Is Dr. Russell Moore a 'fundamentalist evangelical schismatic'? Some evangelicals seem to think so by Peter Lumpkins

  The Rev. Pat Robertson's recent bungling of a question pertaining to divorcing a spouse with severe dementia has been thoroughly discussed on Christian blogs. A few examples of dealing with Robertson's words by blogdom's biggest names include, Al Mohler, Denny Burk, Scott McKnight, Ed Stetzer, and Russell Moore >>>

 

By far, it appears the most quoted critic of Robertson is Dr. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice-President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He not only got a prime-time piece in Christianity Today (offering a rejoinder to Robertson on his blog after Robertson had clarified his statement in Christianity Today), but was also interviewed on CNN concerning Robertson's words. Even so, not all evangelicals agree with Moore's perspective that Pat Robertson denied the gospel when he botched a question in moral ethics, a question couched in terms of what ethicists call "moral dilemmas." 

Bradley Cochrane, post-graduate student at the University of Dayton and graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where Dr. Moore teaches asked some formidable questions concerning Dr. Moore's allegedly aggressive approach in dealing with Robertson, suggesting at one point that Moore fits the description of what we normally reference as a fundamentalist evangelical schismatic. In his informed essay entitled, "Russell Moore Repudiates Al Mohler's Theological Triage" Cochrane writes,

  "...There is a tendency in fundamentalist evangelical Christianity to make every point of strong disagreement a disagreement over “the gospel,” when in reality it’s just a second tier disagreement.  This helps feed the public impression that Baptists are divisive and legalistic.  The word “schismatics” is usually applied to people who tend to be unnecessarily divisive when they disagree with others and are excessive in their criticism of other Christians... . It is strong enough language that Moore (in the article) calls Robertson a “cartoon character” we evangelcals [sic] “allow to speak for us,” and calls his theology “Canaanite mammonocracy.”  But to argue that he has repudiated the gospel by his view on divorce and dementia is going too far...

Thus while I think Moore was right to lash out publicly and decry Robertson’s advice, his choice of rhetoric was overboard, and he could have publicly disagreed with Robertson without accusing the man of denying “the gospel of Jesus Christ" (//link)

What is more, Cochrane asserts that Dr. Moore undermined Al Mohler's famous hermeneutical "triage" by linking a sub-tier doctrine directly to a first order doctrine. Says Cochrane:

According to this [i.e. Mohler's] theological triage*, it would appear that Moore has located Robertson’s position on divorce and remarriage as “first order” in terms of importance.  In other words, it appears that Moore believes that if you have the wrong view of “marriage and divorce,” you are not even a Christian because you have repudiated the gospel.  I strongly and respectfully disagree with Moore on this one, and find his article unnecessarily divisive

Thus, Cochrane not only suggests Dr. Moore overreached in his inflammatory rhetoric against Pat Robertson, and thus tragically fed the public impression that Baptists are unnecessarily divisive, legalistic, and excessive when they disagree with others, but, from the way I understand Cochrane, Moore also created a needless conundrum for the theological triage toward which those who follow Al Mohler's hermeneutic so often appeal.

In light of Cochrane's criticism of Dr. Moore's approach in dealing with Pat Robertson's miserable response to a delicate question, a criticism concerning which readers may judge as well-taken or not, consider how often many of us in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) are tagged by some who are closely identified with the younger generation like Dr. Moore as overly-traditional or Baptist identity-driven or unacceptably southern in our mindset; consequently, it is alleged, we contribute to the SBC being perceived as "legalistic," "divisive," and yes, "schismatic."

Now, however, at least from the perspective of one young and rising evangelical theologian, it is Dr. Moore who is perceived as unnecessarily divisive, resembling more a fundamentalist evangelical schismatic than a careful, compassionate critic.

With that, I am...

Peter 

*a triage with which Cochrane apparently agrees 

Comments

[Bradley Cochran]

"I think my journey enriched, not threatened by, open, honest dialog." Thanks for the charitable tone of your post Lumpkins. You say in your "about me" page: "I think my journey enriched, not threatened by, open, honest dialog." I find my journey enriched by the same.

Pax,

Bradley

[Bradley Cochran]

Thanks for the charitable tone of your post Lumpkins. You say in your "about me" page: "I think my journey enriched, not threatened by, open, honest dialog." I find my journey enriched by the same.

Pax,

Bradley

[Max]

Good grief! While I certainly disagreed with Pat Robertson’s position on this issue, I am more upset that an SBC spokesman has added fuel to the fire of controversy. Such rhetoric in widely circulated publications, using an immature choice of words, is not helpful to SBC’s image during a time when it’s already clear that we are struggling for identity. We need to be careful who we give the microphone to in representing SBC before the world, lest we have “Moore” of this sort of thing. While Dr. Moore certainly had the right to express his opinion, as I’m doing here, his words add to the mounting case against Southern Baptists, in both religious and secular media, that we are a mean-spirited bunch these days.

This is further evidence (along with recent awkward statements by Mohler and Merritt) that Southern Baptists desperately need a central clearing house for public statements of this sort … one voice that represents mainstream SBC view on difficult matters of our day with a more compassionate delivery. Perhaps it’s time for a policy that such matters always be referred to an SBC agency more qualified to speak. In this case, the Christianity Today reporter should have been directed to SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for a statement.

[Mary]

Max, I wish somebody would grab a microphone and explain a few ideas like autonomy and priesthood of the believer. Anybody's crazy uncle can claim to speak for the SBC, but when it all comes out in the wash nobody can actually be speaking for the SBC.

[Lmalone]

Moore is being groomed to take over for Mohler. He is not disagreeing with Mohler at all. Mohler's triage is only words. It is not what actually takes place. Many second tier issues are taught as quasi-salvic.

Moore really ticked off some businessmen here a while back with one of his articles (blog?) concerning the BP oil spill. One suggested to Mohler, in a letter, that Moore stick to theology since he has no real business experience and it showed in the piece. Yet, young minds hang on every word.

I agree with Max about the confusing public statements coming from different quarters in the SBC. There are some who seek to get lots of publicity and be published. Moore can be vitriolic. but I don't anyone should think for one moment that Moore publishes that is not first vetted.

[Mary]

Lmal, Moore is being groomed to take over Southwestern thus making cementing the Calvinist takeover of the SBC.

The problem with anyone acting as "spokesperson" for the SBC is that most of those getting the mic have political agendas within the SBC, thus Mohler will first consider how best to pander to the YRR when speaking on issues such as homosexuality. Mohler doesn't speak for the SBC - he only speaks for segments he wants on his side politically.

[LMalone]

Mary, Mohler is the "face" of the SBC, unfortuantly. He is quoted in Time. Has articles published in the WSJ. Gets on Larry King, has radio commentary, etc, etc. Even his daughter now works for the Senate leader of the republicans. His influence is far and wide.

What amazes me about it all is that he is simply an 'employee' of the SBC with little real accountability. But mnay do not realize that.

[J. K. Jones]

Do you all agree with the prosperity gospel that Robertson advances? Is tht the true gospel?

[peter]

JK,

I do not think you will find here any strong supporters of either "prosperity" theology or of even Pat Robertson's influence particularly. Even so, the issue is not "the prosperity gospel" as you dub it. Were one to ask Robertson what the gospel was, I have little doubt that he would get it essentially correct.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

JK, no the prospirity gospel has nothing to do with THE Gospel.

LMalone, the Pope of Louisville just an employee who should be held accountable?

What's rather hilarious and I think actually shows us the real fault lines in the SBC is all the anguish and knashing of teeth over an association not admitting an Acts 29 church. Let's see an association decides not to admit a church (when did Acts29 become SBC?) and that's worthy of name calling and the usual arrogance and condescension over at Founders comments that "antiCalvinist" don't believe the Bible (can't imagine why nonCalvinist don't want to hang out with Calvinist like that) BUT two of our seminaries can exclude nonCalvinist from employment and that's hunky dory because when it's the Calvinist who exclude that 's acceptable. Those people doing all the whining and moaning show that all they really care about is Calvinism when they ignore the huge elephants in the room - Driscoll gone nuts, SGM abuses and SBC institutions excluding based on Calvinism. No integrity.

[Chuck Beem]

Mary-

I'm a "Calvinist" (for lack of a better term)and I'm a young guy. I would just like to point out that Driscoll's nuttiness and SGM's abuses stem from their charismaticism, not their Calvinism. I've been leery of both for quite some time, even though I have a good many friends who are involved with Acts 29. You can't lump all the Acts 29 folks together any more than you can lump all the SBC folks together, fwiw.

And pardon my ignorance, but what two seminaries have excluded non-Calvinists? I am assuming you mean SBTS, but which one is the second? I attend SWBTS and can assure you they don't. NOBTS. SEBTS doesn't. MWBTS doesn't. Hmmm...Golden Gate?

As far as Acts 29/SBC goes, since there is no such thing as an SBC church- only churches who the SBC deems is sufficiently in line with them theologically and also give to the CP- it is entirely possible to have a church which is duly aligned, especially at an associational level. That's when Acts 29 becomes SBC.

And finally, I would say that Moore's article was rather tame and the criticism a bit unfair. If we had never heard of Pat Robertson, and he had not repeatedly said ridiculous things, fair enough- but this is not his first rodeo. I think the combination of all Robertson's anti-Gospel drivel over the past however many decades and this new horrible attack on marriage does in fact shed light on Robertson's Gospel. And I am someone who tends to be off-put by Moore's attitude at times; I just think he's got a point on this one.

Blessings,

Chuck (Token Calvinist)

[Mary]

Chuck, thanks for your response. SGM and Driscoll have been warmly embraced for years by people like Mohler and Danny Akin along with what I would call a core group og YRR within the SBC. Cooperative program dollars have been spent to brinh Mahaney and Driscoll to speak at Southern and Southeastern despite the protest of Southern Baptist. With all the hulabaloo a while back over Caner in SBC blogdom one would think you might see an article or two written about Driscoll and Mahaney very public falls into nuttiness. But alas there is silence because they happen to be heros of the YRR.

And Robertson is Pat Robertson enough said. Moore is being groomed to take over Southwestern when Patterson retires and what ya bet the Abstract will then be brought to SW? If Southern is the Calvinist seminary shouldn't we be allowed to have one seminary that's strictly nonCalvinist so our nonCalvinist churches have a pool of ministers to hire?
Both Southern and Southeastern Seminaries require that their staff affirm the Abstract of Priniciples. Now Chuck, if you've been around these blogs for any length of time you'll see screams of indignation that anyone anywhere in the SBC requires anyone to pass any litmus test beyond the BFM. ie the discussion of this association refusing fellowship to a church or the IMB's policy re baptism and PPL. These same people choose to ignore that two semanaries go beyond the BFM. Not only do these semanaries go beyond the BFM but they are using the abstract to exclude those who hold to the soteriology of the majority in the SBC. For further research just go over to Founders to find Mohler's words regarding the abstract.

The SBC has been a community of like mind and faith churches who have chosen to cooperate for the promotion of the Gospel. Not every church is exactly alike, but there are distinctives. Thus we don't have a fellowship with pentacostals or methods even though we could affirm them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Acts 29 is not like SBC churches. Not only are they not like us but they choose as is their right to only reproduce churches like them. How can they cooperate with the SBC when they believe only their way is the right way. For an Acts 29 church to cooperate they would denonce their Acts 29 affiliation or they would be insisting on things their way. Doesn't sound like a good marriage.

[KB]

Does the conspiracy theorizing on the part of some re: Calvinism ever get tired? I mean, really - y'all would think Calvinists were akin to the ever-feared Freemasons or Illuminati with all the ink spilled on both sides...

Anyway, back to the original topic. I'm sure Christ and the church are a "first order" topic...yet Paul ties marriage into the issue in Ephesians 5. Tough times require tough words.

[peter lumpkins]

KB,

Laying aside your vague remark about "conspiracy theorizing," you either entirely miss or strangely ignore Cochrane's point, KB. Moore's analogy calls into question Mohler's 'triage'.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

I think KB just proved that Calvinist will defend Calvinism at any and all costs. Calvinist refuse to touch Driscoll's sexual obsessions and blatent mysogyny. Nor the cultic practices that have been exposed at SGM. And the big elephant in the room that pretty much puts to rest the idea that Calvinist attempting a takeover of the SBC is nothing but made up conspiricy theories - the fact that nonCalvinist are being excluded from employment at two seminaries. Yeah lets ignore facts and call people names.