Should we applaud Al Mohler speaking at Brigham Young University?

Yes, I agree. Mohler was invited, came, took the opportunity to present an uncompromising stand for authentic Christianity even though that was not the explicit point of his presence, then departed. Well done.

Really? I guess I see it differently. If I went and attended mass I think I would be cooperating with false religion. I realize that he was not there attending a religious service so maybe that’s not a good comparison.

My understanding of the situation boils down to this: If he was there as an expert in the field- seems like a bad idea since it could give the impression to some that there is some type of agreement between them ( which he explained clearly is not the case). if he was there as a Bible teacher to explain the Biblical position it seems like a really bad idea.

My reading of his speech puts it in the first category and I do admit that he was clear in highlighting their differences.

Josh,

You already hit on one flaw in your comparison. The other is that you would not be in the lead at mass, while Mohler was given an open mic and free reign. I would not attend mass either. But, if I was invited to come present a parenting class at a catholic church and given a free mic to do so, I would certainly pack my Bible and show up to teach. You can bet that my lesson on parenting would begin with an understanding of the necessity for a right personal relationship with God for the parents and that goal for the children, and that it would be presented from scripture. I fail to see how anyone could consider this a cooperative ministry by Mohler when he frankly told everyone in attendance they were headed to hell and they needed to ditch their cult religion and turn to the truth of the Bible. Just doesn’t seem very cooperative to me.

As I said in an earlier post I believe he was there because he is considered knowledgeable on the subject he was speaking about. I don’t think it was religious cooperation. I think it was a bad idea. What I was reacting against (probably unclearly) was the idea that Greg suggested; that Mohler was there teaching in a moral capacity and arguing from scripture. That to me would be strange since L.D.S. do not recognize the Truth or His word.

The only legitimate message you can bring in such a context is the full gospel.

I wonder what the basis for this is? Can Christians have no other topic of conversation? Obviously, you would say they could, so what is it about this context that means the only legitimate message is the full gospel? Is it the size of the audience? Is it the location? The sponsorship? What is the line here? I think that is an argument that needs to be made, not just asserted.

But more directly to the point, you (Don) say of heaven, He never told them how to get there..

Yet in Mohler’s speech (as has already been pointed out), he said, “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.”

Is that not the gospel? Is that not how to get to heaven? How can you say he didn’t tell them how to get there when he explicitly told them that justification was by faith alone in Christ alone, in his substitionary death?

Did you just overlook what he said? What is the reason behind that comment?

If someone is speaking on a matter of their expertise on a subject promoting the common good, that may be permissible.

Is not Mohler considered somewhat of an expert on cultural issues and social from an evangelical perspective? He is a published author on the topic of culture, of the new sexual tolerance (which is directly related to marriage), as well as speaking and writing on marriage in a number of different places, and I think he has a book coming out soon on the topic as well. Isn’t that why he is routinely invited on national talk shows and why he receives invitations such as this? If it’s not because he is considered an expert, then why does he get invited to speak on these topics? And if you don’t think this qualifies him as an expert, what would he need to do to become one? Where is the line on that?

By comparison, did not our alma mater invite Cal Thomas a few years ago to speak to the student body. How is that different? He occupies a position much like Mohler (teaching and preaching duties aside; he functions as a cultural commentator). They did get a little heat from some quarters for inviting the guy from Hobby Lobby to speak, but I am not sure what kind of expertise he brought to the campus.

I suppose to put the question more directly, why is our alma mater apparently given a pass for this kind of thing while the BYU/Mohler situation is condemned? I am not sure I see the logic (biblical or otherwise) there. To be clear, I don’t really have a problem with our alma mater doing it, and I am not sure Mohler should have done it. So please don’t read that as a defense of one and a condemnation of the other. I am simply questioning the difference.

What exactly is the disobedience that he is being charged with?

Lastly, you say concerning the Manhattan Declaration that “According to some, Mohler now thinks signing this document was a mistake, though a clear confession of that mistake is difficult to find.”

Perhaps you are not aware that on p 84 (or 85, I can’t remember which), he said he came to realize that signing the document was both “unwarranted and unbiblical”? How is that not a clear confession that signing it was a mistake? I could be wrong, but it sounds clear to me. I don’t think Mohler would say it was unwarranted and unbiblical and also would say he should have done it anyway. Do you? Isn’t that statement a “clear confession of that mistake”?

You ask a lot of questions as usual. I don’t have time for a detailed answer, but I will offer a few comments.

First, you admit that you are not comfortable with Mohler’s action. Why?

Second, do you not see differences between Mormonism and Christianity? What are they?

Specifically, do you not see differences between Mormon theology concerning marriage and Christian theology of marriage? Do you think there is any common ground that can be held? Do you think Christians should actively seek to be involved in co-belligerency with Mormons on the marriage question given those differences?

I don’t have time for a detailed answer, but I will offer a few comments.

Thanks, Don. I certainly understand the time issue, and I don’t have much myself. My questions are simply my (assuredly awkward) attempt not to tell others what to believe, but inquire for reasoning behind something. I will gladly await your comments.

First, you admit that you are not comfortable with Mohler’s action. Why?

I haven’t given it a lot of thought, but it seems like it could cast confusion for those who see him speaking there but don’t know what he said, and those who don’t read what he said, but only read what others say about it. I am simply not sure that makes it sinful. It seems to be a question of wisdom, to me: “Is my participation here likely to cause significant and irremediable confusion for those over whom I have influence?” If the answer is “yes,” then caution should rule. However, it seems untenable to ask, “Will anyone misunderstand what I am doing here?”

Second, do you not see differences between Mormonism and Christianity? What are they?

I think there are a lot of doctrinal differences; in fact, almost all, right? I don’t think we have much in common. But in practical living, our lives end up looking much the same.

Specifically, do you not see differences between Mormon theology concerning marriage and Christian theology of marriage?

In some ways, yes. But I am not sure that difference is borne out in any real way. Mormon marriage and Christian marriage seem, to me at least, to look very similar on the surface. Their theology of marriage is really “behind the scenes.” It’s effects, so far as I know, do not show up in their families or the cities/cultures that they live in (since I think they have done away with polygamy in all but the most extreme parts).

Do you think there is any common ground that can be held?

Yes, I think both share a common ground against same-sex marriage and adoption, and both share the possibility of political fallout from their shared conviction against same-sex marriage.

Do you think Christians should actively seek to be involved in co-belligerency with Mormons on the marriage question given those differences?

Actively? Not sure. I haven’t faced that, and haven’t thought about it. I think it is possible that in some sense Christians (as citizens, not as the church) could be involved with Mormons (as citizens, not as the church) on the issue.

But I am not sure Mohler actively sought this out. Perhaps you know. I was under the impression that Mohler was invited, not that he asked to be a part of this. I could be wrong.

Thanks Don.

Mohler:

Religious liberty is already severely compromised by modern political regimes that claim to be democratic and respectful of human rights. Given the shape of current arguments for sexual expression and liberty, religious institutions, especially schools, colleges, universities, welfare agencies, and benevolent ministries, are already under fire and under warning. Some have already been forced to make a decision: forfeit your convictions or forfeit your work. Some have chosen one, some the other. One way leads to an honorable extinction, the other to a dishonorable surrender. Both are violations of religious liberty.

The conflict of liberties we are now experiencing is unprecedented and ominous. Forced to choose between erotic liberty and religious liberty, many Americans would clearly sacrifice freedom of religion. How long will it be until many becomes most?

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. I do not mean to exaggerate, but we are living in the shadow of a great moral revolution that we commonly believe will have grave and devastating human consequences.

Don,

I’m not meaning to pile on, but Larry and others have a very strong point. It’s all well and good for you to write a blogpost on your own website with your opinion, but to write one on behalf of the FBFI - especially when you seem to miss the thrust of Mohler’s arguments so spectacularly - makes the entire FBFI look bad. It’s one of the bigger reasons why I continue to look askance at the FBFI and would not join it. It perpetuates an vision that the only thing that the FBFI is really only concerned about with is “capital F Fundamentalism”, as defined by the FBFI - a vision that I’m not sure they have even really defined, and I say that as a guy who received FBFI’s Frontline Magazine for years.

I know the obvious and expected come back - the FBFI is a Fundamentalist organization, after all. But it seems to me - and probably a few others - that the FBFI is failing to communicate a vision here of what they are and where they stand. So you disagree with Mohler…OK. You think that religious liberty is under attack, based on other FBFI writings. What makes your position better or stronger than his? Why should I move over to the FBFI side of things and disagree with Mohler?

Arguments like “is this a PR stunt?” and references to Mohler’s (long since recanted) support of the Manhattan Declaration - especially when this kind of stuff is looked up on the internet so easily - end up destroying the credibility of the FBFI. This is a terrible thing. After all - the readers of SI would (generally) be receptive to the FBFI, and if you are getting a difficult reception here, how will the FBFI ever communicate clearly with those who have not chosen to identify with the FBFI readership? What is going to draw people over from the Conservative Evangelical/TMS “side” to “our” side? Or does P&D serve as a platform by the FBFI leadership to communicate solely to those who are already FBFI members?

This article is great at defining ‘the enemy’ (which I use in quotes because Mohler isn’t an enemy, and I don’t think that you define him as one). It will encourage people who already agree with you. But it’s not going to attract people who are not in your camp or those who may blow off the FBFI as extremist reactionaries.

I think that one of the reasons why T4G, The Gospel Coalition, and other sites get wide reading and dissemination is that they are generally ‘positive’ articles - here’s a problem, and here’s what we can do about it. Here’s why we’re doing these things. Here’s an interesting concept that this church is working out. I would encourage you to change P&D to me more positive and encouraging than it is about fixing the things that are broken in Fundamentalismville. In short - why would I want to move to “Fundamentalismville” of your kind? That’s the point that the FBFI needs to start making.

I’m not trying to be adversarial here…I am just trying to communicate that the FBFI can do things better, and I’m trying to help you with that. Please take this post in that way and with that goal in mind.

I respect Don’s right to express disagreement with Mohler’s actions, even though I personally don’t share his conclusions. I would be curious to learn what the repercussions for something like this behavior might be. Is this one more substantial reason to avoid all fellowship with Mohler and conservative SBC types? Is this something that if it were someone like Mark Minnick or Stephen Jones instead of Mohler, it would be an action you would be uncomfortable with but would not be cause to cut off all fellowship with him over?

At the end of Don’s article over at Proclaim & Defend it states

Although Proclaim & Defend is the blog of the FBFI, the articles we post are not an expression of the views of the FBFI as a whole, they are the views of the author under whose name they are published. The FBFI speaks either through position statements by its board or through its president. Here at Proclaim & Defend, we publish articles as matters of interest or edification to the wider world of fundamentalist Baptists and any others who might be interested.

First, thanks to Brenda for replying to Jay for me. I would point to the same thing. Both Greg Linscott and Kevin Bauder are on the MBA board. Would you say that every article they might publish in an MBA paper is the official position of the MBA? Hardly.

Now to Larry:

It seems to be a question of wisdom, to me

Yes, at least that. I assume you would be willing to call it unwise, then? But that is kissing cousins to foolish, isn’t it? Would you be willing to call it foolish?

Mormon marriage and Christian marriage seem, to me at least, to look very similar on the surface. Their theology of marriage is really “behind the scenes.” … Yes, I think both share a common ground against same-sex marriage and adoption, and both share the possibility of political fallout from their shared conviction against same-sex marriage.

How far behind the scenes must something be to become a moot point? And so for you opposition to same-sex marriage is sufficient common ground to do what? You already said you were uncomfortable with this, enough to say it is a question of wisdom, implying at least that it was unwise. So… there can’t be enough common ground to do this (i.e., to say it is wise) and still not enough common ground to do it (i.e., to say it is unwise), can there?

I don’t think it matters whether he was invited or sought it out. Either way it is wrong, in my opinion.

To Greg,

I think you are really reaching with your hypotheticals. Larry and DMD are at least trying to distract me with real life examples, but I’m not biting on those either.

I’m not trying to trap you, Don, or even counter your position. I understand and respect your right to criticize. It was a notable event. I’m wondering, though, if this were done by someone in the FBFI, let’s say- it doesn’t even matter who- would this be reason to see that they were formally separated from by the organization, or would it be a matter of criticizing but continuance of fellowship… I’m just trying to determine how serious you consider this matter to be.

[Brenda T]

At the end of Don’s article over at Proclaim & Defend it states

Although Proclaim & Defend is the blog of the FBFI, the articles we post are not an expression of the views of the FBFI as a whole, they are the views of the author under whose name they are published. The FBFI speaks either through position statements by its board or through its president. Here at Proclaim & Defend, we publish articles as matters of interest or edification to the wider world of fundamentalist Baptists and any others who might be interested.

But if Don is posting in his capacity as both an employee (namely the person responsible for the P&D blog) and Board Member (since he is one) using FBFI resources (their blog), then isn’t it fair to say that this is a little more substantial than just Don writing on his personal blog? Even if he did write about it on his personal blog and then link to it at P&D?

I’m not playing ‘gotcha’ - it just seems that articles on the official blog of the FBFI would seem to carry the imprimatur of the organization’s approval. As Greg mentioned, if I were Mohler, I would look at this as a pseudo-positional statement by the FBFI, no matter what the disclaimers are.

It doesn’t matter to me either way - feel free to ignore/disregard my advise or comments as you please.

Don,

Larry and DMD are at least trying to distract me with real life examples

I don’t think that they’re trying to ‘distract’ you. I think they’re trying to understand. I know I am.

I did not have a problem with BJU inviting various presidential candidates to speak at BJU. Those candidates shared BJU’s politically conservative positions and they were brought in that context. We did not hold Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush or Alan Keyes to a religious test. I had no problem with Bob III endorsing Romney for president. To be fair to Mohler he went to speak on cultural and political issues regarding religious liberty, marriage, and the results of the sexual revolution upon American. He clearly distinguished himself completely from his audience on a religious and theological level. I don’t believe Mohler sinned in this case. Yet, I think it confusing to the public at large for a prominent conservative evangelical to be speaking at the intellectual center of Mormonism. For that reason alone, I would strongly advise against it. Mormonism is trying to appear mainstream in this endeavor.

As Greg mentioned, if I were Mohler, I would look at this as a pseudo-positional statement by the FBFI, no matter what the disclaimers are.

I don’t remember saying that. If I did, that wasn’t my intent.