Should we applaud Al Mohler speaking at Brigham Young University?

Public engagement isn’t necessarily cooperation. Airing disagreements publicly like this (especially when there have been Evangelicals who have blurred the lines) can be important to do. Having serious religious disagreement doesn’t mean that we must be uncivil in our demeanor, or refuse to engage opponents out of principle. The fact is, we are American citizens alongside many with whom we share religious differences. I don’t think it is alarming that there are occasions like this that people with serious differences have interactions… if anything things like this can be instructive to people to model what relations can be with your LDS co-worker, for example. Obviously, as illustrated when Romney ran for president this last election cycle, that is something Christians aren’t all clear on.

[Don Johnson]

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.

… 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.

This sorely presses the boundaries of credulity. Consistently applied, this means that believers could not partner with unbelievers in any meaningful way in promoting any common cause, moral, political, civil, aesthetic, or other.

Fundamentalists, if there are Catholic, Mormons, atheists, JW’s, in the anti-abortion group with which you partner you must pull out. If there are any unregenerate in your young republicans club at college, shake the dust off your Skechers at them and form your own evangelicals only conservative group. If you are on the board of the youth symphony of a major city, come out from among them and be ye separate.

Please.

This is a huge obstacle for your contention, Don. And you haven’t dealt with it at your blog or here other than to dismiss/ignore it.

Détente: A period of lessening tension between two major national powers, or a policy designed to lessen that tension. Détente presupposes that the two powers will continue to disagree but seeks to reduce the occasions of conflict.

Don, I’m not sure what I think of this visit to BYU. I will admit it makes me uncomfortable, but I’m not sure whether that’s because wrongdoing actually occurred, or while it’s against what has traditionally been done. That may be what the others are speaking of above when they say their consciences wouldn’t let them do it. This could easily be a issue where one must be convinced in his own mind in order to act in good faith, and not sin against his own conscience which may be improperly trained (or not).

I’m not sure if the article you cite really deals with any kind of religious cooperation. Even your cite above speaks of “engagement” (which can also occur with an enemy) and “more civil than groundbreaking.” And even the use of the word détente seems to indicate that this is not a completely joining together moment, but a recognition that on some points (e.g. dealing with civil laws), we are not actually in disagreement, even though as regards our specific beliefs, there are still major black & white differences.

I know you are not American, but I think democratic principles work largely the same way in Canada (feel free to correct me where I’m wrong). If we are trying to be an influence for right principles in the arena of civil government, how are we able to get others who share a common civil belief (e.g. in traditional marriage) to act in a way for the public good if we cannot engage them? Or are you pretty much saying that we should let our writings, speeches and published positions be enough, and we don’t really need to attempt to coordinate our efforts (for a civil goal, not a religious one) in any way beyond that? If so, I’m not sure how well we would be “being salt and light” in this arena though, if we never actually engage.

David Cloud did a nice job outlining this issue in today’s FBIS newsletter:

Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s flagship seminary, spoke to a Mormon audience at Brigham Young University on October 21. He stated that he does not accept Mormon doctrine and that he was there as one “committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the ancient and eternal Trinitarian faith of the Christian church.” But he also said that he believes that Mormons and Christians should stand together against the onslaught of secularism. His presence at a Mormon forum was exhibit A for this type of unity. He said many good things, such as, “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?” (Albert Mohler Speaks at Brigham Young University,” Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, Oct. 22, 2013). And, “Heterosexuals did a very good job of undermining marriage before same-sex couples arrived with their demands. The marriage crisis is a moral crisis and it did not start with same-sex marriage, nor will it end there. Once marriage can mean anything other than a heterosexual union, it can and must mean everything. It is just a matter of time” (Mohler at Brigham Young). Those are brilliant statements. He knows what is happening and sees what is coming, but he understands neither the root cause nor the solution. As for the root cause, it is the apostasy and compromise of the churches, and his own Southern Baptist Convention has as much guilt in this as any.

I have no problem with what he’s writing or how it’s written, even though I disagree with him in some areas.

Don wrote:

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.

Don,

It seems to me that you’re beginning to border on the meanspirited or uncharitable now. By emphasizing the sections that you did, it appears that you were playing up the ‘fellowship’ side of your argument and minimizing the important parts. You should have at least finished the sentences you underlined (and that I’ve bolded here) to provide the correct context to your readers.

At the end of the day, acknowledging that Mormons and Fundamentalists have similarities is not and can not be considered as “fellowship” in any real sense of the word.

[DavidO]

This sorely presses the boundaries of credulity. Consistently applied, this means that believers could not partner with unbelievers in any meaningful way in promoting any common cause, moral, political, civil, aesthetic, or other.

Fundamentalists, if there are Catholic, Mormons, atheists, JW’s, in the anti-abortion group with which you partner you must pull out.

I think I have consistently said that when the association has a religious foundation, Christians need to keep separate from non-Christians. Yes, that means staying out of ecumenically oriented anti-abortion groups and the like. I disagreed with the Moral Majority for precisely this problem.

[DavidO] If there are any unregenerate in your young republicans club at college…

To my mind, secularly based groups and causes, where individuals participate as citizens, not religionists, are a different category. I have never called Christians out of those organizations, though as with all involvement with the world, caution must be advised.

[DavidO] This is a huge obstacle for your contention, Don. And you haven’t dealt with it at your blog or here other than to dismiss/ignore it.

On the contrary, I think I have been quite consistent in what I am saying.

[dcbii]

Détente: A period of lessening tension between two major national powers, or a policy designed to lessen that tension. Détente presupposes that the two powers will continue to disagree but seeks to reduce the occasions of conflict.

What concord has light with darkness?

Should we not actively engage Mormons at every opportunity, rebuke their errors and call them to repentance?

Are their views of marriage the same as ours or not? Answer: they are not. They are profoundly wrong in their view of marriage. Do we do them any service by speaking of common ground? Or do we make them complacent in their unbelief and add to the hardening of their hearts?

[dcbii]

I know you are not American, but I think democratic principles work largely the same way in Canada (feel free to correct me where I’m wrong). If we are trying to be an influence for right principles in the arena of civil government, how are we able to get others who share a common civil belief (e.g. in traditional marriage) to act in a way for the public good if we cannot engage them? Or are you pretty much saying that we should let our writings, speeches and published positions be enough, and we don’t really need to attempt to coordinate our efforts (for a civil goal, not a religious one) in any way beyond that? If so, I’m not sure how well we would be “being salt and light” in this arena though, if we never actually engage.

I think individuals as individuals can involve themselves in politics, but this isn’t the province of the church or churchmen. Really, do we trust men or God in this? Do we need the Mormons to stand with us in order to preserve ‘traditional marriage’? Isn’t the arm of the Lord strong enough by itself without appealing to cultists? What spiritual strength do they add to the cause?

Have we learned nothing from ancient Israel, always seeking human alliances? Read Isaiah.

Mohler, Mormons, and Marriage

At the end of the day, I think it is a mistake to say of Mormons that “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.” The difference between Christianity and Mormonism is not simply over the gospel. It is also over marriage. The difference is serious enough that Christian leaders cannot wisely position themselves as allies of Mormons on this important social issue.

While people are chewing (or maybe choking) on the latest Nick of Time, consider also what the Friends of Justice - a clearly universally, liberally inclusive group - had to say about Mohler at BYU.

Here are some quotes:

Al was playing to his base. “I am not here because I believe we are going to heaven together,” Mohler said. ”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.”

Mohler couldn’t speak to a Mormon audience without raising concerns about his stand on the important question in the conservative evangelical canon: when the roll is called up yonder, who’ll be there (and who won’t)… .

Mohler knew he wouldn’t offend his audience. They are just as convinced that, his conservative credentials notwithstanding, the Southern Baptist leader will eventually be cast into the outer darkness where men shall weep and gnash their teeth.

I excommunicate you and you excommunicate me; so we’re even.

and

Unlike God, Dr. Mohler is cool with Mormons. He thinks they’re terrific people espousing strong family values. He’d love to have them as neighbors. The hell thing isn’t Mohler’s idea. Unfortunately Al’s God, for whatever reason, doesn’t want Mormons in his celestial neighborhood.

Which forces us to the conclusion that God is considerably less gracious than orthodox Southern Baptists like Al Mohler. Al is merciful but God, regrettably, is not.

And Mohler will be heading to BYU again …

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57062262-78/evangelical-byu-mormon-mo…

[Don Johnson]

What concord has light with darkness?

I think you know what I would say here, but I’ll answer anyway. In the spiritual realm NONE. No argument. In the civil realm, we will interact as citizens. Even the Bible makes this clear.

Should we not actively engage Mormons at every opportunity, rebuke their errors and call them to repentance?

As regards their faith, of course! Where they agree with us on civil matters and in a civil realm, we would end up standing with them. Where they disagree because of the outworking of *their* faith, we would not stand with them.

Are their views of marriage the same as ours or not? Answer: they are not. They are profoundly wrong in their view of marriage. Do we do them any service by speaking of common ground? Or do we make them complacent in their unbelief and add to the hardening of their hearts?

Others have already answered this, but while their views of the *spiritual* component and intent of marriage are different from ours, their (at least current) view of traditional marriage in civil culture (i.e. monogamous, though their non-official views on that are more than debatable, no legitimate sexual activity outside of marriage, no gay marriage, no adoption except to a traditional marriage etc.) is substantially the same. Obviously, if at some point they stand for polygamous marriage, we could not and would not stand with them.

I think individuals as individuals can involve themselves in politics, but this isn’t the province of the church or churchmen. Really, do we trust men or God in this? Do we need the Mormons to stand with us in order to preserve ‘traditional marriage’? Isn’t the arm of the Lord strong enough by itself without appealing to cultists? What spiritual strength do they add to the cause?

Was Mohler really calling for churches to make this one of their purposes, or was he calling for individuals (from different faiths) to stand together on this issue? It seemed to me it was more the latter. Unless you are distinguishing individual “churchmen” (which would be all Christians, I would think) from other individuals. If you mean someone like a pastor, he is still a citizen in the civil realm, and can fight as an individual in that forum.

Have we learned nothing from ancient Israel, always seeking human alliances? Read Isaiah.

While we can learn plenty from Isaiah and the rest of the O.T., I’m not sure the best lessons for us to try to emulate would be those that directly come from the special bond God had with Israel and his people, and the way He directly moved on behalf of His theocracy. I’m pretty sure no modern nation today (and probably not even secular Israel), at least until the end times, has God directly moving to wipe out foreign armies and do similar things on its behalf. That said, of course I believe that God is all-powerful and still moves on this earth, though his ways are not as known to us as they were made at times in Israel. For example, I have no idea what direct plans God has for either America or Canada, or what part they will continue to play in history. I don’t think any man knows that. In spite of that, as Christians we can still endeavor to be light and salt in our time and culture to fight on the side of righteousness in the civil realm.

Neither of our governments can be said to be Christian, so fighting for righteous laws will mean fighting for the righteous outworking of good civil law. Since fighting for those good civil laws is not the realm of the church, but of individuals, as individuals we will end up working together with other individuals fighting for those same laws, even if what they believe is the spiritual outworking of those laws is different from what we believe. How much time is spent on things like politics is clearly another question. Certainly, for the Christian, politics should not be their number one concern, nor should it take away from what God has called us to.

I’m guessing that given your views and what you said about the Moral Majority, you would not join any political group that would also allow Mormons to join, even if nothing about the group touched on anything other than politics? And further you would believe that other Christians should leave any political group that would allow members of any faith to join if they agreed with the principles of the group, but disagreed on faith?

[Todd Wood]

And Mohler will be heading to BYU again …

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57062262-78/evangelical-byu-mormon-mo…

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 in February.

If this is true, it’s worth keeping an eye on. If Ravi is going to present the gospel and address them from the faith, that’s one thing. I don’t know what Mohler is doing but I don’t want to jump to conclusions without seeing what Mohler will be doing.

[dcbii]

[Don Johnson]

I think individuals as individuals can involve themselves in politics, but this isn’t the province of the church or churchmen. Really, do we trust men or God in this? Do we need the Mormons to stand with us in order to preserve ‘traditional marriage’? Isn’t the arm of the Lord strong enough by itself without appealing to cultists? What spiritual strength do they add to the cause?

Was Mohler really calling for churches to make this one of their purposes, or was he calling for individuals (from different faiths) to stand together on this issue? It seemed to me it was more the latter. Unless you are distinguishing individual “churchmen” (which would be all Christians, I would think) from other individuals. If you mean someone like a pastor, he is still a citizen in the civil realm, and can fight as an individual in that forum.

I wanted to get back to you on this, but wrote a lengthy article instead. You can find it here.

Don,

I read your article over there, and I really have only one serious quibble with it — in the last paragraph, you rhetorically ask if we should join with pagans to accomplish spiritual ends, something most if not all here already agree with you on. You didn’t ask the question most of us are discussing on this issue, which is whether or not any association of individuals in a civil sphere to accomplish a civil and practical end is right or not. That question is, I think, much harder to answer than yours. Even asking people of different faiths to stand up for a particular issue is not actually the same as asking them to join together in a particular alliance. I’m not going to form or join a “Mormon-Christian Alliance for the Protection of Traditional Marriage.” However, if I find myself at a political rally against abortion or for traditional marriage, and find that the man next to me is a Mormon, while I would speak to him about the Gospel given a chance, I don’t see myself either leaving or asking him to leave a political rally in which we share a common cause because we differ in the spiritual realm.

I don’t believe America can compare itself to Judah directly under God’s rule. I certainly believe that prayer and spreading the Gospel are the primary means that will “save” America if she is to be saved, and I certainly don’t believe my primary responsibility before God is to campaign for good laws and work in the civil realm towards that end. However, like Paul in the tumult naming the Pharisees as fellows who confess a resurrection while certainly knowing that most of them were not likely true believers and likely didn’t believe in the resurrection exactly the way he did, I still think that shared beliefs can be useful for some ends when standing against direct assault on those beliefs. And as Paul was using that occasion as an opportunity to give his testimony, maybe my shared political beliefs on certain issues would at some point open an opportunity for me to give my testimony as well.

I say all this not to either defend Mohler going to BYU or to say that we should actively seek such “alliances,” just that our interaction with such groups in non-spiritual endeavors is not as clear to me as it apparently is for you.

you rhetorically ask if we should join with pagans to accomplish spiritual ends,

Dave, I think you have hit on a key issue that I mentioned to Don elsewhere. We are mistaken if we think defending traditional marriage in a political/social context is to accomplish a spiritual end. If we (as a nation) were to defend the legal notion of traditional marriage, we have not done anything spiritual.

It is true that marriage is a biblical issue, but that is not the same as being a “spiritual” issue, per se. Even unbelievers participate in marriage, and we should want them to. It is true that all marriages would be better if both parties were “spiritual,” that is, “of the Spirit.”

Marriage in civil society is social and cultural. Societies that honor traditional marriage have a better foundation for society. So our push to defend traditional marriage in the political realm is not spiritual; it is cultural and social to sustain the fabric of society.

I also think Don’s article is not truly, or at least fully, dispensational. That won’t matter to some, and it likely won’t get any critique on the sites that are commonly known for accusing fundamentalists of abandoning dispensationalism, but the article errs in equating the political/religious nature of Israel with the solely religious nature of the church. In Israel, political alliances such as the one mentioned were wrong because they were religious alliances—the abandoning of the true God for the gods of other nations. No such thing goes on in parity alignments in the American political culture. God never promised to defend his church against political enemies, nor did he promise to make the expressions of committed discipleship the mandate of the land. Israel was a theocracy where the law of God was the law of the land, the king was (supposed to be) a primary religious leader, and political alliances were to be with God alone. America has none of those characteristics.

IMO, dispensationalists should not make the argument Don make. That is an argument much better suited to cultural transformationists, reconstructionists, theonomists, and the like. It has no place among dispensationalists. If we are going to draw a principle from that, the principle must deal with actual spiritual ends, not political, social, or cultural ones.

Hi Dave and Larry -

Agree with you both, esp. re: the dispensational slippage, but I think Don’s riposte is that Mohler’s participation will do two things:

1. It will blur the lines between participation for civil matters and a spiritual yoking.

2. It will reinforce their idea of ‘marriage’ without a clear articulation of the Biblical picture of marriage. (H/T to Dr. Bauder)

My guess, based on this thread and his discussions of dialogue with “conservative evangelicals” on other threads, is that Don would strenuously argue against any unity of any kind with the LDS (in this instance) in order to preserve the purity of the gospel, whether it being something like this or any other kind of joint discussion. I think that for Don, the gospel and salvation of the LDS must occur before we can even discuss anything like this jointly. So for Don, there must be complete agreement on salvation and other doctrines before there are any discussions of joining forces.

Again, I would disagree with that, but I think that’s Don’s thinking. Maybe he’ll correct me on that :).