"Recognizing him at the event is one thing, but naming a pavilion after him?"

As I seek to build and recover and build and recover ground, does that mean that I need to name something after a famous “LDS Christian” here in the community to show “love”?

Popping in here tonight and not having read in any discussion on this … ok, let’s take this from another angle …

In the theocracy, would the Lord have wanted King David to name a pavilion in honor of King Saul?

Maybe that is a little closer to the heart issues.

as recorded by the Holy Spirit in 2 Samuel 1:19-27. David understood that God had appointed Saul. David honored Saul in heart and soul during Saul’s life and upon Saul’s death. David - depite the persecution - considered Saul worthy of honor and not “dishonor”. The Lord inspired David to craft a lamnet to his king that will stand through eternity. The principle on which SWBTS is standing is biblical and refreshing. God puts kings, govenors (like Pilate/Jn19:11), and seminary presidents in their positions for His purposes. This OP blog reminds me of Jesus teaching in Matt 7:3.

Jeffrey, I brought in this illustration because I thought it could be used as pro-text for SWBTS in these circumstances. David did have so many deep heart connections with the first king of Israel and his family.

But as we get all the way down to the days of King Josiah, would it be in any way puzzling to us if he named pavilions after incompetent kings before him who did not shepherd or lead the sheep in godly ways and to green pastures. I mean, what would Jeremiah say biblically about honoring those kinds of shepherds.

Not all discussions are just about pharisaical speck finding, friend.

Could he have gone further in his reform?

post was pro or con. My reference to “speck finding” concerned Dave Doran and his blog.

This OP blog reminds me of Jesus teaching in Matt 7:3

Two questions:

1. What is the log that you are suggesting is in Doran’s eye?

2. Are political rulers (i.e., Saul) of the same type of issue as religious leaders (i.e.., seminary presidents)?

own fields. That’s is where our authority lies and is the heart of our responsibility.

Yes political rulers are due the same honor that religious leaders are due in the sense that God places both classes in their positions. Jesus, David and Daniel understood this is a spectacular way. Many believers have missed this concept completely and refuse to grant even the most cursory honor to their leaders.

Instead the default behavior is to villify anyone that doesn’t believe, act, or look like us. President Obama’s very name becomes a spiritual curse word spit out with venom and vile. Senator Clinton’s name is accompanied by an eyeroll. Billy Graham doesn’t fair much better. Basic courtesy is so rare among God’s church. Basic courtesy doesn’t mean you agree with the person. Basic courtesy is being Christ-like.

I like about this situation with SWBTS . They are honoring a man with which they have had major disagreements. They (SBC leaders) recognize that he gave 30 years of his life to that school and that he contributed in many ways to its outreach today. They recognize his authority (like Pilate’s) came from God. (Rom 13:1) In grace and humility they gave a small honor to a man who was a large part of their history (despite his moderate leanings). They didn’t validate him. They just honored him.

What caught my eye on the OP blog was a phrase something like “Giving honor where dishonor is due.” (I’m not taking the time to look it up.) I was dismayed even before I realized that a seminary president had written it. I do not see the concept of bestowing dishonor on a brother anywhere in scripture. I see the opposite in fact. Paul in Romans 14:4,10 makes it clear that “to his own master he stands or falls.” “You, then, why do you judge your own brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.”

I am suggesting that we should plow our own fields. That’s is where our authority lies and is the heart of our responsibility.

I am not sure how that answers the question. You are implying that the author (Doran) has a log in his eye. To what are you referring?

Furthermore, how does the existence of a log (assuming there is one) preclude the accuracy of judgment about a speck? To use an analogy if a man is a bank robber, is he disqualified from pointing out that another man is a murderer? Of course not. He may be hypocritical (which is actually what Jesus’ point is). Jesus is not forbidding judgment or evaluation. He is forbidding hypocrisy.

Yes political rulers are due the same honor that religious leaders are due in the sense that God places both classes in their positions.

Again, that was not the question. The question was about the equation of political leaders with religious leaders. You (or someone) are suggesting that because David honored Saul, that therefore there are apparently no standards for honoring religious leaders.

Any appeal to David is, IMO, failed since I don’t think David would qualify to be a pastor of a NT church. So I am not sure why people run back there to make an argument.

Let’s explore this a bit further: When John said not even to give a greeting to certain people who denied the faith, do you think was instructing us in a matter of basic courtesy? Do think naming a building after someone is a greater matter or a lesser matter than giving someone a greeting? Do you think that John meant something like “Don’t greet them (unless they were president for thirty years in which case you can raise a monument to them)”? How exactly would you apply John’s words to this issue?

As I read Doran’s blog (and I may be misreading it), I don’t see any call by Doran by treat McCall with contempt, or with anything less than basic courtesy. I see a question raised about the propriety of honoring someone who did great harm to the cause of Christ. How is that an inappropriate question?

You cite Romans 14:4, 10 as proof, but Paul there wasn’t talking about those who corrupted the faith of others and denied or contributed to the denial of fundamental doctrine. He was saying that if someone did not have liberty of conscience to do something God was pleased with, we are not the judge them. In other words, that passage has nothing to do with this topic.

You say you don’t see the concept of bestowing dishonor on a brother anywhere in Scripture. Yet the epistles are filled with references to it, even including Paul calling out people by name such as Hymenaus, and Alexander, Philogenes, and Philetus, Demas, and the like. As I already mentioned, John said not to even greet these people.

Even if you don’t think McCall deserves “dishonor,” it is hard to imagine any biblical argument that he deserves “honor.” Doesn’t he qualify under Romans 16:17-18 to be called out, marked, exposed, and separated from.

You say that, “Jesus, David and Daniel understood this is a spectacular way.” Jesus, David, and Daniel all said to give to civil/political leaders what was due them. Jesus didn’t say to give that the Pharisees, or to Caiaphas did he?

For all the battles Mohler has bravely fought, this was a such a minor one. He could have simply ignored McCall. He didn’t have to call him out for dishonor. He could have simply not called attention to him at all. IMO, that’s what he should have done.

It is interesting how many people complain about politics in the SBC, and then complain when someone dares to suggest we shouldn’t play politics. Naming something after McCall because he was president was a political issue. If you don’t like politics, then you can’t complain when someone says you shouldn’t play politics.

You may disquallify Dr. McCall as apostate or whatever, but Dr. Mohler, et. al. have been judged as well by Dr. Doran and you I’m afraid. Paul’s pretty clear about not judging another man’s servant. Dr. Doran pronounces Dr. McCall as worthy of dishonor (in his title)and judges the SBC leaders who would dare name a building after him. You accuse them of political motives when you cannot possibly be privy to their motivations. They will stand before the Lord as we will. Paul says plow your own field.

The speck really equates well to this “minor matter”. Why would Dr. Doran insert himself into this situation in which he has no standing or authority? Why search out and annouce to anyone that he’s found a speck in Dr. Mohler’s, Pattersons, et al. eyes? What’s the point? Even if you thinkits a valid criticism, Paul (Holy Spirit) says leave it alone.

Daniel never said give em what they deserve. No, he gave them his loyalty and honor - far beyond what they were due. David - who was a prophet and king - is a great role model for any NT pastor. Who wouldn’t want to be called “a man after God’s own heart”?Jesus actually was the one who said “Render unto Caesar’s what is Caesar” as he looked at a coin embossed with the image of Caesar which also include the motto “Caesar is God”.

I think your examples of Paul and Peter hinge on the word “brother”. I find no example of the Bible teaching that we are to ever dishonor a brother. Heaven will be full of liberals and they will all be in my heavenly family. Now, in keeping with Paul, I will leave it alone too.

I hate the line by line response, but I will do it anway because it’s easier and I am feeling lazy.

You may disquallify Dr. McCall as apostate or whatever, but Dr. Mohler, et. al. have been judged as well by Dr. Doran and you I’m afraid.

First, I wouldn’t be afraid of that. Second, you have judged Dr. Doran (and me). So why are you allowed to judge Dr. Doran but Dr. Doran is not allowed to judge Dr. Mohler? I think that is what the whole speck/log thing is about in Matthew 7 … hypocrisy. I don’t throw that out as a personal attack, but it seems a bit hypocritical for you to judge Dr. Doran by condemning him for judging.

Doran has a legitimate beef in that a man who contributed to the damage of the gospel has been honored by a man who loves the gospel. Your beef is only that Doran had the audacity to point it out. I am not sure that makes a lot of sense to me.

You accuse them of political motives when you cannot possibly be privy to their motivations.

People in the SBC are the ones who said it was political. They are saying, “It’s what you do for all past presidents. They all have building named after them.” That is a political move, it seems to me. It’s fine. I don’t care about politics in the SBC. It doesn’t bother me. I don’t know that the motives were solely political. Somehow I doubt they were less than that. But that’s not for me to judge.

Paul says plow your own field.

This is not a saying of Paul I am familiar with.

Why would Dr. Doran insert himself into this situation in which he has no standing or authority? Why search out and annouce to anyone that he’s found a speck in Dr. Mohler’s, Pattersons, et al. eyes? What’s the point?

What is your standing to insert yourself into Dr. Doran’s comments? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical? Again, I am not being personal with that, but it seems like you have a double standard. If Doran can’t insert himself into this issue, then you can’t insert yourself into his issue. But doesn’t that make it plain that you have created an unworkable standard? Unless you want to argue that Doran and Mohler and not fighting for the same gospel. I am pretty separatistic, but I wouldn’t argue that.

Second, I think the point is to talk about the application of a biblical principle. Doran’s specific point (as I recall) was, “Why honor a man who created the mess of apostasy you had to clean up at the threat of your life?”

Even if you think its a valid criticism, Paul (Holy Spirit) says leave it alone.

Again, I am not familiar with Paul saying this. If you are talking about the Romans 14 passage, the context there is not about the defense of the gospel, but about allowing a man’s conscience to determine which thing, out of a multitude of righteous things, he can participate in. Paul judged other men all the name, and named them, including a fellow apostle.

Daniel never said give em what they deserve. No, he gave them his loyalty and honor - far beyond what they were due.

They were religious traitors though, were they?

David - who was a prophet and king - is a great role model for any NT pastor. Who wouldn’t want to be called “a man after God’s own heart”?

That’s a good emotional argument about being a man after God’s own heart, but I am not sure David is a great role model and again, Saul wasn’t a pastor and leader who contributed to the demise of the faith.

Jesus actually was the one who said “Render unto Caesar’s what is Caesar” as he looked at a coin embossed with the image of Caesar which also include the motto “Caesar is God”.

Yes, and Caesar was not a religious leader in the church. So again, your example fails.

I think your examples of Paul and Peter hinge on the word “brother”. I find no example of the Bible teaching that we are to ever dishonor a brother.

Paul “withstood Peter to his face” in public. That sounds like dishonor. Had Peter not repented, I am imagine Paul would have amped up the pressure.

Heaven will be full of liberals and they will all be in my heavenly family.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. I don’t know enough about McCall to affirm his faith at all. Theological liberalism has issues with the gospel itself, and we need to recognize that. There are many who will not be in heaven. (Some conservatives will no doubt be missing as well.) Christ certainly recognize that the Pharisees, the religious leaders of the day who contributed to the demise of true worship of YHWH had problems, and we should hardly be less discerning.

Now, in keeping with Paul, I will leave it alone too.

Paul kept it up to the day of his death, when he warned about men like Demas and Alexander.

For clarification, I am not saying that Al Mohler is like Demas or Alexander, or Hymenaus, or Philetus, or Hermogenes, who have you. I am simply this is strange to me. It is unnecessary and ill-advised at the very least.

I think this issue is a good deal more simple than some in the SBC want to acknowledge. Does the Bible condone the honoring of those who helped to destroy the faith? I say no. You appear to disagree.

Jeffrey, I would encourage you to actually read Dr. Doran’s original and follow up post before you make extensive criticisms of his criticism. I’m not suggesting it would change your mind, but it would seem to be a prerequisite to a knowledgeable critique of the matter at hand.

we’ve solved all of the other problems facing Christianity and can now move the naming of a pavilion to the top of the list.