Should we applaud Al Mohler speaking at Brigham Young University?

Can it not be assumed that a brother in Christ, Dr. Mohler, was led by the Spirit to go to BYU and proclaim as much of the truth of Christ as allowable in that forum? Where does anyone get the authority to disapprove or question a man believed to be a servant of the Lord given the words that he spoke to a room full of unsaved and deceived people? Had he said anything that indicated a common spiritual ground in faith, then that would not have been of the Spirit. But he spoke truth which is of God. I’m much the layman but I despair over the continual conflicts among believers over such as this. If Mohler was wrong to go to the Mormon venue, then no one with Spiritual authority should go into any enemy camp with truth. I don’t think the Lord would have used me for that mission to BYU. Instead, he selected a far better equipped soldier for that task.

Greg is right. I was writing in a hurry and thinking that he was saying that [Mohler] would be formally separated from as a result of this.

[Greg Linscott]

…I’m wondering, though, if this were done by someone in the FBFI…would this be reason to see that they were formally separated from by the organization, or would it be a matter of criticizing but continuance of fellowship… I’m just trying to determine how serious you consider this matter to be.

I totally misunderstood his point. My apologies to all. It is a very good question, though.

[Greg Linscott]

I’m not trying to trap you, Don, or even counter your position. I understand and respect your right to criticize. It was a notable event. I’m wondering, though, if this were done by someone in the FBFI, let’s say- it doesn’t even matter who- would this be reason to see that they were formally separated from by the organization, or would it be a matter of criticizing but continuance of fellowship… I’m just trying to determine how serious you consider this matter to be.

Associations matter.

We all know that. When an FBFI connected individual appears in a place or with people who seem at odds with its objectives, questions are asked. We hear about them all the time here on SI.

At some point, it becomes very serious and people have to make decisions about future fellowship.

In this case, I am raising questions because at best the choice by Mohler seems unwise or foolish. Other observers should think about these questions and consider how much moral/spiritual influence from Mohler they ought to allow. Should other Christians listen to Mohler as a spiritual guide? He says some good things, that is true. But is his judgement trustworthy? Is he someone people should follow?

Personally, I think not. YMMV.

Don,

I understand associations matter. Not the question I’m asking. The question is, if someone you currently do enjoy fellowship with were to have made this specific move or something quite similar, would that be grounds to break off all formal association? Not whether or not you are uncomfortable with it, would counsel against it, etc. etc. As far as you are concerned (and I understand you personally do not speak unilaterally for the FBF), would it be grounds for formal separation?

I assume you would be willing to call it unwise, then? But that is kissing cousins to foolish, isn’t it? Would you be willing to call it foolish?

When I say a wisdom issue, I am putting it in the category of “not a biblical command.” I am not drawing a conclusion on the wisdom of it or pointing to a conclusion. I don’t necessarily contrast that with foolish (in the biblical category). I think there are various degrees of wise. Something can be unwise without being foolish (again, using the biblical categories), and one thing may be wiser than another thing without either being sinful. So I am not sure I would call this foolish. I think I would say I am not sure it was best. But that’s a “not sure.” But I am with Pr. Harding in saying, I don’t think he sinned by doing it.

How far behind the scenes must something be to become a moot point?

I don’t really know. I think it depends on context and issue. Not trying to dodge that, but I simply don’t know. On something like this, I think their theology of marriage is so far behind the scenes that no one looks at them and thinks of celestial marriage. They are more likely to think of special underwear or the Osmonds. Or both. So I think their marriage doctrine is unknown enough to be taken off the table for this discussion. I think the issue is whether Mohler’s appearance there granted them credibility as Christians. I would say no, unless one didn’t read the speech.

And so for you opposition to same-sex marriage is sufficient common ground to do what? …

Don’t know precisely for me personally. I tend to stay out of the public eye on this stuff. I think churches need mostly to stick to disciplemaking, and I am unconvinced pastors can have a life in the public eye apart from being pastors.

Having said that, I think all people can benefit from Mohler’s teaching on the issue of marriage, and so solidifying the beliefs and principles behind the opposition to it socially could be sufficient ground to have Mohler to speak on it, and for Mohler to go. After all, even though we won’t go to heaven together, we do live in the same country, and it is worth having people who know why same-sex marriage is bad. Mohler is certainly equipped to lecture on that.

So… there can’t be enough common ground to do this (i.e., to say it is wise) and still not enough common ground to do it (i.e., to say it is unwise), can there?

I apologize. I am not following this question. If I understand you correctly, I think there is enough common ground in social opposition to same-sex marriage and defense of traditional marriage to at least entertain the idea that it might be beneficial to go. At the same time, I think there are sufficient differences and sufficient danger of irremediable confusion to question whether or not it is wise to go.

My suspicion is that this is a bit of a Rohrshach test of sorts. Those who are inclined to suspect Mohler of being weak and liberal will view this as confirmation that he is exactly what they thought; they will not cut him any slack (even though this is a “first-time offense,” so far as I know). Those who are inclined to see Mohler as bold for the faith and courageous in the public square will see this as confirmation that he is exactly what they thought; they will trust his judgment. They will see him as bold for clearly stating his differences and using their platform to say they are going to hell, and bold for publicly stating his view on a contentious moral issue of our time and raising the spectre of persecution and jail for it. Either way, no one’s mind is likely chabged by this.

I don’t think it matters whether he was invited or sought it out. Either way it is wrong, in my opinion.

My point in bringing this up was your wording of “actively seek …” I don’t think Mohler actively pursued it. He was approached. I would not actively pursue something with Mormons. But perhaps there is some context in the non-church realm where we would find ourselves in agreement on something that we are both working on. Of course, that’s hypothetical.

I will bow out here. I have spent more time than I intended. Thanks for the exchange.

Why did Don write this article?

Was it to rebuke a disobedient brother (Mohler) in an attempt to have him turn from what Don perceives as a sin? If that’s the reason, it will be ineffective as I don’t think that Al Mohler is aware of the FBFI or Don.

Was it to warn the brethren of the the perceived sin of Al Mohler and have them separate even further from him with the purpose of ????????.

The zeal with which some fundamentalists publicly denounce the perceived sins of some of their brethren is not an asset.

[Don Johnson] Associations matter.

We all know that. When an FBFI connected individual appears in a place or with people who seem at odds with its objectives, questions are asked. We hear about them all the time here on SI.

At some point, it becomes very serious and people have to make decisions about future fellowship.

Don,

I’m still trying to understand where you’re coming from. What do you mean by the terms “associations” and “fellowship”? I don’t think that making an appearance at an LDS graduation ceremony is an association - there would have to be a consistent pattern of appearances or endorsements for me to say it would be an association. Shopping at Wal-Mart doesn’t “associate” me with the music that is played in the store there, does it? So why would we define this differently?

I’d argue that fellowship - true biblicial koinoneia - can only happen when there are two groups of believers. Since that didn’t happen, can we really credit this as “fellowship”? Especially since most people’s interaction with Mohler comes via audio files or book?

No one could criticize Billy Graham for anything he ever did. If he associated with liberals, no true koinonia existed, so it doesn’t matter.

Don,

I think Jay’s only half wrong. The part about true koinonia is mistaken but this:

What do you mean by the terms “associations” and “fellowship”? I don’t think that making an appearance at an LDS graduation ceremony is an association - there would have to be a consistent pattern of appearances or endorsements for me to say it would be an association.

stands, I think.

If you must categorize what Mohler did as disobedient, then any Christian who holds political party memberships, participates in silent roadside abortion protests, and chairs a community arts partnerships must also be disobedient. Which is why this from Bauder

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.

is far from the straw-man you decry it as. After all, what Mohler did was far closer to the activites he and I list than any offer of fellowship or Ecclesiastical association.

I wasn’t as clear as I could have been earlier. Let me rephrase, with clarifications in underline:

I’d argue that fellowship - true biblicial koinoneia - can only happen when there are two groups of believers. Since that didn’t happen, can we really credit this presentation of Mohler’s as “fellowship” with the LDS? Or even as “fellowship” between Mormon and IFB types if they attend a rally for a joint concern? Can we argue for ‘fellowship’ with Mohler if our only interaction comes via his audio files or books?

So there’s a couple of questions -

1. Is it really fair to Dr. Mohler argue that there is an ‘association’ between Mohler and BYU on the basis of a speech given at the school for graduation? It seems to me that there needs to be more cooperation before we can start arguing that there are “associations”.

2. Is it really ‘fellowship’ if we were to attend a pro-religious freedom rally (or pro-life rally, or pro-marriage rally) with others who are not independent Fundamental Baptists? What if IFBs attended a pro-religious freedom rally with Catholics or even Conservative Evangelicals? (quelle horreur!)

I don’t have my copy of Logos open, but someone did some spadework on the term koinoneia and it seems to me that the term can only be used when you are referring to something that occurs when you have two groups of believers (2 Cor. 6:14, 8:4; Gal. 2:9, Eph. 3:9, Phil. 1:5, 2:1, 1 John 1:3, 1:6-7) . Grouping unbelievers and believers for any reason wouldn’t seem to apply to the way you want to use the terms.

[Jay]

1. Is it really fair to Dr. Mohler argue that there is an ‘association’ between Mohler and BYU on the basis of a speech given at the school for graduation?

It wasn’t a graduation speech. Most schools don’t graduate in October.

Either way, speaking in a venue communicates a message. Perhaps if it were a graduation speech it would be more problematic, not less.

[Jay]

2. Is it really ‘fellowship’ if we were to attend a pro-religious freedom rally (or pro-life rally, or pro-marriage rally) with others who are not independent Fundamental Baptists? What if IFBs attended a pro-religious freedom rally with Catholics or even Conservative Evangelicals? (quelle horreur!)

It wasn’t a rally either.

[Jay]

I don’t have my copy of Logos open, but someone did some spadework on the term koinoneia and it seems to me that the term can only be used when you are referring to something that occurs when you have two groups of believers (2 Cor. 6:14, 8:4; Gal. 2:9, Eph. 3:9, Phil. 1:5, 2:1, 1 John 1:3, 1:6-7) . Grouping unbelievers and believers for any reason wouldn’t seem to apply to the way you want to use the terms.

Jay, there is no problem when true fellowship occurs. There is a problem when you extend fellowship (i.e., partnership on some level) to those who are not your fellows.

The debate isn’t whether fellowship occurred, the debate is whether it was right, wise, unwise, foolish or sinful. Take your pick of terms, or pick one somewhere in between the cracks of those terms.

[Don Johnson] Jay, there is no problem when true fellowship occurs. There is a problem when you extend fellowship (i.e., partnership on some level) to those who are not your fellows.

The debate isn’t whether fellowship occurred, the debate is whether it was right, wise, unwise, foolish or sinful. Take your pick of terms, or pick one somewhere in between the cracks of those terms.

So this ‘fellowship’ you’re discussing exists because…you say that it does? Your position seems to be that ‘fellowship’ exists in this instance even though what happened doesn’t seem to fit the definition of fellowship in the New Testament.

I think we’ve got a definition problem here.

You’re just being obtuse, Jay.

Al Mohler was trying to do, it seems to me, was to rally with the LDS church around “traditional” marriage. The problem is, when I think of Mormon marriage I don’t think of it like Christian marriage. So, to that end I don’t think Al Mohler exercised good judgment in going to BYU.

That being said, how many SBC churches, for example, take a hard line on divorce and remarriage? When I see people on a 2nd or 3rd marriage I’m not associating that with what I believe is a biblical marriage either. Are we being consistent in the body of Christ?

I spoke with one of my fellow fundamental baptist pastors yesterday about this issue. He serves the Lord fulltime in Utah and personally met with Dr. Mohler for coffee in Salt Lake subsequent to the speech at BYU. Mohler may be planning a return visit sometime next year. Mohler stayed up very late the night before (almost 4:00 AM) refining the wording of his speech. He knew the speech would be carefully read by many. According to that meeting, Mohler wanted to make it very clear in the wording of his speech that there was no Christian fellowship implied or recognition given by his appearance. His main concern was that BYU, the intellectual center of Mormonism, would not “cave” on the homosexual marriage issue. He sees them as an ally in that regard. However, there is mounting pressure inside Mormonism to cave in. They are potentially just one “new revelation” away from such a stance. This meeting gives some insight as to what was going on in Mohler’s mind regarding his motive for accepting the invitation. I still maintain that BYU’s motive is to be perceived as more mainstream and that is where the danger lies.