« #FaithTrumpsFear or #StopSinningbyVotingTrump? | Main | Is John MacArthur selling out his moral convictions? Has he given up every thing he's ever believed by voting for Donald Trump for POTUS? »

Oct 31, 2016

Comments

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

Scott Shaver

Well Pete, hope Dr. Schreiner is not up for faculty and administrative review after this article.

It is time for the entire media-driven aspect of the SBC (i.e. culture and politics) to dry up and blow away just long enough to regain both respectability and credibility...via silence if necessary.

When you've got substantially more than 1/2 remaining of what remained after purge/resurrgence peeling away both theologically and idealogically, you ain't got much of a base for anything.

As far as the presidential election its a simple matter of something new or more of same...squared.

peter lumpkins

Scott,

Here's another interesting article from an SBTS dissenting professor on Mohler's #NeverTrump position--Mark Coppenger

Lydia

Oh I think Mohler approved. This is about rehabbing his image after Moore made him look like an idiot, nationally. So did the ESS scandal. See, he allows dissent and other views.

Scott Shaver

Great insight by Mark Coppenger. Thanks for the link Pete. 30 year wait could also be applied to the "Mclellans" of SBC leadership like Al Mohler and Russell Moore.

Scott Shaver

Lydia:

What is/who are those for whom Mohler is needing an image redo from the platitudes of Moore? Trustees? Chamber of Commerce, Holy See? Sovereign Grace?....just curious. I'm aware the average Christian in the pew of a "Southern Baptist" church just shakes his/her head, but who are those for whom image is all with Dr. Albert?

"...the kettle's on to boil and we're so easy called away.."

Scott Shaver

Poor Russell Moore. He now declares Augustine as the patron saint of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Good grief, quit whining already.

If Augustine is the patron saint of the 2016 election then Simon Stylites is the patron saint of Russell Moore and the ERLC.

Mallen

Contend for the gospel, not for votes for a particular presidential candidate among SBC members.

peter lumpkins

Hi Mallen,

Not sure to whom you're making your comment. Even so, I'm afraid you do not get to set the agenda for what this blog addresses.

Thanks for your contribution nonetheless...

Les Prouty

Thanks for this article. I think it was Lydia who asked on a different post somewhere 9correct me if I'm mistaken Lydia) what's up with all these new-Cals and their issue with Christians voting for Trump. I think that was the intent of the comment/question.

In any case, I have noticed on this and the other two SBC blogs I follow that thinks seem to line up mostly with Tradiitionalists types willing and planning to vote Trump and Cal's and #nevertrads rebuking anyone who even thinks about voting for Trump. I've been on the receiving of that incredulity.

Well, as you all know, I'm fully Reformed and plan to vote for Trump. I know many, many Reformed brethren planning to vote for Trump.

My colleague in the PCA (Reformed of course) in Florida has written well how I feel about this. A quote:

"Many of these Never Trump evangelicals will patiently bear with individuals who are struggling with same-sex attraction because of their commitment to being gracious and open; they will readily give an audience to those who offer vicious rants against “the Church” on the grounds that the former have a right to “be heard.” But their Trump-supporting brethren can’t gain a fair hearing because they are heartless, greedy, ease-worshiping cultural Neanderthals who have made the Constitution the third testament and could not possibly have any understanding of the Gospel. They apparently don’t even qualify for Gospel pity—only open contempt. Who could have ever known that the unforgivable sin was supporting Donald Trump?

Others have written more capably and convincingly on this subject, but it seems incontrovertible that, in a fallen world, every vote is ultimately a management of how much sin we are willing to tolerate in a given candidate. There are no sinless people running for any office, at any level, anywhere. Period. I can find nothing in Scripture that insists that my support of a candidate is a necessary endorsement of that candidate’s morality (or lack thereof). If it is, how can Paul command us in Romans 13 to honor the King—especially when the “King” Paul had in view was Nero?"

The rest is worthy of a read. https://roblooper.wordpress.com/2016/11/04/trump-vs-jesus/?fb_action_ids=10211101362268836&fb_action_types=news.publishes

So it looks like on this election, I agree more with you guys than those other guys. :)

Mallen

Hi Peter,

No, I don't get to set the agenda for this blog. I only wish the agenda for this blog was more focused on Christ and less on politics. This is a Southern BAPTIST blog? You already have a Calvinist division within your ranks. Why are you seeking to unnecessarily divide over politics?

All the best.

peter lumpkins

Once again Mallen, you don't get to set the agenda. And since you wish the agenda was something else, I suggest you not waste your time reading it. Thanks again...

Scott Shaver

Mallen, not only do you not get to set the agenda, you don't get to interpret "Christian focus" for the rest of us. Beyond that, all the best to you as well.

Scott Shaver

We are in agreement on this election Les. Noticed you've been taking some heat from the obtuse "never trump" zombies over at Voices. Good job.

Now you understand how it feels to bang your head against a brick wall and why these self-lauded pillars of piety so often come up short on the playing field of common sense for the common good.

Scott Shaver

Russell Moore wants the constituency of the SBC to put aside differences and come together in the wake of this election.

That's why he's spent the last year anathematizing those of us who don't agree with his approach to politics as being corrupted evangelicals without allegiance to or apprehension of the gospel?

Fat chance there Russell. With friends and allies in the gospel like you....who needs enemies or fellowship?

Lydia

"What is/who are those for whom Mohler is needing an image redo from the platitudes of Moore? Trustees? Chamber of Commerce, Holy See? Sovereign Grace?....just curious. I'm aware the average Christian in the pew of a "Southern Baptist" church just shakes his/her head, but who are those for whom image is all with Dr. Albert?"

The Reformed are splintering. There was a big brouhaha over ESS in their world. Evidently, the Mortification of Spin guys were bullied and threatened after running pieces on Denny Burk concerning ESS. They were shocked at the tactics. They shouldn't have been. That is just one example. Another are Moore's bizarre foci at ERLC. Are we really wanting to fight for "religious freedom" for Muslims when we really need to teach them what it is? Not only that, but what does fighting for their religious freedom entail? Fighting citizens on land purchases? And what makes him think there is no religious freedom for Muslims here? Then he goes around insulting all white SB's as backwoods rubes further feeding the race war division and group think.

Now add in the #neverTrump aspect where he further insults his employers by proclaiming them devoid of morals if they vote for Trump. They pay for his salary, perks and camera time.

Mohler is feeling the heat. Not enough as he has serious power. But he is not as admired from other lofties with money around here as he once was. As one told me last week: I used to admire and support him. Now in my circles he is a Pariah. Mohler has so many national followers, he may not care. I hope they all have money for SBTS like Mahaney did.

Mohler groomed the little tyrant and camera loving Moore. It could be Moore that brings him early retirement. :o). Not Mahaney. Not Driscoll Acts 29. Not tyrannical church discipline of his pal Dever. Not Platt and 1000 missionaries. Not the dispicable deception of takeovers and power mongering.

But the tiny little man, Moore, who is the national epitome of hypocrisy on many issues for the current SBC. They are trying to rewrite their disgusting history ---but it is too recent.

Lydia

Les,

Here is how I view it. We can wrangle all day on differences in theology and politics. But don't dare think you can tell me how to vote by invoking Christianity. They overstepped big time as paid entity employees. I think it is ingrained narcissism of having too much power too young. They honestly believe they are that lofty and powerful.

Mohler, Moore and that whole movement have no credibility when it comes to "morals". They have promoted and protected some of the most despicable and vulgar "pastor leaders" out there. Not to mention encouraged some very creepy and disgusting outcomes from their teaching to young men.

Lydia

Malden, there is no "unnecessary" division over politics in Syria.

Scott Shaver

"National epitome of hypocrisy" is perhaps the best label I've heard for Moore yet.

Mallen

Peter, If you don't want negative feedback, disable your comments. Give yourself a big thumbs up for every article you write. Much easier.

All the best.

Scott Shaver

Still attempting in vain to give advice Mallen. The article must have stung you a tad.

Lydia

Fallen has the self righteousness thing going on.

Eric O

Mallen,
I'm one who is in the reformed camp, as such, I often disagree with stuff written and commented here. Believe me, Peter doesn't mind negative feedback. You are barking up the wrong tree. And come on, there is nothing wrong with talking about politics in the life of the believer.

Mallen

Well, Eric, I wrote ONE admonishing post and got trolled for it relentlessly by someone calling himself "Scott Shaver". I note he seems to troll all the blog entries on this site which is why the discussion boards here are overwhelmingly the same 3 people over and over again.

To your point....No, there is obviously nothing wrong with discussing politics and no one should have read more into my comment than I wrote. But it's sad to see Baptists divide over national politics and spend so much time writing about it on blogs like this when anyone can get this same political discussion and division at any secular website. SB blogs have a unique perspective on theological divisions and debates that no secular website can reproduce. Why not use that unique perspective to discuss and debate the more important topic that Christians alone can offer: What Must I Do to Inherit Eternal Life?

Presidential politics are absolutely of no importance compared to a Christian's duty to properly peach the gospel. SBs and all Christians should strive to get the message correct about the gospel they preach. And it is upon just this point that SBs have something very unique to offer in blogs and websites and other social media. For to be able to correctly preach the gospel, you must identify what constitutes the gospel. Within the SBC, there is a deep division over Calvinist theology. Many believe Calvinism can be reconciled with the gospel. Others, like myself, believe it cannot be. Unlike the temporary political fuss over which leading SB member is voting for Trump or Hillary, Calvinism is an enduring division in the SBC, and one that directly impacts what gospel SBs preach to the lost. If you want to debate and discuss over something with real import, tackle Calvinism for it affects SB life and, more importantly, it affects which gospel Christians will present to the lost: Augustinian grace and love restricted to certain sinners, or unconditional love shown in Christ to all mankind.

Calvinist Baptists and non-Calvinist Baptists preach two very different gospels. If one of them is correct, the other must be false. This is certainly a much more serious issue than Trump-Hillary and will remain so for a very long time unless political squabbles take a backseat to theological ones.

Contend for the gospel of Christ.

Max

Mallen writes "Calvinist Baptists and non-Calvinist Baptists preach two very different gospels. If one of them is correct, the other must be false. This is certainly a much more serious issue than Trump-Hillary ..."

Agreed. Southern Baptists will be judged on what they did with the precious Gospel of Christ to advance the Kingdom of God, rather than who they voted for in a mere kingdom of men.

peter lumpkins

Hi Mallen

I'm afraid you may be one of those 'new kids on the block' around these parts. I feel at least fairly confident that you'll see more 'negative feedback' logged on this blog site than many others won't have combined. So the question here is not about whether I 'want negative feedback.'

Instead it's whether you or others get to set the agenda about what particular subjects are worthy of mention. For you, apparently all SBC blogs should be solely about evangelism-- "Why not use that unique perspective to discuss and debate the more important topic that Christians alone can offer: What Must I Do to Inherit Eternal Life?"

And, while I do not dispute that some blogs should be solely about evangelism--i.e. because their stated purpose demands they be solely about evangelism, and therefore to be about anything else would be deterring from their stated purpose--SBC Tomorrow is not solely driven by evangelism but, as the Header tagline on every single post published here states (and has so since 2006 when this blog started), this blog is about "reflections on all things Southern Baptist."

So, for 10 years now I've posted on issues I think affect Southern Baptists. There are occasions for sure when I posted on issues not so easily identifiable as to how the issue relates to the SBC. But those are the minority I think. Posting about all issues that affect SBs is the purpose of this blog, you see.

Now if can't you accept my stated purpose for this site, yes, I'm asking you to move along. Read a blog where the agenda fits your expectations. And while I may change focus one day, know I have no intention of thinking about another direction for this site presently.

Hence, Mallen, log your 'negative feedback.' I encourage it! Just don't cuss, make positive racist remarks, and try to leave personalities out of it as much as you can (it's hard when we're discussing whether a moral slime-ball can be president or whether an apparent supporter of child molesters should preach at conferences but one should try just the same).

May our Lord grant us all His much needed grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

Mallen

Peter,

Not sure if you saw my earlier comment above. So I'll repost here:

"Hi Peter,

No, I don't get to set the agenda for this blog. I only wish the agenda for this blog was more focused on Christ and less on politics."

So, to repeat myself, NO, I DON'T GET TO SET THE AGENDA FOR THIS BLOG. Hope the caps clear up any confusion on your part. Wishes aren't commands, that's why they are called "wishes" Straw argument #1

Secondly, I did not state that "all SBC blogs should be solely about evangelism." Straw argument #2

Thirdly, I did not "cuss" nor did I make "positive racist remarks" of any kind. Straw argument #3

Any decent blog is going to receive comments that are less than laudatory from time to time. Mine was one such comment. Certainly not worth the passive aggressive browbeating it engendered.

I certainly appreciate the time and effort it takes to run a blog, especially one for so long as you have. I am not depreciating your efforts to write about "all things Southern Baptist", only to point out that national political debates are no more especially related to SB life than any other community or organization. But the existing debate over Calvinism within the SB community IS unique to that community. You have a great opportunity to provide much-needed opinion, information, and commentary about this issue from a SB perspective that many others can't provide. I mean only to assert that you might be passing up a great opportunity to provide a product not already covered in many other websites: the topic of Calvinism and how it relates to SB life. Now, it that is not a perspective upon which you wish to blog about, so be it. "Wish", remember? I only hope one day you will reconsider my suggestion.

I'll continue to look for content here that better matches my interests as well.

All the best.

peter lumpkins

Mallen,

"Peter, Not sure if you saw my earlier comment above." Yep. Sure did. Thus, reposting it was redundant and offered no clarity on your part. It does come across to me as fairly pugnacious, however.

"Wishes aren't commands, that's why they are called "wishes" Straw argument #1. Thanks for the lesson in linguistics. Care to show from my words where I necessarily implied wishes were commands? The fact is, I quoted you correctly: "And since you WISH THE AGENDA WAS SOMETHING ELSE..." (the CAPS are to clear up any confusion on your part, Mallen).

Secondly, I did not state that "all SBC blogs should be solely about evangelism. Straw argument #2."  You are correct. You did not state it. But you certainly seemed to me to imply it...several times...

  • "Contend for the gospel"
  • "focused on Christ and less on politics. This is a Southern BAPTIST blog... Why are you seeking to unnecessarily divide over politics?"
  • "SB blogs have a unique perspective on theological divisions and debates that no secular website can reproduce. Why not use that unique perspective to discuss and debate the more important topic that Christians alone can offer: What Must I Do to Inherit Eternal Life?"
  • "Presidential politics are absolutely of no importance compared to a Christian's duty to properly peach the gospel."
  • "Unlike the temporary political fuss over which leading SB member is voting for Trump or Hillary, Calvinism is an enduring division in the SBC..."
  • "If you want to debate and discuss over something with real import, tackle Calvinism for it affects SB life..."
  • "This is certainly a much more serious issue than Trump-Hillary and will remain so for a very long time unless political squabbles take a backseat to theological ones."
  • "Contend for the gospel"

Personally I think you clearly indicated blogs--at least SBC blogs since they apparently hold a "unique" perspective--should be about the gospel and theology not politics (as if somehow the gospel--or as I would prefer to say, the Christian faith--has nothing and/or little to offer the political sphere of life). I'll leave that for others to judge.

Thirdly, I did not "cuss" nor did I make "positive racist remarks" of any kind. Straw argument #3. Nor did I suggest in the least you did. All I was doing was giving you (or anyone else for that matter who cared to log "negative feedback") general stipulations about what was unacceptable negative feedback. That's all. But apparently your pugnacious posture makes my words sound to you accusatory rather than explanatory.

"Any decent blog is going to receive comments that are less than laudatory from time to time. Mine was one such comment. Certainly not worth the passive aggressive browbeating it engendered." If frequent or even occasional comments that are "less than laudatory" are the bar for a "decent blog," I assure you I have one of the most decent blogs on the internet. As far as "passive aggressive browbeating" I'll leave that also for others to judge. Maybe had you been a bit less actively aggressive, Scott, who, according to you, is nothing more than an internet troll, TROLL-IN-CHIEF for this blog, or worse still, a mindless lap-dog, you wouldn't be having such a difficult time here. I suggest you look first at yourself before judging others here or elsewhere on the net.

"I am not depreciating your efforts to write about "all things Southern Baptist", only to point out that national political debates are no more especially related to SB life than any other community or organization." No one's suggesting you deprecated anything, Mallen--at least I am not. You have, however, attempted more than once to "correct" the purpose of my blogging here (see above). As for what you say you're trying to point out--namely, "national political debates are no more especially related to SB life than any other community or organization"--I haven't the faintest notion what you're intending to suggest. Are you suggesting that politics are equally related to Southern Baptists as well as other religious communities? Who knows? I cannot tell since your point is thoroughly confusing.    

But the existing debate over Calvinism within the SB community IS unique to that community. You have a great opportunity to provide much-needed opinion, information, and commentary...  I mean only to assert that you might be passing up a great opportunity to provide a product not already covered in many other websites: the topic of Calvinism and how it relates to SB life.  What you've just done, Mallen, is demonstrate how utterly ridiculous it is--and frankly, how embarrassing it ought to be to those who do so--to blindly log onto a website and post a comment without even a remote understanding of the blog, the blog author, and the community to which he usually is a part.

Had you only surfed just a little on this site, you would find more articles on Calvinism in the SBC than you cared to read. In fact, I've been dealing with the Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention since my very first post (after the test post) in September, 2006--An Interview with Arminian theologian, Roger Olson. My concern for strict Calvinism in the SBC has never waned (and probably won't since I'm planning a doctoral dissertation on the subject).

Indeed the overwhelming majority of posts on this site (now in excess of 1500) concern either theology proper (that is, what we might find in the Baptist Faith and Message) or the historical presence and influence of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. And of those addressing theology proper, many if not most are particularly related in some way to Calvinistic themes. Very rarely have I addressed politics. But in this presidential election as last (October 2012, November 2012), I do deal with politics, and will do so in the future if the Lord so gives me opportunity.

With that, I am...

Peter 

Mallen

Peter,

Is all this drama necessary over ONE comment that has been ridiculously dissected and subsequently trolled and for which I have gone out of my way to clarify? I'm sorry I posted anything negative. I'm sorry I posted anything at all! I had no idea the feathers that get so easily ruffled here.

Wishes are not demands or commands or coups to take over your blog's direction, Peter. There is no barbarian at your gates, just a single comment that has set everyone on flame. Wow. Bring the tone down, a bit.

What that, I am...

NOT YOUR ENEMY.

Louis

I believe that Trump's ascendancy caught many people unaware. They could not believe that a real estate developer with no experience who was known for gambling, multiple marriages, and a tabloid, reality TV show would have so much resonance among religious people, especially in the SBC.

But Trump, despite his manifest failings, spoke truth to power, on the immigration issue, in particular, in a divided field.

I do not believe that Dr. Mohler or Dr. Moore could see that coming, and when it did, I believe they felt they could "correct" the views of many by reminding people how bad Trump was.

But despite electoral gains in 2010, 2012, and 2014, for the Republicans, it gained them nothing in terms of leading the country. When Republicans won the house in 2012, Boehner said, "We only control 1/2 of 1/3 of the government. So, Republican voters gave the All of the legislative branch. And the Republicans were too timid to use that power.

So, along comes the 2016 Presidential election and too many of the candidates were either serving in that timid Congress (apologies to Cruz and Paul - they really had tried), or were sounding very accommodating.

The end of it was that enough Republican voters were willing to take a risk on a guy who was spending his own money, did not look like he could be bullied, and was saying things they liked.

I think that Mohler and Moore hoped they could slow down the momentum for Trump because they were concerned that it would look very hypocritical to have criticized Clinton so harshly (back in the 1990s), and then to be for Trump.

They took to national press organs - the NYT and NPR, and said some things about Trump supporters that were not correct.

I believe that now, having failed to shape the nomination by awakening the consciences of evangelicals, their statements are more accommodating toward those who are voting for Trump.

I had a #neverTrump friend just 2 days ago tell me he was voting for Trump. I am not sure why it took him so long, but it did.

We need to give each other room in this issue, and I think that Mohler and Moore have come to that position. But their initial statements left them very little room, and hurt a lot of feelings.

I am hoping for a better direction forward.

But if Southern Baptists have to endure one more article, chiding, sermon or what have you on why they have to support the non-enforcement of immigration laws that have been validly passed and are in force (just not being enforced by the executive branch), or why they must lobby for the immigration of unvetted immigrants from the middle east, as opposed to donating money to provide relief and safe havens, I think the situation is going to pop.

And you add to this, in the case of the ERLC, the failure to list church sexual abuse to its list of top ethical issues the church and culture are facing, and you may see much more discontent.

And I say all of this as one who supports the good things that Mohler and Moore have done.

peter lumpkins

Mallen,

So far as I am concerned, there is no flaming tone to douse--at least from my side. I've only addressed the words you've written so far as I know.

And, you could have ended this exchange comments ago by simply walking away. You didn't. You kept prodding along with your incisive "Strawman" insinuations not to mention your heckling toward the "troll". For a man who thinks a blog should be primarily about the gospel, you surely have logged well more content than consistent with such a grand ideal.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Thanks for the comment Louis. A worthy contribution and something about which to think...

Mallen

'The grand ideal'. Unbelievable.

The comments to this entry are closed.