Should we applaud Al Mohler speaking at Brigham Young University?

Mike,

Would circumstances have been better, worse, or equal if he had given a similar speech at Notre Dame?

Everything else being the same, the situation would be less startling simply because the differences between Catholicism and Mormonism are substantial. One is blatant false teaching; the other is cultic. Pick your poison.

A short observation. While I (because of conscience) probably could not have done what Mohler did, I’m not sure at all how what Mohler did at BYU could at all be viewed as fellowship/koinonia or even leading to fellowship/koinonia. As a citizen of a democratic/republic, one religious leader was invited to challenge other religious leaders about common threats to there different religions. Mohler essentially told the Mormons’s - “your not going to heaven with me” but if we don’t stand together in the area of political issues “you might be going to jail with me” (implication I’m making based on Mohler’s comments). Don - your comment that there is no debate that fellowship occurred is very much indeed …. debatable! Your comments reveal that in your mind you cannot separate a Christian leader being with other American/Religionist leaders talking about issues that impact a variety of groups as conservative American’s without lumping this into some ecclesiastical relationship.

There was no Christian/koinonia based fellowship - just a speech. Don - Jay is not the one being “obtuse” here.

Straight Ahead!

jt

I still maintain that BYU’s motive is to be perceived as more mainstream and that is where the danger lies.

That is why it is important that Mohler said what he did where he did. And concerns aside, the reality is that the information cannot be misconstrued anywhere near as easily as it could when television and print media were pretty much the exclusive sources of information. The LDS may want to portray themselves as more mainstream, but whatever else, they cannot claim that Mohler would be complicit in those efforts, and if they try to, Mohler’s words are easily accessible to demonstrate otherwise.

The thing I find troubling about this matter and the way it was addressed in the original citation is not the disagreement with the appearance, but the sense of “Aha! Gotcha!” that seems to accompany it. This is what I am trying to get at by asking the question Don refuses to answer specifically. We need to understand that whether or not you agree with Mohler’s decision to speak, we should in a very real sense desire to identify with the clear division he articulated between LDS and Christian theology. Every story is not about whether or not someone is a “true Fundamentalist” (or whatever specific label you want to use) or not. When it comes down to it, though I don’t plan to join the SBC or make any alterations in formal fellowship, when it comes to matters of national significance like this, what really separates us from being generally identified by Joe Q. Public with someone like Mohler? Anything? Men like him and John MacArthur (most recently on the Charismatic issue) right now are the ones making hard separating kind of statements in the public spotlight.

Whether or not we think this choice was wise, this is nothing at all like Billy Graham’s ecumenical evangelism. The perceived attempts to portray it as such is what is discouraging, because it seems that the concerns in the end are designed to strengthen territorial interests (separatist Fundamentalists vs. SBC evangelicals), rather than affirming the truth that was declared that we can and do support, regardless of whether or not we agreed with the choice of venue.

I have been doing some reading in Baptist history lately, and have been struck by just how tenaciously English and American Baptists fought for religious liberty in the state-dominated churches of their day. In many instances, Baptists found themselves proudly fighting for the religious liberty of false religious systems (e.g. Roman Catholicism) out of a bid for basic fairness; how can a man deny the very freedom of religion to a heretical group he would indignantly claim for himself if the tables were turned?

For instance, Thomas Helwys, a founding member with John Smythe of the first Baptist church in modern history (and a man who died in prison for his Baptist convictions), supported religious liberty for Roman Catholics, Jews and even Muslims! He wrote:

Let them be heretikes, Turcks, Jewes, or whatsoever it apperteynes not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure.

To bring this to the BYU context; was Dr. Mohler really acting incorrectly by stating a willingness to stand with Mormons for traditional marriage values, or for mutual religious liberty?

In this city, I am honored to come among those who, though of a different faith, share common concerns and urgencies. I come as a Christian, and I come as one who is honored by your kind and gracious invitation. I come in the hope of much further conversations, conversations about urgencies both temporal and eternal. I am unashamed to stand with you in the defense of marriage and family and a vision of human sexual integrity. I am urgently ready to speak and act in your defense against threats to your religious liberty, even as you have shown equal readiness to speak and act in defense of mine. We share love for the family, love for marriage, love for the gift of children, love of liberty, and love of human society. We do so out of love and respect for each other.

That is why only those with the deepest beliefs, and even the deepest differences, can help each other against encroaching threats to religious liberty, marriage, and the family. I guess I am back to Flannery O’Connor again. We must push back against this age as hard as it is pressing against us. We had better press hard, for this age is pressing ever harder against us.

The fact that Dr. Mohler offered this support, while at the same time standing firm upon Christian exclusivism, makes criticism of his position less effective. Greg noted, above, that comparisons to the Billy Graham issue are specious, because ecumenicalism and inclusivism are precisely what Dr. Mohler took pains to repudiate. Does Dr. Mohler’s position really give legitimacy to Mormonism, or is he merely following a long Baptist (and Biblical) tradition of standing firm for religious liberty in general?

I’m thinking out loud here …

Tyler,

I think you have hit on a very important aspect of this decision. Frankly, we Baptists have generally done a terrible job in the last 50 or so years fleshing out what we mean by individual soul liberty - other than to use it in the BAPTIST acrostic when we make a passing attempt to teach Baptist distinctives.

Men like him and John MacArthur (most recently on the Charismatic issue) right now are the ones making hard separating kind of statements in the public spotlight.

Which, again, is why I was confused as to the purpose of the P&D Statement. I mean, how often does the FBFI or someone affiliated with it get contacted to present the ‘biblical’ or ‘christian’ response to current issues?

I do not say that to knock anyone…I just don’t understand why we have to tear down anyone who isn’t sufficiently separated enough when they are presenting a Gospel-oriented response to a current issue (even if the response isn’t as strong as we’d wanted it to be).

If Paul can rejoice that people are spreading the gospel out of malice (Phil. 1:12-18), why must we be offended or concerned if a SBC guy does it, when he’s a lot closer to our position than, say, a Catholic bishop?

Don, I’ve been out of the country. Missed this event. Thanks for the link to Mohler’s speech.

After Prop 8, the LDS Church was hammered. A national target. Marches. Demonstrations. Taking the brunt of mud-slinging. And dealing with swelling pockets of liberal LDS internet voices. A common thought was “where were the evangelicals to speak up?”

Since that experience, LDS have been proactive, promoting traditional marriage but likewise acknowledging the very loud LGBT voices. SLC led the way for crafting city ordinance clauses that recognize housing and employment equality for LGBT. Other cities underneath SLC’s shadow have followed suit.

This year has been a tumultous year for the LDS in seeking to broker some temporary peace within the Boy Scouts of America.

As far as I know, Mohler is the first conservative evangelical since Prop 8 to acknowledge LDS affirmation of traditional family values in such a setting. It’s interesting. If the I-15 corridor caves here in the West on this issue politically, I sincerely think that American politics will no longer have room for openly promoting traditional morality. We will go the way of Europe. I say this politically.

From a theologically sense, I consider the I-15 corridor perspective on the family as idolatry. And that is an altogether different burden that weighs heavily upon my heart.

Ok, gotta go.

[Joel Tetreau]

A short observation. While I (because of conscience) probably could not have done what Mohler did, I’m not sure at all how what Mohler did at BYU could at all be viewed as fellowship/koinonia or even leading to fellowship/koinonia. …

There was no Christian/koinonia based fellowship - just a speech. Don - Jay is not the one being “obtuse” here.

First, let’s talk about what koinonia means: it is cooperation / partnership / joint activity.

In his speech, Mohler makes it clear that he was joining with BYU in these ways:

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.

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. Your faith has held high the importance of marriage and family. Your theology requires such an affirmation, and it is lovingly lived out by millions of Mormon families. That is why I and my evangelical brothers and sisters are so glad to have Mormon neighbors. We stand together for the natural family, for natural marriage, for the integrity of sexuality within marriage alone, and for the hope of human flourishing.

I come in the hope of much further conversations, conversations about urgencies both temporal and eternal. I am unashamed to stand with you in the defense of marriage and family and a vision of human sexual integrity.

Yes, he distinguished areas where there is no common ground, but he clearly intends to call them to action and join with them where he perceives common ground. If that isn’t cooperation or partnership, what is?

At the same time, it is NOT Christian fellowship. But that’s just the problem. Christians are called to abstain from fellowship (partnership / cooperation) with unbelievers.

That is what makes this action wrong, in my opinion.

You have said that you could not do what Mohler did because of conscience. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that your conscience tells you something is not right about this? Do you think your conscience is right or wrong in its judgement?

If I am wrong as to why this is wrong, that is one thing. If I am wrong to think this is wrong, that is quite another. You all are arguing vigorously against me, acting, seemingly, as if I am wrong to think this is wrong (or to say that this is wrong).

But then at the same time, “Because of conscience, I couldn’t do it.” Or “I’m uncomfortable with it.”

Well, which is it?

[TylerR]

Greg noted, above, that comparisons to the Billy Graham issue are specious, because ecumenicalism and inclusivism are precisely what Dr. Mohler took pains to repudiate.

I just want it to be clear what I am saying here, since I invoked the BG word earlier in the thread. I am NOT comparing what Mohler did to what Graham did.

I was arguing against Jay’s bizarre argument that since Mohler by definition could not have true fellowship with Mormons, no fellowship occurred, therefore there was nothing to criticize.

This would be the same as ARGUING that since Graham by definition could not have true fellowship with liberals, no fellowship occurred, therefore there could be nothing to criticize there either.

I was attacking Jay’s argument, not Mohler, with that comparison.

I understand! I was just pondering if Dr. Mohler’s appearance, and any future cooperation for the sake of religious liberty, would be within the bounds of “acceptability” as long as he maintained a strong, exclusivist Christian stance. In other words, when does a principled stand for religious liberty for ALL FAITHS constitute cooperative ministry?

Most of the discussions on separation seem to take place only within the context of 20th century fundamentalism/evangelical controversies. Perhaps a broader perspective, especially that of the struggle of English and American Baptists with state churches in the 17th century, would shed more light on this matter. Yes, I realize this may go against what I wrote earlier!

I’m in danger of going beyond the point of this thread, so I’ll stop here. It was an interesting thought.

It isn’t just me who is seeing this as a new cooperation.

Evangelical visits to BYU signal a new evangelical-Mormon detente

For more than a decade, Mormon and evangelical scholars have discussed their differences and similarities, and even written books together. But leaders of the two faiths appear to have reached a new juncture, with some on both sides seeing benefits in more public engagement.

…

The recent evangelical appearances in Utah have sparked online debates, with some welcoming them and others warning they hurt traditional Christianity. A moderator for the unofficial LDS.net who calls himself “prisonchaplain” concluded the meetings were more civil than groundbreaking.

“As far as ‘fruit’ goes, these events sure beat the cold theological wars of the past,’’ he said.

And there’s more to come: Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias, who spoke at the Mormon Tabernacle in 2004, will be at BYU in January, followed by a second appearance by Mohler the following month.

[Don Johnson]

I was arguing against Jay’s bizarre argument that since Mohler by definition could not have true fellowship with Mormons, no fellowship occurred, therefore there was nothing to criticize.

This would be the same as ARGUING that since Graham by definition could not have true fellowship with liberals, no fellowship occurred, therefore there could be nothing to criticize there either.