deal with will be inerrancy, sexuality, and origins.

When it comes to Bethel and its relationship to Converge, although they are a Converge school, the converge churches (except for Minnesota) get more of their pastors and especially church planters from more conservative schools such as Grand Rapids Theological Seminary and Bethlehem Seminary.

(which is, Larry, not just getting degrees, as any number of guys with a sheepskin doing manual labor can tell you)

What does this have to do with me? Or were you talking to the other Larry? I didn’t say anything about just getting degrees. the new evangelicals wanted more than degrees. They wanted respectability and acceptance in the realm of ideas. You brought up the inability to get advanced degrees in fundamentalist circles.

it ends up as a “straw man(link is external)” argument (I’d argue McCune’s book falls into this category)

Are you saying that McCune’s book is a straw man argument? Have you read it? It is very well written with copious notes for someone who lived through much of it. You might call it a lot of things, but a straw man is one one of them. It is well documented for those who want to dig deeper.

[CAWatson]

I would draw a distinction between the churches, especially the rural churches and the city churches/academic institutions. Converge/CBA/Free churches in the rural areas are much more conservative than their city counterparts. I’m not certain of any Baptist in MN who would call Bethel seminary a “conservative” institution theologically - and Bethel is really the school for Converge students (Northwestern U of St. Paul is a more conservative school).

––––––––––––

[Joel Shaffer]

When it comes to Bethel and its relationship to Converge, although they are a Converge school, the converge churches (except for Minnesota) get more of their pastors and especially church planters from more conservative schools such as Grand Rapids Theological Seminary and Bethlehem Seminary.

Being a member for the past 17 years (following 28 years in IFB churches) of a large (and growing) conservative evangelical Converge church in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area, I’m not unfamiliar with Bethel and its relationship to Converge/the Baptist General Conference.

I believe we have ten men on staff who have (at least) an M.Div degree. Of those ten, only one is a Bethel Seminary graduate. Our senior pastor has his M.Div (2003) and Ph.D (2008) from SBTS. Some attended fundamentalist schools, including a pastor (now retired) who was a graduate of Central Seminary (from the Doc Clearwaters years).

Among the congregation, we have a large number of people who are either Bethel College/University or University of Northwestern (St. Paul) alumni (or other evangelical colleges). It may surprise some here that those folks attend services faithfully, attend ABFs, lead or attend small groups and/or Bible studies, volunteer, teach, tithe/give generously, pray, witness to their friends, co-workers, family members, and neighbors, read their Bibles, and otherwise do everything else that faithful members of fundamentalist churches may be known to do.

We also have a large number of people who have fundamentalist roots (such as me). Being within an hour’s drive of Owatonna, MN, we have a large number of Pillsbury graduates. Also graduates of Northland, Maranatha, FBBC (Ankeny) and other IFB schools. Fun fact: our most talented vocalist (imo) in our contemporary services (we have both traditional and contemporary) is a recent (within the past few years) graduate of FBBC.

And those are just the portion of the congregation who went to Christian colleges. I’d guess the majority went to secular schools.

And I’d say that easily half of the congregation has either a Roman Catholic or mainline (think “ELCA”) Lutheran background (this is Minnesota, after all). We also have many folks with thoroughly-unchurched backgrounds, and some former Mormons, Buddhists, Muslims, JW’s, and others…..

Larry, here’s where you confuse doing academic level work with getting a degree.

The idea that NEs were concerned about academic reputation is really indisputable, but I don’t think it was about the inability to get a degree in fundamental circles, as you seem to suggest. Have you read Promise Unfulfilled by Dr. McCune? He talks about the academic/intellectual issue on pp. 37-45 and then returns to it later I believe. That would be worth your to understand a bit more about this issue.

9:08 on Saturday. Yes, you did confuse getting degrees with the desire to do real academic work. And yes, I’m saying McCune’s argument is a straw man for the simple reason that it confuses the desire of doing real academic level work—competing in the arena of ideas—and reduces it to a simple clamoring for respect.

Way too much of this everywhere, and most sadly in my view in “my own tribe.” There are plenty of valid criticisms of neo-evangelicalism out there, so I really don’t even know why we would bother, even if it were indisputably true.

Tyler asked:

Here’s where the rubber meets the road - is there anybody here who would hesitate to sign the Nashville Statement(link is external), released today (I believe) by the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, out of fear it would be “cooperating” with “new evangelicals.

If I apply the separation rules I learned when I was younger I would say yes because it would mean signing with Mohler who signed the Manhattan paper. I’m expecting to hear crickets.

Concerning the Nashville Statement: At the moment, the signatures outside of the cover page are not public. I signed it (all it wanted was my name/e-mail - not position) because:

1. I’m a pastor

2. I agree with the statement

3. I’m already on public record (I wrote for the local paper on a similar issue)

Someone said:

It is one thing to believe that the gospel has social implications. The social gospel is something entirely different. When a Christian engages in social work, it does not have to be at the expense of the gospel. I think the charge that Dr. Mohler is being influenced by the social gospel goes too far. He is very clear on the message of the gospel. While we can debate whether or not the church should be involved in social work (personally, I think it can, so long as it does not become the main thing a church is about), we must make sure we are talking about the same thing. Christians with social concerns are not necessarily buying into the social gospel.

I think that we have been quick to draw a bright line between ‘social action’ (my term, and probably not the best one) and the Gospel, arguing that social action = social gospel. I also think that a lot of Christians today are pushing back against this idea as wrong. To be aware of social issues and injustices, like sex trafficking, and work to resolve those injustices, is part and parcel of ‘loving your neighbor as yourself’.

To say that the Gospel necessitates social action or social justice as a part of the Gospel is where many, many people go astray. I doubt anyone on this site believes that.

I have no qualms with the Nashville Statement as it currently reads and could affirm it without issue…but I will make any other comments on that thread.

So based on the relatively few quotes out of a roughly 9400 word document - and without reading the rest of it - you’re discounting it because it lacks “scholarship”? This man was smack dab in the middle in the middle of the neo-evangelical movement with first-hand knowledge of the motivations, philosophy and theology and yet you claim to speak more authoritatively on the subject?

Sorry. Not buying it.

Pastor Helgerson, like Pickering and Lightner knew whereof they spoke.

Much criticism is deservedly directed at Fundamentalists due to the bombastic nature of the ad hominem and other attacks on specific people outside its realm. If Carlton Helgerson had provided specific names, specific leaders, specific schools, etc, he would have been roundly criticized on these threads for being one of “them fightin’ fundamentalists.”

In other words, he’s condemned if he does and condemned if he doesn’t.

If the message doesn’t fit the desired template, the offended will grasp at anything for criticism.

Jay, James 2:15-16 comes to mind when considering whether some action is optional or required. Certainly James is at least saying that inasmuch as we have the ability to help a starving brother in Christ, that so much is required. No?

Perhaps some Scriptural and historical examples of social action would be good. You’ve got Paul’s rebuke of the magistrate who flogged him without a trial, Paul’s appeal to Caesar, John’s command to the soldiers to be content with their pay, the Macedonian/Corinthian collection for Jerusalem, Nehemiah’s rebuke of rich Jews who had bought their brothers into slavery while building Jerusalem up again, etc.. In the early church era, you’ve got care for all during plagues (recorded by Eusebius), rejection of the Circus Maximums and other combat theaters (even when Christians were not being killed), and adoption of baby girls left out to die—that was their pro-life movement, really.

Now perhaps it would be true that they didn’t set up separate organizations with by-laws, budgets, and officers like we do today, and it certainly is true that there were huge differences between their versions of abominable practices like slavery and abortion and ours, but let’s be real here. If we’re going to say the church isn’t called to take action because the ancient church didn’t use modern methods to solve problems that didn’t exist in that form back then, I think we’re splitting hairs and falling on the wrong side of James 2:15-16.

[KD Merrill]

So based on the relatively few quotes out of a roughly 9400 word document - and without reading the rest of it - you’re discounting it because it lacks “scholarship”? This man was smack dab in the middle in the middle of the neo-evangelical movement with first-hand knowledge of the motivations, philosophy and theology and yet you claim to speak more authoritatively on the subject?

Sorry. Not buying it.

Pastor Helgerson, like Pickering and Lightner knew whereof they spoke.

That would be the appeal to authority fallacy, and an appeal to authority that ignores the fact that the academic discipline of “history” often manages to see events more clearly than did the participants because historians can see the testimony of more participants than could contemporaries.

Now the entire booklet does (after many paragraphs) actually manage to name some alleged theological problems with neo-evangelicalism, but he provides no actual evidence for his position besides his own testimony. Lots of attacks on neo-evangelicals, so it’s a great resource to teachers of informal logic on what not to do, but if you want to argue that Christians that wanted to enter the “arena of ideas” had a home in fundamentalism, Helgerson is working against you.

[KD Merrill]

Much criticism is deservedly directed at Fundamentalists due to the bombastic nature of the ad hominem and other attacks on specific people outside its realm. If Carlton Helgerson had provided specific names, specific leaders, specific schools, etc, he would have been roundly criticized on these threads for being one of “them fightin’ fundamentalists.”

In other words, he’s condemned if he does and condemned if he doesn’t.

If the message doesn’t fit the desired template, the offended will grasp at anything for criticism.

Not at all. All Helgerson had to do to make his booklet useful was to actually quote neo-evangelicals on issues like inerrancy and partnership with unbelievers, explain why he disagreed and why it’s an important issue to him, and let his readers make their decisions. The stereotype of the “Fighting Fundamentalist” isn’t just that someone stands up for what he believes is right. It’s that he uses abusive rhetoric and sometimes even physical violence in lieu of a real argument.

As I’ve said a lot of times before, fundamentalism has a lot to add to the equation if only we’ll learn to actually address the issues we think are important and stop attacking people personally. But sadly, it seems as if a lot of us may be having trouble envisioning discourse without this kind of genetic fallacies.

Which is, really, what a lot of neo-evangelicals were saying six decades ago. Maybe it’s time “our tribe” learned our lesson on this whether others have learned it or not.

Yes, you did confuse getting degrees with the desire to do real academic work.

Bert, you are incorrect and it’s incomprehensible to me as to how you read this supposed confusion into anything I have said. I am well aware of the difference, having done one (multiple times) and not the other in any significant way though I have authored two documents that show up on major academic resource websites.

My point was simple and easy: the new evangelical’s desire for respectability did not have to do with the inability to get a degree/do academic work in fundamental circles, as you seemed to suggest in the following comments regarding the inability to do real academic level work in fundamentalism.

Thurs, 11:20 a.m.: If they wanted to do real academic work, they weren’t going to be able to do it in fundamental institutions at that time. … They knew from experience that evangelicals couldn’t do academic work in the fundamental orbit.

Thurs, 3:27 p.m.: [Pickering] he knew from personal experience that there really wasn’t much of a place for academic level work in fundamentalism.

Fri, 1:02 p.m.: those endeavoring to do good academic work had no likely home in fundamentalism at the time. In other words, “our tribe” helped create the neo-evangelicals by shunning the tools of academic inquiry.

You went on to note that (1) Pickering’s degrees (and Clearwaters’ degrees) were from elsewhere and (2) he should have clued in to the fact that fundamentalism did not have the place or the tools to do academic inquiry. Whether you are right or not on #2 about the tools, I was expressly saying that the place they got their degrees was not related to their ability to do academic level work.

The problem was more foundational—that the academic/intellectual issue of the era often involved denying or compromising major biblical doctrines (inerrancy, deity, miracles, etc.) for the sake of acceptance by the academic community. There were many NE who wanted academic/intellectual respectability and that was a major component of NE. Real academic work is not less than a degree (with rare exceptions) and usually an institution or organization in which to do it. Apparently in your mind from reading your words, the fundamentalists did not provide that and thus were partially the cause of new evangelicalism by shunning those tools.

I think both words and history show that the issues didn’t have anything to do with where they got their degrees and did their work. The issue was what beliefs were required.

And yes, I’m saying McCune’s argument is a straw man for the simple reason that it confuses the desire of doing real academic level work—competing in the arena of ideas—and reduces it to a simple clamoring for respect.

First, that’s not a straw man argument because Dr. McCune didn’t set up a false construct and then refute it (which is what a straw man argument is). He gives plenty of evidence for the issue at hand complete with quotations and references to firsthand/primary sources.

Second, you should read Dr. McCune’s book (again, if you have already read it). If nothing else read pp. 37-45. He doesn’t reduce it to a “simple clamoring for respect.” It is much more than that, and Dr. McCune helpfully gives it is in the NE’s own words and gives the citations for where you can read it yourself. He shows how “real academic work” involved denying some basic fundamental doctrines. He is not, like some here, just shooting from the hip. He lived through part of it and has done the research.

You should also read Marsden’s Reforming Fundamentalism. It would help the understanding of the issues of the era. It’s a fascinating read. And no, that’s not an appeal to authority. It’s appeal to things that are firsthand research.

So I have a real life example to pose to you gentleman. My local congressman contacted me, and about every other “faith leader” in his district, about a round table discussion centering on restoring civility to our public discourse. I knew that there would be Catholics, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Ethnic Catholics (Ukrainian, Polish, etc- have to understand the great Pittsburgh area a bit for those nuances), etc. It was being held at one of the largest mainline Presbyterian churches in the area (a church known for liberal theology and politics).

The question for you all to ponder: would you go? If you would, knowing the diverse “faith traditions” that would be there, how would you counter the contention that you were being ecumenical. If you wouldn’t, what are your reasons for not going.

In full disclosure, I went, and was horrified at how far liberal “christianity” (which, as Machen correctly argues isn’t really Christianity at all) has come. There was also a Jewish rabbi there as well. There was no appeal to the scriptures in the words that were given. Much was said quoting liberal thinkers. I sat there and thought to myself I really have nothing in common with these men. There may have been some general sense in which we were united in wanting there to be civil conversations in our national situation, but, you had to dig through so much liberal thought to get there that I was even more convinced that nothing beyond an open and equal discussion like we were having would be profitable nor worth the energies of my church or congregation.

That being said, the gospel was clearly presented by one individual in attendance. He boldly proclaimed that the problem with our public discourse is found in the deceitful and desperately wicked hearts of men and that the only hope to return civility to our public discourse is for men’s hearts to be turned to Christ. It was a bold and unapologetic proclamation of the gospel. Who did it come from? The regional representative for BGEA! After the round table, I thanked him for his witness (which, was bolder than the statements I gave) and we talked as brothers in Christ for about 30 minutes. As we left, I hit him with the question about cooperative evangelism and I got, mostly, the answer I was expecting, with a few surprising details filled in that I was not aware of. I told him that while I was pretty I sure I did not agree with the strategy, I would be praying for him and that I’d like to get to know him better as he has opportunity, which he seemed to also welcome. And his passion for the gospel was irrefutable and unstained by his compromise. While I don’t agree with him, I pray that God still uses him for gospel advance for the sake of the kingdom.

Phil, given what you said about it being about ‘restoring civility in public discourse’, I don’t have a problem with it and would have gone myself. It probably would open me up for all sorts of grief and ridicule, but the best way to restore civility is to remember several biblical principles like everyone is an imagebearer of God and that Jesus commands that we love all men. Those are points that can and should be communicated with unbelievers in the audience and platform.

It is because we have real, substantive answers to these kinds of sin issues - as opposed to the empty pablum of liberal theologians - that I feel like it’s even more appropriate to be involved and present. John MacArthur has done this sort of thing on many occasions with Larry King Live, and I’ve always felt it was the right approach to take.

I was talking with a friend yesterday and mentioned our role as Christ’s ambassadors (2 Cor. 5:20), and now I’m thinking a little more about the role of Christian as Ambassador. It’s something that I’ve known about but never anything that I’ve thought long and hard on, and it is probably time for me to do so as I navigate the world we live in.

But I understand that others here may not feel the same way.

[Philip Golden Jr.]

So I have a real life example to pose to you gentleman. My local congressman contacted me, and about every other “faith leader” in his district, about a round table discussion centering on restoring civility to our public discourse. I knew that there would be Catholics, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Ethnic Catholics (Ukrainian, Polish, etc- have to understand the great Pittsburgh area a bit for those nuances), etc. It was being held at one of the largest mainline Presbyterian churches in the area (a church known for liberal theology and politics).

The question for you all to ponder: would you go? If you would, knowing the diverse “faith traditions” that would be there, how would you counter the contention that you were being ecumenical. If you wouldn’t, what are your reasons for not going.

It’s not an ecclesiastical meeting, even though “ecclesiastical types” are present (and are the only ones invited other than the congressman and aides, I suspect). Since its not an ecclesiastical effort, you can’t be in partnership with the others that show up, you are there at the behest of the congressman to aid him in his understanding (perhaps). So, no problem if one chooses to attend.

Personally, I probably would not have bothered. I have been to enough gatherings like these that the general content of them is quite predictable and I don’t think my two cents would make much difference. So I would skip it.

But as I said, I don’t have a problem if someone decided to go.

So can I get involved with the local Christian pregnancy center because it’s not an ecclesiastical effort? Honest, I’m serious. One church I’ve been in said yes and another said no.

[Ron Bean]

So can I get involved with the local Christian pregnancy center because it’s not an ecclesiastical effort? Honest, I’m serious. One church I’ve been in said yes and another said no.

I don’t think you’ve given enough information for a good evaluation. The answer at this point would have to be, “It depends.” It depends on how it is organized and run and what entanglements are involved. Does it involve acknowledgement of everyone involved as Christian? Who runs it? And so on…

all of that is quite different from a one off information gathering meeting with a politician

The agency involved is staffed by Christians from a spectrum of Bible believing churches. They accept financial support from anyone except the government. They present the Gospel to clients and direct them to Bible believing churches for support. And they usually host an annual meeting for all supporters. Does that help?

Ron, if it’s a “Christian pregnancy center”, based on solely what you said in that first post, then I’d say it’s worth supporting. And any church that tried to ‘forbid’ you from helping is grossly out of line, IMHO.

I wouldn’t want to stand by while other Christians were busy fighting Moloch. But that’s me.

So I am getting the sense that most people would have attended the meeting I went to, so let me ask a follow up question. If I can cooperate with various “faith leaders” in a roundtable on restoring civility to our public discourse, how is that any different than Mohler speaking at BYU. Many of the qualifiers that “allowed” me to attend and participate would apply to Mohler’s cobelligerent work with Mormons and Catholics, the Manhattan Declaration being an exception of that which obviously had “ecclesiastical overtones.”

I don’t think anyone confused his speaking there as an “ecclesiastical meeting” but rather as an address on the dangers of progressive thought on marriage, family, and sexuality to religious liberty. Mohler even went to great lengths to state, at the beginning, that he and his hearers stood apart on theological issues, but that they had a common enemy in the moral revolution sweeping the nation. It was the leader of one academic organization giving an address to another academic organization. How is this different than my attendance and participation in a round table with Jewish and Liberal theologians who are all agreed that we need to restore civility to our public discourse? I am asking this question honestly as Mohler’s work with Mormons and Catholics in particular has been given as evidence of his ascribing to the basic philosophical tenants of New Evangelicalism.

[Philip Golden Jr.]

I don’t think anyone confused his speaking there as an “ecclesiastical meeting” but rather as an address on the dangers of progressive thought on marriage, family, and sexuality to religious liberty. Mohler even went to great lengths to state, at the beginning, that he and his hearers stood apart on theological issues, but that they had a common enemy in the moral revolution sweeping the nation. It was the leader of one academic organization giving an address to another academic organization. How is this different than my attendance and participation in a round table with Jewish and Liberal theologians who are all agreed that we need to restore civility to our public discourse? I am asking this question honestly as Mohler’s work with Mormons and Catholics in particular has been given as evidence of his ascribing to the basic philosophical tenants of New Evangelicalism.

Would he have made the same disclaimers speaking at a secular school? He sensed the awkwardness of his presence there himself and sought to justify it by his disclaimers.

If he was simply meeting with Mormon officials with a view to discussing things that can be done in the culture war, that would be one thing, but standing up and speaking for them is quite another. This isn’t hard to figure out.

I was uneasy with the BYU thing because Mohler is something of a “trophy” for BYU to show off to unsuspecting people they want to make into Mormons. We might suggest a decision tree:

1. Ecclesiastical partnership with nonbelievers? No.

2. Non-ecclesiastical partnership with unbelievers? It depends on what the likely outcome is—if it would likely end up being a selling point for heresy, probably no. If it’s simply that we’re working together against abortion, OK.

For many years, our church gladly cooperated with our local Right to Life organization. We announced the rallies to our church, and encouraged people to attend. I was invited to address one of the annual candle light vigils at the county courthouse before the two hundred or so in attendance circled the courthouse with lighted candles in a silent protest against Roe v Wade. We also attended the annual “life chain” with a couple of hundred people standing on either side of a busy street with signs opposing abortion and encouraging women to choose life. Our people usually comprised about 25% of the total attendance.

Slowly I realized that we could not continue. The year after I addressed the candle light vigil, a local Roman Catholic priest in his clerical regalia gave the address. As our people lined the busy street for the life chain, they were flanked by Roman Catholic nuns praying while fingering their Rosaries. Some of the signs said, “Jesus heals and forgives,” and the letters we received inviting us to these events stated that we were proclaiming the gospel to our community.

I appealed to our local Right to Life leadership to make these events strictly civic and moral, without the religious trappings, but to no avail. I had to explain to our people that we could not longer participate as we were giving the impression that we were united with Roman Catholics in representing the Gospel.

That’s my story. Every situation is different.

Mohler even went to great lengths to state, at the beginning, that he and his hearers stood apart on theological issues, but that they had a common enemy in the moral revolution sweeping the nation. It was the leader of one academic organization giving an address to another academic organization. How is this different than my attendance and participation in a round table with Jewish and Liberal theologians who are all agreed that we need to restore civility to our public discourse? - Philip

Would he have made the same disclaimers speaking at a secular school? He sensed the awkwardness of his presence there himself and sought to justify it by his disclaimers. - Don

I was uneasy with the BYU thing because Mohler is something of a “trophy” for BYU to show off to unsuspecting people they want to make into Mormons. - Bert

That wasn’t my sense of Mohler’s remarks at all. Here’s what Mohler said, taken from his website:

I deeply appreciate your invitation to speak at Brigham Young University and to address the faculty at this greatly respected center of learning. I am so glad to be on this campus, filled with so many gracious people, such admirable students, and so many committed scholars on the faculty. To many people, shaped in their worldview by the modern age and its constant mandate to accommodate, it will seem very odd that a Baptist theologian and seminary president would be invited to speak at the central institution of intellectual life among the Latter-Day Saints.

But here I am, and I am thankful for the invitation. The wonderfully prophetic Catholic novelist Flannery O’Connor rightly warned that we must “push back against the age as hard as it is pressing you.” I have come to Brigham Young University because I intend with you to push back against the modernist notion that only the accommodated can converse. There are those who sincerely believe that meaningful and respectful conversation can take place only among those who believe the least—that only those who believe the least and thus may disagree the least can engage one another in the kind of conversation that matters. I reject that notion, and I reject it forcefully. To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, that is the kind of idea that must not be cast aside lightly, but thrown with full force.

I come as a Christian theologian to speak explicitly and respectfully as a Christian—a Christian who defines Christianity only within the historic creeds and confessions of the Christian church and who comes as one committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the ancient and eternal Trinitarian faith of the Christian church. I have not come as less, and you know whom you have invited. I come knowing who you are—to an institution that stands as the most powerful intellectual center of the Latter-Day Saints, the most visible academic institution of Mormonism. You know who I am and what I believe. I know who you are and what you believe. It has been my great privilege to know friendship and share conversation with leaders of the LDS church, such as Elder Tom Perry, Elder Quentin Cook, and Elder Todd Christofferson. I am thankful for the collegiality extended by President Cecil Samuelson at this great university. We do not enjoy such friendship and constructive conversation in spite of our theological differences, but in light of them. This does not eliminate the possibility of conversation. To the contrary, this kind of convictional difference at the deepest level makes for the most important kind of conversation. This is why I am so thankful for your gracious invitation.

…This is what brings me to Brigham Young University today. I am not here because I believe we are going to heaven together. I do not believe that. I believe that salvation comes only to those who believe and trust only in Christ and in his substitutionary atonement for salvation. I believe in justification by faith alone, in Christ alone. I love and respect you as friends, and as friends we would speak only what we believe to be true, especially on matters of eternal significance. We inhabit separate and irreconcilable theological worlds, made clear with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity. And yet here I am, and gladly so. We will speak to one another of what we most sincerely believe to be true, precisely because we love and respect one another.

I do not believe that we are going to heaven together, but I do believe we may go to jail together.

My sense what that Mohler was clearly marking out his boundaries - I’m a Christian, you are not. I believe the Bible, you add to it. Etc…but we do have one thing in common - that we are all opposed to the moral revolution sweeping the nation. I see your point about the LDS using Mohler as a selling point, but since when does that ever excuse us from preaching the gospel? Doesn’t that kind of thing happen all the time, where unbelievers use believers to ‘prove’ whatever agenda they have or for whatever gain?

So in that vein, I don’t see it as much of a different thing. Furthermore, Mohler bluntly stated that salvation is by faith alone through grace alone in his remarks (see above). So why not take that opportunity to a roomful of high-ranking LDS leaders?

John MacArthur stated once that he would go to the Vatican and preach to the Pope if afforded the opportunity. Why not take an opportunity to at least present the gospel to a group of LDS who are trusting in works for salvation?

Here’s a follow up question for you three, and I’m taking it out of the academic/corporate realm now. If I befriend a person who is living with a partner out of marriage, or who is cheating on their spouse with another woman, should the sum and substance of all our conversations be about believing in the gospel and that alone? Or is it possible to be their friend even though I know about their life and they know about my faith and we agree that we disagree on those things? I’d rather have honest relationships with people that know where I stand than have stilted relationships based on ‘you need to get saved’ and nothing else.

My first reaction when I heard that Mohler spoke at BYU was negative. That changed when I heard what he said. He was clear in stating the Gospel and that there was a clear difference between him and BYU. Inn the aftermath I recall that the condemnations of Mohler’s appearance didn’t mention his proclamation of the truth to a group trapped by error.

I agree with all that Mohler made it very clear that he was not there for any ecclesiastical purpose or entanglement. He was there addressing a civic and moral issue that Mormons happened to agree with him on. So how is that any different from being involved with an interfaith roundtable on a civic or moral issue whether it be restoring civility to our public discourses or combating abortion or standing against the sexual revolution?

Don, you mentioned that Mohler was “standing up and speaking for them.” I don’t think he was speaking for them. He was speaking to them, addressing the common concerns they both had and could work together for. It wasn’t gospel work. It was standing to combat the moral slide in America.

All that said, I don’t think this episode is an indication of the basic philosophical roots of New Evangelicalism as being present in Mohler’s actions and so, to the bigger issue, this is why I would argue that he is not like the New Evangelical’s of Pickering’s day.

I do think that it is important that we make distinctions between ecclesiastical and civic endeavors and, when a civic endeavor begins to have an ecclesiastical flavor, we must separate (As Barkman’s situation illustrates). But when there are no ecclesiastical entanglements, then we can cooperate without compromising our separatist ideals. This is not new evangelical. This is just responsible engagement with culture as salt and light.

[Philip Golden Jr.]

Don, you mentioned that Mohler was “standing up and speaking for them.” I don’t think he was speaking for them. He was speaking to them, addressing the common concerns they both had and could work together for. It wasn’t gospel work. It was standing to combat the moral slide in America.

All that said, I don’t think this episode is an indication of the basic philosophical roots of New Evangelicalism as being present in Mohler’s actions and so, to the bigger issue, this is why I would argue that he is not like the New Evangelical’s of Pickering’s day.

I’m not arguing that today’s evangelicals and yesterday’s New Evangelicals are identical in application, but rather that they are identical in philosophy. Their philosophy leads them to do things that can (and does) confuse the gospel presentation and/or the average observer. If you are an average Christian (vague category, I know) and you hear that Mohler spoke at BYU and you know that Mormons are making “evangelical-ish” statements, what do you conclude? Does the average guy look into the specific details of Mohler’s speach? Probably not.

That is why platforms and cooperation and such matters so much. We have a duty to the flock, not to world opinion or even to successful co-belligerency on moral issues.

(Tongue in cheek…sort of) I suppose someone would have questioned Paul about accepting an invitation to speak at a place dedicated to a pagan God regardless of what he said when he spoke there.