Bauder: "it is difficult to see how Christians and Mormons can stand together for marriage at all"

Mohler’s speech was directed toward the major cultural shift from traditional western values rooted in the Reformation and now being abandoned at an alarming rate. Yesterday the Senate voted to forbid discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A caveat was included to exempt religious institutions. Most likely the caveat is temporary. You can really trust the dems to keep their promises. As Mohler said we will likely being going to jail together with people of whom we will not go to heaven. True enough. The bigger picture is that Mohler is planning a return trip to BYU. Richard Land et. al. are also building bridges to the LDS. There is a disturbing trend here. Mormonism wants to be considered as Mormon Christianity as opposed to a cult. This is where the real danger lies.

[Mike Harding]

Mohler’s speech was directed toward the major cultural shift from traditional western values rooted in the Reformation and now being abandoned at an alarming rate. Yesterday the Senate voted to forbid discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A caveat was included to exempt religious institutions. Most likely the caveat is temporary. You can really trust the dems to keep their promises. As Mohler said we will likely being going to jail together with people of whom we will not go to heaven. True enough. The bigger picture is that Mohler is planning a return trip to BYU. Richard Land et. al. are also building bridges to the LDS. There is a disturbing trend here. Mormonism wants to be considered as Mormon Christianity as opposed to a cult. This is where the real danger lies.

Mike, do you really see this as a shift on Mohler’s part? I believe Mohler was crystal clear on where he stood Scripturally and what salvation truly was. I didn’t see any gray area coming from his part. I think that Mohler was very intentional. He had the opportunity to visit the bastion of LDS and declare the gospel openly. Could he have been more hostile? Sure, but it would have clouded the clear teaching of the gospel. Even Paul addressed Festus, as “most excellent Festus”. This didn’t water down the gospel, but contrary, kept the focus on the gospel.

I agree with Bauder’s assertion and caution in this area, but we cannot take Mohler’s speech as being a comprehensive view of his attitude toward the LDS. The Gospel was clearly preached to a bastion of lost people and individuals that despise the true God, the rest of the concerns that are brought up in my opinion are stretches at this point (but excellent warnings none the less).

David,

I don’t think the general thought is a concern that Mohler has changed positions, but that Mohler’s actions may appear to be a shift in position to the uninformed masses resulting in a change in public perception regarding Mormonism.

Dave,

I have endeavored to be fair to Dr. Mohler in evaluating this event. I commented that the content of the speech itself was very good and that he did not grant Christian recognition to the LDS church. The bigger picture is that a number of high profile SBC men are interacting with the LDS church, including some close associates of Mohler. The fact that Mohler as well as Ravi Zacharias are returning next year to BYU tells me that this is not a one time event. Mohler’s visit and Richard Land’s recent visit to BYU are a small piece of what appears to be a growing dialog with Mormons.

Mormons stand to benefit greatly from this dialog, as they have been working tirelessly in recent years to be seen as a Christian denomination rather than an aberrant American-made cult, founded by a 19th-century soothsayer. Members of the LDS Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were in attendance at Russell Moore’s recent installation as head of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

Richard Mouw has recently written that “There’s a significant part of the evangelical movement that is now having healthy and friendly conversations, and it’s gone from a group of two dozen scholars talking to each other to church leaders meeting each other, going to see each other.’” Richard Mouw was a featured speaker at the celebration of the life of Carl F.H. Henry that Al Mohler held at SBTS in September, in conjunction with Fuller Theological Seminary.

It seems to me this is a similar dilemma to how you treat the Mormon missionaries at your door. Many of us (myself included) generally refuse to engage them in conversation at that point. There are Christians, however, who do engage and even debate them.

I have raised the matter of whether or not it would be the same if there were similar activity at Notre Dame. I would observe that Russell Moore has written for quite some time alongside Roman Catholics and Orthodox adherents at Touchstone Magazine (http://www.touchstonemag.com/). For that matter, a little closer to home, BYU groups have performed Dan Forrest’s music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHE2j6cwB4o).

Should we treat Catholics and other mainline denomination adherents who deny the gospel in a better way than we do Mormons? I’m asking sincerely. In the last election cycle, Rick Santorum didn’t seem to present nearly the dilemma that Mitt Romney did in the minds of many evangelical Christians. Why?

[Chip Van Emmerik]

I don’t think the general thought is a concern that Mohler has changed positions, but that Mohler’s actions may appear to be a shift in position to the uninformed masses resulting in a change in public perception regarding Mormonism.

Hey Chip-

I get what you’re saying here, and agree with you. Here’s my follow up question though, and it’s not targeted at just you - where are Christians called to discern the appearances for a believer that most of us have no contact with at all (unless you get his podcasts or read his books)?

It’s one thing to be a pastor or church member and have to confront sin within your immediate sphere of influence (a la Matthew 18)…it’s a totally different thing to stand afar off and say that Mohler is slipping into liberalism (or whatever term applies) based on the appearance of the situation. It seems like this has always been taught or acceptable, but is there any real Scriptural evidence for this?

I agree that Mohler has to address and defend Biblical marriage and not allow them to believe their concept of marriage to stand, but where do we get a platform to judge Mohler for what we think he is doing?

At what point do you draw the line? Should church leaders also meet with Buddhists priests or Muslim clerics or Church of Scientology or Jehovah’s Witnesses leaders if they also defend traditional marriage? Why are Mormons getting a special break? Is it because of political reasons, seeing as how Romney was a Mormon? Is it because they use the name of Jesus- though in a perverted way?

Once we are in bed with them, how can we as Christians go back to warning people about false religions or false teachers, when we are cooperating with them in order to achieve a political gain? And that is exactly what all of this is about. Political gain.

My brothers, I see this as a dangerous shift in mainstream Christianity. Ecumenism always starts a little bit at a time. Slowly instilling the idea in the churches that doctrine and theology are not things that should divide us. That we should look at those things we have in common.

Can you really picture Jesus or the Apostles getting together with the Pharisees and Sadducees and saying to them “I know we have our differences, but hey, we both believe in traditional marriage values. Let us work together to help clean up Rome and Greece from homosexuals who are trying to gain more rights.”

There is a much beloved story (passed down from Polycarp to Irenaeus to us) about St. John the Apostle. According to the story, John, the Apostle of love, was inside a Roman bath house getting cleansed, as was the custom of his day. However, through the hot steam he suddenly realized that the heretic Cerinthus was sitting just across the room. John immediately jumped up and fled the bathhouse, explaining that Cerinthus was inside and he didn’t want to be killed when the building collapsed under the righteous judgment of God! Why such a strong reaction? Cerinthus was one of the gospel’s chief opponents. He was like a first century version of Bart Ehrman… wildly popular, followed by many, but in a few decades will be virtually forgotten. In contrast, St. John is still with us, still faithfully contending for the gospel. In fact, many scholars believe that several of John’s epistles were written in direct response to the teaching of the Gnostic Cerinthus. Cerinthus couldn’t accept the deity of Jesus Christ or the Resurrection. John was a man transformed by Easter. Jesus Christ is Risen! That was the faith of John. That was the faith of the Apostles. That was the faith of the early church. That is the faith of all Christians everywhere.

Why did John flee the bathhouse? He fled because Cerinthus had parted from what, even in John’s day, was already the great received tradition of the gospel. In other words, the gospel is not merely a matter of personal interpretation so that one person’s view is just as valid as the next person’s view. This is why Paul admonishes the Galatian Christians so strongly, saying: “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:10). This is why Paul tells Timothy, “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful ones who will be able to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2).” This is why Jude admonishes us to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

When pastors or other church leaders deny core doctrines of the Christian faith, it is not merely some personal affront. My personal views on such matters are, quite frankly, irrelevant, but we should all take very seriously any attack on the received tradition of the church.

At the same time, Paul addressed the pagans basically on their own turf on Mars Hill in Athens in Acts 17. I understand it’s not the best parallel, but still, there was some kind of interaction.

Another point to remember here is that this is not some recent, raving phenomena. To draw on CC’s anecdote, we’re not dealing with the equivalent of Cerenthius in the bath house… we are several generations of followers removed. We are talking multiple generations of adherents raised under Mormon teaching. For better or worse, Mormonism has been around for over 100 years. Its adherents are our neighbors, our family (my wife has two aunts who are LDS, and one who lives in Utah whose children are all devout Mormons), entertainers, athlete, politicians… I don’t think they deserve the kind of accommodation Mouw has given them- among other things, that we “worship the same Jesus.” I don’t think, however, that is the same thing as what Mohler has given them. As much as we might not want to grant that they are “mainstream,” at what point do you have to engage them as if they are… because they are pretty much already there, whether we concede their theological position or not (and I don’t think we should, either). I mean, if you go to Turkey, you’ll have to engage Muslims. If you go to India, you’ll engage Hindus. If you get the chance to speak in a college setting, you’ll likely be speaking in somewhat of a religious context. Again, I’m thinking through this… what would be the difference?

Like John MacArthur, there is little Dr. Mohler can do (aside from staying quiet in his office and playing internet Scrabble) that will not attract criticism. That aside, here are a few observations:

1. Mohler has repeatedly warned against the rapid secularization of American society and the erosion and marginalization of Biblical mores.

2. There are two possible motives, that I see, for his actions: (a) Mohler apparently feels this threat is dire enough that allies are needed, and thus he is willing to defend traditional mores with unbelievers, or (b) this could mean he is practicing the traditional Baptist principle of advocating religious liberty for all faiths while standing firmly and unapologetically upon his own faith.

3. Mohler thus far has stood firmly on the authority of Scripture to inform his stated position for Biblical values, and has affirmed Christian exclusivism.

4. Mohler is not an ecumenist (see his purging of Southern Seminary!)

5. Mohler knows he is going to be heavily scrutinized and yet is returning anyway. There is a reason he is returning, and it isn’t apparently for ecumenical unity.

6. Lets just see how this shakes out.

[Greg Linscott]

At the same time, Paul addressed the pagans basically on their own turf on Mars Hill in Athens in Acts 17. I understand it’s not the best parallel, but still, there was some kind of interaction.

Greg I would agree. We could also, state that Paul appealed to both Festus and Felix by discussing a set of commonalities between Paul and them, and Paul’s message. He appealed to the fact that they both understood the same basic Jewish building blocks and customs. So in my opinion there is some level of Biblical example by the Apostles as they interacted with their pagan world. I would agree that there are some that may be overreaching here, but I don’t view it as a wholesale effort to bridge a commonality, but by using a commonality to establish a message. I think it is pretty unbelievable that they would even invite someone like Mohler to a closed cultic organization such as the LDS, and not only that, but to discuss with their impressionable young people at their bastion of knowledge. Now Mohler, could have come out beating them to a pulp in his first remarks, just as Paul could have done the same to Festus and Felix, but instead he approached a level of commonality to set a framework for a civilized discussion. This allowed the audience to be more receptive than to start throwing things at Mohler. I believe Mohler was pretty black and white, was crystal clear with what the Gospel was, and indicated that he would not be in heaven with them. I am not sure he could have stated it much clearer.