Albert Mohler: "Which Way to the Future? Southern Baptists, Southern Seminary, and the Future of the Evangelical Movement in America"

For people who are not immediately inclined to listen, I’d encourage you to do so. Mohler is retelling the story of the fundamentalist/modernist controversy and neo-evangelicalism, placing the SBC and Southern Seminary at the forefront of a resurgent evangelicalism. Should be right up SI’s alley for discussion.

First, from my own personal experience and observations of the 1960s and 70s Mohler is right in the main points about what he states about the Fundamentalist Liberal controversies and some result. He is right about the SBC non involvement. However, he does not appear to have a grasp of some of the consequences. He looked at New Evangelicalism and the emerging 21st century evangelicalism without seeing the many failures of the movement. Dr. Rolland McCune’s book, “Promise Unfulfilled, The failed strategy of modern Evangelicalism” presents a scholarly and accurate portrayal of what has occurred.

Second, the Southern Baptist Convention churches are filled with unregenerate church members. The victory of the Conservatives in gaining control of denominational leadership and of some institutions was commendable and to be applauded. It was made possible because many Southern Baptists, including the unregenerate laymen, have “assented” to the orthodox truths of Christianity. They are like many Catholic laymen who are shocked when the professors and church leaders deny these traditional truths. However, these assenters to truth have not necessarily personally relied on those truths to become born again believers. They have the knowledge and assent aspect of faith but not the personal trust or reliance. These churches, with many unregenerate members, most likely will have future problems. Also, there are still many of those who endorse liberal theology who are Pastors, Professors, and lay leaders in the SBC. States such as Texas and Virginia have many liberal churches and control state leadership. The Southern Baptist Convention battle for truth appears still in process. They are in no position to offer Evangelical stability to the larger Evangelical movement.

Third, Al Mohler’s 5 point Calvinism has come under attack in the SBC. He is respected for having a part in cleaning up Southern Baptist Seminary. But many do not like his theology or emphasis.

[Bob T.]
Second, the Southern Baptist Convention churches are filled with unregenerate church members. The victory of the Conservatives in gaining control of denominational leadership and of some institutions was commendable and to be applauded. It was made possible because many Southern Baptists, including the unregenerate laymen, have “assented” to the orthodox truths of Christianity. They are like many Catholic laymen who are shocked when the professors and church leaders deny these traditional truths. However, these assenters to truth have not necessarily personally relied on those truths to become born again believers. They have the knowledge and assent aspect of faith but not the personal trust or reliance. These churches, with many unregenerate members, most likely will have future problems.

I don’t think you’re in a position to make such a statement. It exhibits an extreme lack of charity and a smug superiority.

The impression I get is that Mohler knows something’s wrong but he doesn’t know how to fix it:

1. He cites getting J.I. Packer, he of ECT complicity, to teach Southern Baptists henhouse how to be Evangelical. Billy Graham, too, gets away with no warning whatsoever.
   
2. He sees commitment to the core of Christ as a biblical teaching and guarding the periphery against false teachings as a pragmatic necessity (rather than, as Fundamentalists believe, also a biblical teaching).
   
   While some of us here dislike the flamingly belligerent militancy of earlier generations of Fundamentalism, the good thing is that they didn’t leave us clueless in facing the foe.
   
   I think Mohler admitted as much in his message, if I wasn’t too optimistic in my listening. If so, why won’t he simply invite—instead of Packer—someone like Dr Minnick, Dr Barrett, Dr. Doran, or Dr. Jordan, to name a few better-qualified people, to address the henhouse in need of fixing?
   

[Bob T.] the Southern Baptist Convention churches are filled with unregenerate church members.

I served as a interim pastor at 2 SBC churches and pastor of 1 of them. I totally agree with this statement.

JohnBrian,

I think this issue is prevalent in the American church; as much among IFB churches as SBC.

As I listened to Mohler, I was stuck by his definitions. He absolutely rejected being identified with fundamentalism throughout his discourse. However, this appeared to be primarily because of the “bombastic”, over the top abuses of fundamentalism. When he described his hope for SBC evangelicalism, everything he affirmed is found in our discussions here and elsewhere in the fundamentalist world regarding our own future.My only real concern was not what he said, but what he did not say. Let us hope these things were omitted for the sake of time, not because they are truly missing in the SBC movement.

Mohler once said on his radio program something to this effect: the reason he rejects fundamentalism is because you have no influence if you are a fundamentalist.

Whoever it is, is that where his heart lies?

Well, I don’t know. I think he meant that fundamentalists have little to no political or social influence in the world. If that is a correct understanding of what he said, I think he may be over-estimating the influence evangelicals actually have in the world by way of comparison. Anyway, it seemed an odd statement to me at the time.

[Don Johnson] Mohler once said on his radio program something to this effect: the reason he rejects fundamentalism is because you have no influence if you are a fundamentalist.

Does it really matter if Mohler rejects the label of fundamentalist? There are people here who would probably reject that label too.

One can be a fundamentalist without wearing a shiny pin that says “I’m A Fundamentalist”.

[Jay C.] One can be a fundamentalist without wearing a shiny pin that says “I’m A Fundamentalist”.

Well, I suppose that’s true, but Mohler isn’t one and he makes it quite clear that he isn’t.

does that make him any less of a Christian?

Yes, I know that he’s signed the MD and named something after Billy Graham, and all the other stuff. I’m just saying that I think we get too wrapped up in our “Fundy” identity sometimes.

I’m not defending any of his actions. I just wonder sometimes about the perceived importance of being a “Fundamentalist” in name (whatever that term means).

I read two of the special publications posted at the bottom of the article’s page.

The first was an 11 page essay on the biblical emphasis of the role, duty and responsibility of the Pastor to be a theologian. As well, Mohler confronts the therapeutic style that has been popularized in the last 30 years. If you get time to read it one thing is certain, the material is not something you will find in many fundie churches though it is quite fundamental.

The second is an essay by Mary Mohler on modesty. You would be amazed how “fundamentalist” she sounds. She does include an equation of Sunday with the Sabbath in one comment but aside from that I found it to challenge our permissiveness, even within fundamental churches.

http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/09/the-pastor-as-theologian.pdf

http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/09/modeling_modesty.pdf

None of this is to take the view away from legitimate grievances or objections if they can be sustained and of course that is not my point. But it did remind me of something I believe Jeff Straub wrote about in qualifying our comments with greater familiarity with those persons about whom we are speaking. And this is not to say anyone here has not done that. Rather that (and certainly Al Mohler has written and published enough material that anyone wishing to understand his theology, philosophy and intellectual idiosyncrasies or eccentricities [if they there are any worth noting] can probably identify them and make an argument from them) these brief essays do demonstrate a very solid commitment to the very things we either do or should hold dear as fundamentalists.

Yes, they are brief and maybe there are other publications or statements with weaker commitments in vital areas but I would be surprised. Which brings me to the point. Academic politics, theological development and influence and human variables are not the same in a local assembly as they are in more broad structures and less ecclesiastical settings.

A local assembly has a very specific set of boundaries with a very specific protocol, an academic institution, even one devoted to the pursuit of biblical education, is not bound nor can be bound in the same manner because the bible makes no such demand and provides no such protocol to accomplish this. Yes, those principles in scripture that are applicable can and must be to any Christian institution claiming the name of Christ but ultimately they are not a local assembly and do not operate the same way, they are an academic business. We cannot demand from Al Mohler, the institutional purity that we demand from a local assembly.

And there is a great deal to be said about influence beyond the direct communication of the gospel. Because such an influence prepares men and women for reception of the gospel. Institutions that are able to validate, in the minds of unbelievers, concepts of the divine, concepts of authority and truth, are in fact participating in the work of the gospel. I do believe Al Mohler reflects a broad consideration in his leadership.

But of course tomorrow might be the day Al Mohler takes a position with which I have very strong objections, but this is today, not tomorrow (unless of course you are reading this tomorrow and in that case it would be another today and the next day is tomorrow…well I better stop before tomorrow arrives and I haven’t posted this :) )