Should we applaud Al Mohler speaking at Brigham Young University?

Mohler is a theological liberal who fails to laud the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

I guess we should have known it all along …………..

Ken Fields

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.

I mean, I suppose he could have taken the invitation to attack the theology of the LDS leadership, the LDS church, the graduates of BYU, and the families there to celebrate the students’ achievements (and rightfully so), but he wasn’t there to talk about theology. He was there to:

…[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.

With ‘friends’ like these…

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

If one supports Dr. Mohler’s belief that he can have a meaningful, respectful conversation that matters with Mormons, then certainly you would also have that same type of conversation with or about Don either here or at his blog.

The comments are closed at P&D, Brenda.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

The speech was excellent in every respect. However, if this is but a prelude to some sort of cooperative endeavor to stand for traditional values with Mormons, then that is going too far. Believers must not be yoked together with unbelievers. Future plans aside, the speech was good.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

While some feel Mohler should have spoken at BYU, and it is hard to criticize his desire to have something to say to Mormons as an evangelical, one wonders exactly if his goal was achieved. And shouldn’t Mohler now feel ethically bound to invite a prominent Mormon leader to speak at Southern Baptist Seminary? That’s the way ecumenical dialogue works, isn’t it? I try to influence your thinking, and you try to influence mine — thesis and antithesis, and who knows, we may reach a synthesis. I personally think that all that needs to be said can be said in books, bulletins, and blogs. Paul’s discourse on Mars Hill with non-Christian, Greek philosophers was clearly an attempt to convert them. He highlighted the one thing that challenged their thinking — the resurrection and the need to repent and believe on the Christ of revelation. Some understood and were saved. But none were left doubting what his purpose had been, it seems to me. I am not sure Mohler had the same objective or even left the Mormons with a clear idea that conversion to the Christ of Scripture was the point.

[TylerR]

The speech was excellent in every respect. However, if this is but a prelude to some sort of cooperative endeavor to stand for traditional values with Mormons, then that is going too far. Believers must not be yoked together with unbelievers. Future plans aside, the speech was good.

Tyler,

Where exactly are you going to draw this line? We are essentially already “yoked” together as citizens of this country. Does your application of this verse preclude the believer from voting? Can we “yoke together” in membership in Sam Club since it is filled with unbelieving members and owned by a secular company? How did you justify your previous “yoking” with unbelievers in the military? You see where I’m going with this? I am not sure this verse would prevent me from joining a political pursuit with a Mormon, or with any other lost conservative.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

I am assuming that Don is reading over here, so I’d like to put forth a question to try to understand his thinking on this matter a little more fully. Given your suggestion that the idea of Mohler (an evangelical) speaking on a cultural-political topic in a non-religious convocation at a Mormon institution (BYU) is not acceptable, how would you view a non-evangelical speaking on a similar topic in a non-religious convocation at an evangelical/fundamentalist school?

I ask this sincerely and, as I’ve stated elsewhere, from a stance that sees an academic context differently than an ecclesiastical one. I’ve not objected when a Catholic politician or lawyer speaks to evangelical/fundamentalist student body regarding matters of politics and law. It seems that you would, though. Or at least that you’d subject the exercise to the same set of questions. Am I mistaken or misunderstanding something?

DMD

Chip:

When I say this, I’m speaking from the context of the local church. The local church has a responsibility to not engage in cooperative endeavors with unbelievers, or those with deviant Christian beliefs. When I first saw Don’s article on his blog, I knew immediately the battle lines would be drawn around the issue of separation, and this is what has happened. I am a Baptist, so understand where I’m coming from here:

The spheres of civil government and the church are clearly separate (Mk 12:13-17), and Baptists have historically recognized this disjunction, so your analogy of voting is void.

Your military example is likewise specious, because a military man is not engaged in ministry pursuits, but merely living his life. We are called to separation, not isolation, after all (Jn 17:15-16).

Cooperative ministry with unbelievers gives them legitimacy. It also undermines the Gospel; where is your justification for combating secularism? Isn’t it the Scriptures? Mormons are not Christians; they are polytheists. Therefore, any sort of cooperative ministry would necessarily involve engaging in vague platitudes about “shared values” rather than Biblical truth, to avoid offending any party. This is madness.

Again, I liked the speech and Dr. Mohler’s uncompromising stand for Biblical truth. If a future cooperative endeavor with Mormons is in the cards, however, than that is too much. I seriously doubt any such thing is planned, though.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Believers must not be yoked together with unbelievers.

Does that mean believers must depart membership of any political party? After all, many members of a given party, which is essentially a “cooperative endeavor to stand for [shared] values”, may/will have wildly differing bases for those values.

[Dave Doran]

I am assuming that Don is reading over here, so I’d like to put forth a question to try to understand his thinking on this matter a little more fully. Given your suggestion that the idea of Mohler (an evangelical) speaking on a cultural-political topic in a non-religious convocation at a Mormon institution (BYU) is not acceptable, how would you view a non-evangelical speaking on a similar topic in a non-religious convocation at an evangelical/fundamentalist school?

I ask this sincerely and, as I’ve stated elsewhere, from a stance that sees an academic context differently than an ecclesiastical one. I’ve not objected when a Catholic politician or lawyer speaks to evangelical/fundamentalist student body regarding matters of politics and law. It seems that you would, though. Or at least that you’d subject the exercise to the same set of questions. Am I mistaken or misunderstanding something?

Hi Dave

I’ve been in a meeting all day so unable to get on here. Going through internet withdrawal symptoms…

To answer your question, I think we have to ask ourselves in what capacity and for what purpose was Dr. Mohler speaking at BYU. There are probably several different scenarios that could be proposed but I’ll suggest three, there could be more, I suppose.

  1. Was he speaking as a politician for a political purpose, to gain votes or support for a political cause?
  2. Was he speaking as an academic in his field of expertise to inform the students about a particular academic subject?
  3. Was he speaking as a Christian minister to speak to matters of common ground on an issue where there is some potential of cooperation in promoting a religious cause?

As I said, perhaps there are other alternatives, but you can see how I see it, no doubt.

As a corollary to those questions, I have another:

What common ground do Christians have with Mormons on the issue of marriage given the egregious false doctrine Mormons hold to on marriage?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I should mention that while we do not have open discussion at P&D, I have created a referrent article on www.oxgoad.ca that provides for moderated discussion of my article. Yes, I am the moderator. Yes, my moderation is subject to my fair and balanced whims.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Don Johnson] What common ground do Christians have with Mormons on the issue of marriage given the egregious false doctrine Mormons hold to on marriage?

They both believe in the traditional version of marriage like most other conservatives. This, IMO, is the genius of Mohler’s speech. He carves out the great and fixed theological gap, then reasons from the light of nature re: an issue of common concern. Rather 2K of him, and, if one must go about co-belligerency, might just be the way to do it without making common Christian cause.

Or can Christians make no common political cause with other non-Christian conservatives?

Was anyone else bothered that Dr. Mohler referred to the LDS as a “church?” I understand that within first century Rome, multiple assemblies existed, thus giving the word some overall flexibility; that said, hasn’t the word taken a theological significance since that time, making it rightfully reserved for those that preach the gospel, rightly practice ordinances, etc? Nevertheless, since his comment came in the context of contrasting the “Christian church” with the “LDS church,” I’m willing to give his comments a charitable reading.

Besides my quibble with that single statement, it seems that our brother has navigated these rough waters without wrecking the ship, i.e. compromising the faith at any level. Seemingly, his success in this regard should be an opportunity for us to rejoice, even if we question the wisdom of his participation or would not have accepted it ourselves.