Should we applaud Al Mohler speaking at Brigham Young University?

I just read Kevin Bauder’s comments on this and found it to be a more accurate evaluation than one that included unfounded speculation concerning Al Mohler’s motives.

Bauder’s Nick this weekend is very good. Here’s the link, and here’s the takeaway:

If the Bible forbade Christians ever to join with non-Christians in any endeavor, then every Christian would have to resign from nearly every political, commercial, and cultural activity. Christians would not be able to run for congress, fly an airliner, or play in a decent symphony. Rather than requiring this kind of separation, however, the Bible explicitly disavows it. Believing people are not to cut themselves entirely off from the wicked people of the world—indeed, if they had to, they would need to leave the planet (1 Cor. 5:10).

What the Bible requires is sometimes called ecclesiastical separation. The idea behind ecclesiastical separation is that those who are reckoned as part of the true ecclesia (church universal) must never pretend to Christian fellowship with those who are not. Thus, Paul pronounces an anathema upon those who teach a false gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), while John forbids Christians from giving even mild encouragement to gospel deniers when they come to spread their false doctrine (2 Jn. 10-11).

…Was his appearance at Brigham Young University simply a repetition of the same error? Mohler’s words indicate otherwise. From the beginning of his address he emphasized the contrast between Christianity and Mormonism. He neither stated nor implied that Mormons should be recognized as Christians. Quite the contrary, he stated that Mormonism and Christianity occupied “separate and irreconcilable theological worlds.” He insisted that he did not believe that Mormons would be in heaven together with Christians. He stated clearly, “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.”

[KTB]

If the Bible forbade Christians ever to join with non-Christians in any endeavor, then every Christian would have to resign from nearly every political, commercial, and cultural activity.

But then, that is not what I am arguing, is it? Which would make this what kind of an argument?

[KTB] What the Bible requires is sometimes called ecclesiastical separation. …

Correct. The question is, is this a breach of that requirement?

[KTB]…Was his appearance at Brigham Young University simply a repetition of the same error? Mohler’s words indicate otherwise. From the beginning of his address he emphasized the contrast between Christianity and Mormonism. He neither stated nor implied that Mormons should be recognized as Christians. Quite the contrary, he stated that Mormonism and Christianity occupied “separate and irreconcilable theological worlds.” He insisted that he did not believe that Mormons would be in heaven together with Christians. He stated clearly, “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.”

So… does the fact that his speech contained these words justify the appearance? Overall, would you say that Mohler’s purpose was to preach the gospel on this occasion and try to convert Mormons to Christ? If not, what was his purpose?

To me in comes down to the expertise issue. Mohler is known because he is the president of a Christian seminary. As far as I know he isn’t a legal expert or political science major. I don’t think that as the president of a seminary you can be divorced from that identification. It would seem to indicate to the uninitiated that there is some type of cooperation implied. Granted his speech would dispel that idea.

[josh p]

To me in comes down to the expertise issue. Mohler is known because he is the president of a Christian seminary. As far as I know he isn’t a legal expert or political science major.

Why would he need to be a legal expert or political science major to speak to the issue of marriage in this country?

He wouldn’t. But that might be something a person might have an educational background in if they were speaking on that subject. He is a seminary president. That is what he is known for. To me it seems like a bad idea. As I said I believe his message demonstrated there is no religious cooperation planned or expressed.

It seems to me that his expertise would have decided relevance, because the legal matter being considered is a moral one, with a decidedly Biblical concept undergirding it.

If that is the case then I am more against it. That would sound more like religious cooperation. I don’t understand what the argument would be. “we don’t agree on the cardinal teachings of the Bible and in fact you are repudiating them but let me argue based on my knowledge of it”. Maybe I am thinking of this weird but it doesn’t make sense to me.

Does your belief as a Christian have any impact on matters of politics and public policy?

My wife and I are adoptive parents that worked through the state of Minnesota’s foster-to-adopt program. We make no effort to hide that our beliefs as Christians were quite influential in our decision to pursue that opportunity. Yet, we have been willing to speak in settings that aren’t especially Christian to speak in a favorable way about foster parenting in community settings. I haven’t had the opportunity at this point, but I could imagine that someday, there might be an occasion where a group with religious connections in our area might like us to share our experiences with them. I would consider it, even if we were not in doctrinal agreement. My assumption is they would want to hear what I had to say on an issue we both felt was important, in spite of our differences on very significant matters.

I se it no differently with Mohler. He is an outspoken defender of traditional marriage, and has principled reasons for being so, He is being called in to articulate that support. I don’t see that as religious cooperation. That’s co-belligerence.

Well said.

[Greg Linscott]

Does your belief as a Christian have any impact on matters of politics and public policy?

My wife and I are adoptive parents that worked through the state of Minnesota’s foster-to-adopt program. We make no effort to hide that our beliefs as Christians were quite influential in our decision to pursue that opportunity. Yet, we have been willing to speak in settings that aren’t especially Christian to speak in a favorable way about foster parenting in community settings. I haven’t had the opportunity at this point, but I could imagine that someday, there might be an occasion where a group with religious connections in our area might like us to share our experiences with them. I would consider it, even if we were not in doctrinal agreement. My assumption is they would want to hear what I had to say on an issue we both felt was important, in spite of our differences on very significant matters.

I se it no differently with Mohler. He is an outspoken defender of traditional marriage, and has principled reasons for being so, He is being called in to articulate that support. I don’t see that as religious cooperation. That’s co-belligerence.

I don’t think your illustration is apples to apples. In your scenario you are being asked to speak as a fellow adoptive parent (side note we are too. PTL) not because of your position as a pastor. Would you be willing to attend a Mormon conference and teach on marriage because of your credentials as a pastor?

I guess it depends on what the teaching constitutes. I would be willing to speak on something like why we need to support the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman (an issue we faced here recently in Minnesota).

In your scenario you are being asked to speak as a fellow adoptive parent (side note we are too. PTL) not because of your position as a pastor.

Maybe. I think there are people, though, who wonder if their religious beliefs will cause difficulty if they participate in the state system. That is an area I’d be willing to speak to and share our experiences with.

As I said earlier, though, too: I think that Mohler used the occasion, not only to address a matter in which there could be legitimate co-belligerence, but to boldly clarify that there is a significant distinction between Mormons and Evangelical Christians, something that others before him had left far less clear. I do think that is significant, his actions clarifying the truth from their error and essentially condemning them, albeit in about as polite a way as he possibly could have.

Fair enough. Thanks for the discussion.

[Don Johnson]

[Dave Doran]

Don,

Thanks for your answer. I hate to read into it, but it seems as if you’re saying that the real point of my original question (should an evangelical/fundamentalist school have in someone who is not a believer to address cultural or political issues) is moot because Mohler isn’t a politician or an academic expert on marriage. Am I right about that?

Yes, I think that is correct. Apples and Oranges and all that.

[Dave Doran] Just to clear up any question of what I think about Mohler speaking there, I am not a fan of it. The LDS have been very clear about their desire to be perceived as genuine Christians and welcoming well-known evangelicals to a platform they provide helps them craft an image. While I greatly appreciate the distinction that Mohler drew between his beliefs and Mormonism, this has the potential to be a win for the LDS in terms of their image with nominal “Christians” (i.e., the kind of “Christians” they are seeking to win over to Mormonism). Most of those people will never read what Mohler said, but they will hear about Mohler’s presence. Further, this was not Paul at Mars Hill—it is a massive stretch to tie the purpose and content of Paul’s message to Mohler’s.

So to further clarify, you are basically agreeing with me in questioning Mohler making this move, right?

[Dave Doran] All that said, whether I like it or not really isn’t the point. The main part of my question was whether separatist institutions have violated separatist principles to host speakers in a manner similar to what Mohler did at BYU. … So, Don, giving it a broader scope, what are thoughts about whether there is a legitimate place for a believer to step into a context like Mohler did or for a school to have someone from across the theological aisle speak on a subject of public interest or common good?

Quite frankly, appearing on the Mormon’s turf is not simply “across the theological aisle”. They serve a different god. They preach another gospel. The only legitimate message you can bring in such a context is the full gospel. Mohler made a statement: I don’t think you are going to heaven. He never told them how to get there.

Ravi Zacharias spoke at the Mormon Tabernacle a few years ago. He defended it by pointing to D. L. Moody preaching in the same venue in 1899. If you read Moody’s own account (click on link, search page for ‘Mormon’), you’ll find it, I think, pretty unimpressive.

That is the best anyone has ever done on the Mormon’s turf. Perhaps you can justify Moody or Zacharias (certainly can’t justify Mouw, who appeared with Zacharias and apologized for Christian treatment of Mormons), but it seems to me that even their efforts were failures as well.

So, no, I don’t subscribe to the notion that “I’ll go anywhere to preach the gospel” because most who claim it never do. Mohler certainly didn’t, erudite and intelligent as his speech was.

What about this line?

“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.”

If this isn’t the gospel … what is it?

[josh p]

If that is the case then I am more against it. That would sound more like religious cooperation. I don’t understand what the argument would be. “we don’t agree on the cardinal teachings of the Bible and in fact you are repudiating them but let me argue based on my knowledge of it”. Maybe I am thinking of this weird but it doesn’t make sense to me.

It would seem to me that there’s only ‘cooperation’ if a plan is laid out and implemented by both groups. Seeing as Mohler simply detailed the situation, I don’t see how this jumps to the level of ‘cooperation’.