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

[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.

He obviously knows nothing of the chicago way amongst Fundies. Guys go from being made men to having their own family if they are loyal enough.

[Jay C.] does that make him any less of a Christian?

Jay, what is your point? Mohler himself makes it clear that he is not a fundamentalist and he doesn’t want to be a fundamentalist. He thinks the term means something and he thinks the term doesn’t mean him. Why can’t you take him at his word?

Jay, what is your point? Mohler himself makes it clear that he is not a fundamentalist and he doesn’t want to be a fundamentalist. He thinks the term means something and he thinks the term doesn’t mean him. Why can’t you take him at his word?

I’ll take him at his word, I’m just not sure why whether he “is” or “is not”-Fundyness is even worth discussion here. If he’s right (in terms of doctrine and practice), great. If he’s not, then who cares? I’m not following Mohler off a cliff because he’s a good speaker (although I think he is).

In any case, I’ll drop the subject now, since I was more or less wondering that out loud anyway and I think all I’m doing is creating confusion.

Don,

It sounds like you listened to the address. What I heard Mohler push away from was the “bombastic” practices of fundamentalism. Now, perhaps we have different perceptions of what exactly bombastic fundamentalism is. However, since he mentioned Norris by name, I think he gives some inkling of his meaning. If the J. Frank Norris’ of the world are what he is distancing himself from, I wholeheartedly agree. On the other hand, I heard him praising and espousing other noteworthy fundamentalist principles without claiming the label - i.e. doctrinal purity for instance. I do not think this address resolves every question I might have, as I noted earlier, but I do not think we can simply write off people anymore simply because they will not wear a specific label. Most of the fundamentalists I know, myself included, will not even accept the label without being allowed to define what they mean by it. Doesn’t that fall at least somewhere very close to what we heard in Mohler’s address?

And yes, evangelicals do overestimate their political and social influence. Further, what little influence they do have is not due to the gospel. (Because fundamentalists, er, still preach the gospel.) It is due to their willingness to engage side issues. The problem is that when they take a Biblical position on side issues (assuming one even exists) the only ones who agree with them are evangelicals and other like-minded people who would have already. So, the only way to have influence on side issues is by abandoning a Biblical position and start promoting “creation care”, “theistic evolution”, and “many paths to heaven.” Even there, they are merely following worldly trends that would exist otherwise without their participation, not establishing them.

Hipster Christians delude themselves into thinking that they are actually hip, when the truth is that they are the only ones who regard themselves as such. Actually hip people (i.e. the ones who sneer at Katy Perry and Lady Gaga for being too commercial) wouldn’t be caught dead around them. Similarly, evangelicals delude themselves into thinking that they actually influence anyone but other evangelicals. At best, evangelicals come in #4 in terms of social and political influence to Roman Catholics, Jews and (liberal) mainline Protestants. But hey, at least they’re ahead of the Mormons (if that … can you see an evangelical become a major media star like Glenn Beck or becoming a major Hollywood figure like Don Bluth or the Osmonds?), Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists and Jehovah’s Witnesses!

Our Lord did not tell us to let our light shine before men if we can gauge its relative influence, rather simply to let it shine.

This same principle is reflected in 1 Peter 1:1. Just as a wife can win her unbelieving husband or “influence” him, so too can believers, through their light or their behavior, have that same influence.

I believe the influence Al Mohler is talking about is not through gimmicks, but of seasoned speech, mature considerations, earnestness, blamelessness and so on.

[Chip Van Emmerik] What I heard Mohler push away from was the “bombastic” practices of fundamentalism. Now, perhaps we have different perceptions of what exactly bombastic fundamentalism is. However, since he mentioned Norris by name, I think he gives some inkling of his meaning. If the J. Frank Norris’ of the world are what he is distancing himself from, I wholeheartedly agree. On the other hand, I heard him praising and espousing other noteworthy fundamentalist principles without claiming the label - i.e. doctrinal purity for instance. I do not think this address resolves every question I might have, as I noted earlier, but I do not think we can simply write off people anymore simply because they will not wear a specific label. Most of the fundamentalists I know, myself included, will not even accept the label without being allowed to define what they mean by it. Doesn’t that fall at least somewhere very close to what we heard in Mohler’s address?

I think I am listening to Mohler with the context of what he and others have said. What I hear him say is the basic line we have heard from new evangelicals since the time of J. I. Packer’s Fundamentalism and the Word of God. In that book, Packer’s thesis essentially is that Fundamentalists were useful idiots when we needed to fight the modernists, but now that fight is over and we need a new, more enlightened approach. (I paraphrase, slightly and sarcastically.)

Mohler’s ‘influence’ comment, as I remember it, was along the lines of lamenting the lack of influence on society and politics that he thought fundamentalism had. It was one reason why he would reject fundamentalism. It seemed to me that influence was more important to him than fidelity to the Word. That could be only my interpretation and he likely wouldn’t put it that crassly. I also wonder how effective evangelicals have been at influencing society, but that is another discussion.

I recently listened to Michael Haykin (Southern prof) in an excellent lecture about Gnosticism. He mentioned in the course of the lecture TT Shields and commended him as excellent in a fight, someone you wanted on your side when fighting modernism, but you wouldn’t want him to be around once that fight was over because he couldn’t get along with Christians either.

This is the same line that I hear all the time from evangelicals and is what I am hearing in Mohler’s lecture. Maybe he has changed his opinion somewhat, but please notice that you don’t hear him saying, “The Fundamentalists were right, Billy Graham and the New Evanelicals were wrong, and we need to see if we can’t get closer to the ‘sane’ fundamentalists of today.”

In other words, while it is good to hear him speak about the need to champion doctrinal purity, don’t get your hopes up that his approach will ultimately be acceptable to any kind of fundamentalist concept.

And also, please note that Fundamentalism isn’t simply about doctrinal purity. The New Evangelicals were all about doctrinal purity also. Fat lot of good it did them.

Don, are you seriously arguing that fundamentalism actually was about doctrinal purity?

Fundamentalism is about separation. If doctrinal purity was an issue, then the KJVO and conditional salvation (non Lordship) people would have never been allowed to have a seat at the table. “Fat lot of good it did them.”

[James K] Don, are you seriously arguing that fundamentalism actually was about doctrinal purity?

Fundamentalism is about separation. If doctrinal purity was an issue, then the KJVO and conditional salvation (non Lordship) people would have never been allowed to have a seat at the table. “Fat lot of good it did them.”

James, early Fundamentalism was about doctrinal purity; it started as a movement to separate from liberal theologies (in the early 1900’s) for the sake of doctrinal purity. Later on, separation became the tail that wagged the dog; now I think we’re seeing a correction (back to doctrinal purity that drives separation). That’s why I think you and I are so horrified about the inroads that have been made by KJVO and non-Lordshipism within the camp.

Two thoughts on Fundamentalism, though:
1. The emphasis on doctrinal purity (when it started) was good, but it was never clear on what doctrines were actually worth separating over, and we’re still seeing this today. Some critical doctrines (justification by faith alone, I think) were never addressed in the Fundamentals set. Phil Johnson noted this in his lecture “Dead Right”, back in 2005. We still can’t really articulate what doctrines are fundamental even today…witness the http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-creation-yec-24x6x7-and-other-theor…] YEC 24x7 creation thread from a couple weeks ago .

2. The two (separation and doctrinal purity) go hand in hand. I think what we’re also seeing is that there is (was?) a culture of separation that began to drive the movement (rather than the doctrine driving it). I also think that the issues/rift between “YF’s” and “OF’s” is more or less between “how does this work in real life?” and “is what we were doing right?”. It will be interesting to see how things play out. My belief is that the YF’s will outlast the “OF’s”, but what will happen then…will they overreact and head into the mainstream evangelical movement and jettison separation altogether, or will they retain their “Fundamentalist” ethos and try to make this work in the right way?

I linked to the wrong thread, although that one works as well. I was thinking of the http://sharperiron.org/forum/poll-should-si-add-young-earth-creationism…] Creation in the SI Doctrinal Statement thread.

The doctrinal purity was extremely limited. In fact, if a movement existed to just represent the original 5 points (either the Presbyterian set or the premill set), then it would be too inclusive. Fundies would have to separate.

When the Machenites essentially abandoned fundamentalism because they lost, it opened the door for all the johnny-come-lately groups who wanted in. Since the movement needed numbers to continue to exist, it had to compromise. This is a serious question: why did fundamentalism need to exist at that point (late 1930s)? They lost to the modernists. The presbos abandoned them. What were they still fighting? Why, themselves of course. And so we have degrees of separation and the rest of that nonsense, doctrinal abberations, and mafia style leadership as a legacy.

So when Mohler says he does not want to be a fundamentalist, there is just as much baggage and compromise with that term as with any other term. Why does anyone have to label themselves? Let Don and others forget, Mohler was part of a fundy-modernist fight and actually won.

The doctrinal purity was extremely limited. In fact, if a movement existed to just represent the original 5 points (either the Presbyterian set or the premill set), then it would be too inclusive. Fundies would have to separate.

Actually, I’d argue that the five points weren’t specific enough. Here they are, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Fundamentalism] courtesy of Wikipedia :

1. The inerrancy of the Bible
   
2. The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ’s miracles, and the Creation account in Genesis.
   
3. The Virgin Birth of Christ
   
4. The bodily resurrection of Christ
   
5. The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
   

Notice that there’s nothing on justification…which is what I was talking about in post #25.

What do you mean when you say that they are “extremely limited” and that they are ‘too inclusive’? Is there something that you think should be dropped from the base five?

As an aside, you can find a copy of “The Fundamentals” set at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals or http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/

Jay, the 5 points are so basic. If they were the standard today, then a great many people from all kinds of spectrums could agree to it. The initial quest for “doctrinal purity” was too simplistic. So when the fundies lost, they had to be about something more than those 5 points. Fundies have NEVER had a pure doctrine. There was compromise from the beginning.

I personally like how Bauder is angling to smoke the conditional salvation out. It is the start of doctrinal purity.

Also Jay, you might be interested to know that there were actually 2 sets of fundamentalist points. There was essentially the presbyterian set and the premillennial set.

I’m not a Presby, so I wouldn’t know their 5 points =D. I’ve only heard of the five I posted (although I’ve heard of five to ten point lists of fundamental doctrines), so feel free to enlighten me as to the Presbyterian ones.

I agree with you that the 5 points, by themselves, weren’t good enough; I also think that the beginners of the movement didn’t really have time to plan out all of this stuff very thoroughly - which is fine, considering what was going on at the time. So I think we need to work at fixing that now.

What are you talking about with ‘compromise at the beginning’? I’m confused. You seem to think that the movement was badly flawed from the beginning (and I’d agree to an extent), but there haven’t been any specifics noted. What is your ‘vision’ for what needs to be done or could have been done better?