« Southern seminary trustees honor Al Mohler in 'Resolution of Thanksgiving and Appreciation' but do they fail to ask hard questions? | Main | Danny Akin and Southeastern seminary drops C.J. Mahaney from conference »

Oct 18, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Scott Shaver

Just goes to show that with enough chocolate sauce even a slug could be made palatable.

Did I miss something during Mohler's appointment 20 years ago? I don't remember the trustees of Southern saying anything about recovering the traditions of Boyce and Broadus.

Are we going to re-institute the practice of slavery as well in our efforts to return to our southern "roots"?

Are has that already been accomplished?


Thanks for posting this.


Rick Patrick

Very nicely produced documentary. Sincerest congratulations to Dr. Mohler. The attacks he endured standing up for complementarian convictions is noble and praiseworthy. I do have two observations:

1. I was made aware that when Dr. Chuck Kelley recently celebrated his THIRTY years at NOBTS, there was no documentary, little fanfare, just a quiet recognition in chapel with the same type of check offered to all employees marking such a milestone. While I am not sure that this twenty year recognition is "over the top" it does seem like the approach of many other institutions would have been to attract a little less attention.

2. I find it almost impossible to believe that a fair and balanced twenty year retrospective on the Presidency of Al Mohler at Southern Seminary would never ONCE mention specifically the doctrines of grace, Calvinism, or reformed soteriology. The Abstract is mentioned, and "the faith once and all delivered to the saints," but nothing about restoring Calvinism at Southern, which is THE story of Southern over the last 20 years. As usual, the Calvinism remains hidden. Surely this was by design. If so, why hide it?

Scott Shaver

Hey Rick:

Good to read u.

This is asked in pure ignorance. What specifically are you referring to by "standing up for complementarian convictions" on Al's part.

Best of luck with new project. By the way, laughing as I write, I don't think the imbalanced Calvinism remains hidden ...nobody is fessin up publicly is all.

These days when you don't follow the axiom of not believing your lying eyes ... you are prone to "conjecture", "slander", "not believing scripture" and here's my all-time favorite ...."sour grapes".

I don't think the internet world (including most Christians)will be willing to follow that axiom.

Rick Patrick

Hi Scott,

The documentary reveals a significant crisis in Mohler's presidency that largely centered on the role of women in ministry. The majority of faculty members opposed him. It appeared he would be removed. But he stood strong on the issue. He endured serious attacks from moderates and liberals. For this, I gave him credit.

Great to hear from you, Scott. And your "nobody is fessing up publicly" is right on target!

Scott Shaver

Thanx Rick for jarring my memory. U are absolutely right about Mohler habitually standing his ground. Right or wrong he has tenacity.


He did not seem to have problems removing Paul Debusman 9 months before he was set to retire for daring to disagree. Mohler was in his mid thirties at the time. Seems his power was consolidated to do that to a man in his 60's who had worked there for 30 years. So I doubt very seriously his job was in jeopardy over the women. He had plenty of cover.

Some of those women depended on those jobs just as men do. Did he make sure they were financially taken care of when he got rid of them. After all, the seminary once hired them and did not consider it a sin to do so. Others paid tuition for nothing. Did they get their money back?

Thankfully, in the case of Carver, Campbellsville U took it over. But then, Boyce college, which came later in was not part of the original charter, either.

Paula Rice

I knew the video honoring Dr. Mohler was produced by the SBTS so I didn’t expect to see any non-SBC members, but I was curious nevertheless to see if any outsiders were interviewed. I did notice that Mark Dever contributed, one of the four members of the Together for the Gospel coalition that Mohler founded along with Ligon Duncan (PCA) and CJ Mahaney (SGM).

I commented here not long ago under the post “Associated Baptist Press continues to underscore the partnership between Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and C.J. Mahaney” in response to Lydia’s comment in which she asked a question regarding whether or not SGM people are employed at the SBTS. (Btw Lydia, I don’t know the dets about Steve Whitacre, but given the amount of money CJ has contributed, I wouldn’t doubt his son-in-law has been given preferential treatment.) I wrote that SGM’s Director of Music Bob Kauflin’s son Devon is a member of SBTS’s Norton Hall Band. If you don't mind, I'd like to expand a bit on that here (I know I'm a newcomer!)

I find the differences in how the SBTS and SGM phrase things regarding the seminary's band to be interesting and revealing. Is this an example of SGM and their habit of subjugating things? Here's an example of SBTS phraseology:

” The vision and purpose of the Norton Hall Band is to encourage and promote Christ-centered, gospel-focused worship through biblically-guided worship, original compositions, artistic excellence and service to the seminary and constituent churches.” http://events.sbts.edu/thinkworship/
A few more SBTS references which you can see don't promote anyone or anything other than the seminary:
” Norton Hall, our seminary traveling worship band….”

“Norton Hall, our seminary worship band…. “

“Musical Guests – Norton Hall Band from Southern Seminary”
Source: http://www.biblicalworship.com/

Compare that to how Bob Kauflin makes mention of Norton Hall:
“My son, Devon, led a band of very fine musicians…”

“Thursday PM – Devon Kauflin and Norton Hall”

“My son, Devon, will be leading a band that will be playing most of the songs from our new album, Grace Has Come: Songs from the Book of Romans.”

“Musicians this year include my son, Devon, and his band Norton Hall…”

“I’ll be joined by a number of folks including Steve Cook and Norton Hall, a band led by my son, Devon.”
Source: http://www.worshipmatters.com

Members of the Norton Hall Band recently went on a trip to the Philippines with SGM & Bob Kauflin, during which time the Bohol earthquake struck where they were at. Why was Norton Hall in the Philippines with SGM? Is this proof, in part, that SGM is an SBC constituent, that they would send along their seminary band to help promote SG Music? And how does this jive with Peter’s proposal? Bob Kauflin angered a lot of SGM members when he left SGM’s flagship church in support of CJ Mahaney, and due to his extensive involvement in SGM’s leadership scandal.

Also, I'm wondering why Bob didn't stay and flesh out the SGM "Cross" in the Philippines, especially after stating publicly his motivation for going there was to serve and give.

"People who are generous to the needy are always placed in a situation where they find themselves having more than enough—so they can give more.” http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/509847/give-to-bohol-earthquake-victims

Scott Shaver

Lot of similarity in latitude with both Mohler and Obama. Neither answers to anybody.

Kyle B. Gulledge

I appreciate what Dr. Mohler endured during those first years of his presidency. I also am grateful for his tenacity in bringing SBTS back to it's conservative roots. This video is nice and well done and frankly, on it's own, I do not have a problem with it- it is a well deserved honor. But I can't help but think that this is a slick campaign video, that will be used at John MacArthur's conference, Mark Dever's Conference, etc. to promote Al Mohler even more and "fire up the base" to turn out to Baltimore- the big "secret" in the SBC is that Mohler is going to run for president of the Convention in June.
I have a problem with our agency, institution and entity heads running for president (I had the same problem, when one of my heroes, Paige Patterson ran- in fact, I just simply did not vote). Al Mohler, as President of SBTS- which by his own admission is answerable to the churches- should he run for president of the SBC he then leapfrogs that accountability to the local churches. As he is the one nominating and placing trustees around the convention- including his own seminary.


The problem with deception is that one doesn't realize he is being deceived because he is deceived.



I had not heard that Al Mohler was running for SBC President this year, but maybe he will.

Some people think he hasn't run, not for his stated reasons, but because he is unelectable. Lydia, for example, has been confident in that belief, though I do not know if she has changed her mind.

I think that 4 or 5 agency heads have been President of the SBC at one time or another if memory serves me.

You raise an interesting point about the influence of being able to appoint one's own trustees. I suppose that has been overlooked previously because the President only appoints the Committee on Committees, which then appoints the Committee on Nominations, which then nominates trustees to the Convention for approval.

Regardless, I appreciate your thoughtful comment and thinking on this issue.


Louis writes "Some people think he hasn't run, not for his stated reasons, but because he is unelectable."

Based on the successful "twitter rally" to round up the YRR vote for the 2nd VP spot the last couple of years, I have no doubt that Dr. Mohler is electable. While the majority messengers dilly-dallied at local shops, sipped some coffee, lingered at lunch, etc., the YRR won the day for their 2nd VP candidates. Annual "traditional" messenger attendance is on the decline (apathy?), while YRR attendance is increasing; thus, Dr. Mohler is now electable.


"Some people think he hasn't run, not for his stated reasons, but because he is unelectable. Lydia, for example, has been confident in that belief, though I do not know if she has changed her mind."

Nothing like waving red meat to a dog is there, Louis? :o)

I said that several years ago when he first floated it and backed off. Things change. And many things have changed. In fact, I would venture a guess that most attendees of the convention NOW are pro Mohler. And he can turn out the vote now.

I think he has been strategically brilliant in consolidating his power. Some folks respect that. I am not sure what the point will be when it comes time to stand before the Holy One.


"I think that 4 or 5 agency heads have been President of the SBC at one time or another if memory serves me."

That, to me, has been a very bad idea. Technically, they are employees and that really does not fit the nature of our proposed structure.

Although I realize all that is out the window. We are no longer bottom up but, top down. It has been sad to watch. Just like watching our government do the same thing.

Scott Shaver


What earthly function does a 2nd VP of the SBC fulfill?

All I've seen from the sitting one is caustic statements against those who disagree with him at any point and bargain basement deals on the Harry Potter Bible Study.

If YRR needs a place at the table, by all means let them have the role of 2nd VP SBC.

Scott Shaver

Besides, in all practicality, Mohler already "presides" over the organized SBC. He just hasn't received the official title.



2nd VPs and VPs of the SBC have been complaining for years that they had nothing to do and were basically ignored.

This reached its zenith with Winfred Moore who thought he was going to have an influence on Charles Stanley's appointments to the Committee on Committees.



You do make it easy!

I recall you saying that about the Louisville convention. I actually thought based on what I saw at that convention and the attendance that he would have been elected easily.

The thing that Mohler has, is that ability to speak from a pulpit or extemporaneously on television about many topics in a way that is faithful to Christianity and articulate.

Unless people are really involved in some of the issues that are discussed on this and other blogs, they really don't see or hear the criticism. I would put my father in law in that category. Served on the mission field for almost 30 years. Was in town over the weekend and told me unsolicited that he was so glad when Mohler was a spokesman on TV. He was comparing Mohler to others who just are not as articulate.

That is the only exposure most people get to Mohler.

On the Presidency thing, I would not be opposed to amending the SBC bylaws to exclude from the Presidency or other elective office any employee of an SBC or State Southern Baptist agency.

But I doubt that will get traction, given the SBC's history.


Scott - My point about the twitter rally for the 2nd VP vote is that the YRR use social media effectively. They will use those tools to crown Dr. Mohler. Although, I agree - he has assumed that role already without a convention vote - he is a brilliant strategist.

Scott Shaver

Max: Mohler as president of both Southern and the SBC with infighting over whether or not "all means all".

My desire to continue flying under SBC colors as a Baptist is quickly waning. Not for lack of love for the SBC ...for damage control in the eyes of the larger balance of Christendom.


Scott Shaver

Good point Louis:

Winfred said some things I've questioned a time or two in the past myself :)


How many non-Calvinist SBC presidents have we had in the last 20 years? Most of them. Have they not had power to appoint trustees? Has Mohler not been accountable to said trustees? Mohler has less job security than the faculty in that he is the sole at-will employee of the trustees directly, and answers directly to them. People need to get their facts straight.

The comments to this entry are closed.