"Beck sermonized as if he were a Christian just like the Liberty students—just from a different denomination."

[Don Johnson]

Paul was forthright, calling for conversion, and willing to turn away from those who hated Christ.

Telling someone outright that their current beliefs will not get them into Heaven, followed up by a clear presentation of what beliefs will, is not inherently a call to conversion? What should Mohler have done under the circumstances? Initiated an alter call, accompanied by 11 choruses of Just As I Am?

[Don Johnson]

It seems to me that preaching the gospel is quite different from talking about the gospel.

I’m sorry you see such a distinction.

[Don Johnson]

And it is quite different from joining hands with false teachers as “co-belligerents” for morality - is that the gospel or moralism?

So when my pastor spoke at a State Capitol rally a couple of years ago in defense of traditional marriage, and some Catholic priests showed up in the crowd, should he have run away? Why must it be “Either/Or”? Can’t it be “Both/And”? My pastor clearly presented the Gospel in his speech, while concurrently standing up for morality.

[Don Johnson]

And finally, BTW, I have read Mohler’s talk several times. I don’t see a gospel appeal, I see a call to cooperation, in spite of differences. Hardly preaching the gospel.

And obviously I see a masterful insertion of the Truth of the Gospel into what was ostensibly a lecture on biblical morality. (The “Both/And” aspect I mention above.)

Don,

I understand what you are saying. However, I have been at funerals that were preached by Fundamental pastors that did about the same as Mohler and even less. I think considering what Mohler was there fore, he did well. Now should he have gone there in the first place? That is the crux of the matter.

A few weeks ago, my sons best friend was tragically killed. The family has no pastor, and I was heavily involved in the situation. I had the privilege of preaching the funeral and over 700 were in attendance. I was able to preach the Gospel. The only building big enough to hold the funeral was an Evangelical church that has people in their church, that used to be in mine. Many of my fellow pastors would not have preached it in that building. To me, the Gospel opportunity was more important than the building. I know many disagree. But to me, if I am asked to preach in something like that, or even to be a part of a community event, I do so with a clear conscience. God and His glory is magnified.

[Don Johnson]

DLCreed wrote:

Let the Gospel offend — not the mouthpiece — and let’s not confuse the two. In some cases it will be received, but rejected, in others it will be rejected and not received and in some cases it will be received and some will believe. I cannot imagine God chastising Mohler for entering into the den of Mormons and outlining the Truth because of endorsement and association concerns. It’s this kind of thinking that has relegated fundamentalism to the last row of the end bleachers and it’s a shame.

First, I think we can agree that Mohler did not offend (nor am I advocating that he should have been personally rude or offensive)

But, he outlined the truth? In such a way that the difference was clear, that conviction would set in, that any Mormon would question their own false faith? In a way that pointed to the lies these folks depend on?

Opportunity lost, I think.

I cannot agree as one who lives and ministers in Salt Lake City, UT. Al Mohler did indeed offend the Mormon church, Mormon leaders, and every Mormon I have spoken to who heard about the speech as well as those I asked what they thought about it. Sometimes living in a certain context does indeed give some first hand information that is helpful. Furthermore, the Mormon media machine did their best to downplay Mohler’s speech, reporting on his presence, but diminishing what he said. Contrast this when Ravi Z. was speaking at the tabernacle, they publicized and televised and made much of it. Why? because sadly, Ravi was far less clear on the Gospel (he said little about the Gospel) and the group that brought Ravi here seeks rapport with Mormonism. When you live in the Mormon controlled culture of SLC, you notice these things very clearly.

As a side note, Agree or disagree with Mohler’s presence BYU, I can seen a huge difference between that and Beck at LU. First BYU is not a school to train Mormon ministers. There is no such thing in Mormonism. BYU is a NCAA school who also has Mormon bent to everything. BYU’s goal is not evangelism to Mormonism, it is education of Mormons in academic/professional careers. I know LU has those as well, but the purpose of each school is different. But the biggest difference to me is this. We are called to preach the Gospel which Mohler did, we are commanded not to listen to false teachers which LU did. Seems like one (Mohler) is at least attempting to obey the Scripture (agree with his method or not) and LU invites a blatant false teacher, obviously disobeying the Scripture by subjecting her students to false doctrine. I cannot even see how the argument is made that they are similar unless one is comparing the schools. When in actuality we are comparing school (audience) to person (speaker)

Matthew J, your answer is the best so far in this thread.

I am not entirely convinced with respect to whether Mohler did/did not preach the gospel, however. But leaving that aside, the question I raise is whether we should be offended about Beck at LU as opposed to Mohler at BYU. I agree that it was wrong for LU to invite Beck. But I maintain it was equally wrong for Mohler to speak to Mormons in the way that he did. His purpose was not to preach the gospel, but to enlist co-belligerents. His “asides” on the gospel don’t amount to preaching, they amount to a dismissal of the gospel’s importance in light of his overall goal, co-belligerency in the culture wars.

It is pretty pathetic when we think we have to enlist Mormons in the cause of righteousness. Reminds me of certain feckless Judean kings enlisting the Assyrians for help against their enemies.

[Don Johnson]

I am not entirely convinced with respect to whether Mohler did/did not preach the gospel, however. But leaving that aside, the question I raise is whether we should be offended about Beck at LU as opposed to Mohler at BYU. I agree that it was wrong for LU to invite Beck. But I maintain it was equally wrong for Mohler to speak to Mormons in the way that he did. His purpose was not to preach the gospel, but to enlist co-belligerents. His “asides” on the gospel don’t amount to preaching, they amount to a dismissal of the gospel’s importance in light of his overall goal, co-belligerency in the culture wars.

We irreconcilably disagree here, so moving on…

[Don Johnson]

It is pretty pathetic when we think we have to enlist Mormons in the cause of righteousness. Reminds me of certain feckless Judean kings enlisting the Assyrians for help against their enemies.

Who is saying that “we have to enlist Mormons in the cause of righteousness”? I am not.

Furthermore, if you truly think that was the ultimate purpose behind Mohler’s visit to BYU, what do you do with BJ III’s endorsement of Mitt Romney for president? BJ III was quoted as saying: “But I’m not voting for a preacher. I’m voting for a president. It boils down to who can best represent conservative American beliefs, not religious beliefs.” -

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/10/17/fundamentalist-christian-college-chancellor-bob-jones-iii-endorses-mitt-romney/

BJ III freely aligned himself with a Mormon, and by extension Mormonism, in the “cause of righteousness”. If that were in fact Mohler’s objective, how would he be any different?

What in the world are you talking about? You do understand the concept of apples and oranges, don’t you? What is with the constant attempts to bring BJU into the equation? What possible linkage or similarity can you imagine between the two events?

Just incredible.

Voting for someone is hardly the same as appearing on someone’s platform, enlisting their support in a common cause, etc.

Don,

You charge Mohler with trying to enlist Mormonism in the “cause of righteousness.” I mention BJ III in a relevant comparison, and the word “hate” springs into you comments.

Good day.

[Don Johnson]

What in the world are you talking about? You do understand the concept of apples and oranges, don’t you? What is with the constant attempts to bring BJU into the equation? What possible linkage or similarity can you imagine between the two events?

Just incredible.

Voting for someone is hardly the same as appearing on someone’s platform, enlisting their support in a common cause, etc.

As dodges go, this one was quite spectacular.

It’s not apples or oranges, it might be Valencia vs. Navel. Of course there is a co-relation between an actual endorsement of a politician and an inferred endorsement by a speaker. Feigned disbelief and outrage aside, it is totally inconsistent to get exercised when an evangelical leader joins hands with a Mormon institution for political purposes and ignore it when a fundamentalist leader joins hands with a Mormon individual for political purposes. That’s not “hatred”…that’s discernment.

First, as I recall, Romney never appeared on a platform at BJU, though Dr Bob endorsed him in the 2008 campaign, I think it was. Regardless, it’s irrelevant. Political endorsements, campaigning, are not partnering.

Second, my reaction here is to what appears to be a knee-jerk reflex, anytime your ox gets gored, revert to form and try to drag BJU into the mix. Why is that?

I think, however, we have really all said all that needs to be said in this thread. Unless someone has something new to say on it, I think we’re probably done.