Al Mohler says to state editors: you must cover Calvinism (part I) by Peter Lumpkins

On February 13-16, 2012, editors of denominational papers across the Southern Baptist Convention met in Phoenix, Arizona at the Chaparral Suites Hotel for their annual meeting. One of the keynote speakers was Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president, Al Mohler. For those who want to know what Dr. Mohler thinks about the role of Calvinism in Southern Baptist life now and the future, he does not disappoint  >>> 

During his lengthy address, Dr. Mohler expressed his thoughts on current controversies within the SBC. Below are summaries from his address in his own words (no commentary is added other than an occasional implied subject in brackets for clarity). I've sought to be true to the context. However, the reader may be pleased to know a transcription of his entire speech is available (see below). For our purposes, we omitted the bulky introduction and focused on four major headings in the speech respectively divided into four current controversies¹ which Dr. Mohler suggests creates tension in  the Southern Baptist Convention:

I. Contextualization

• Most of the most irritating controversies to Southern Baptists right now have to do with deep debates over the contextualization of the gospel.... Missiologists were always on the front lines of the contextualism debate, because the contextualism debate as it emerged in evangelical and in Protestant circles did not emerge from how do we reach millennials...In other words the first debates over contextualization in terms of modern experience had to do with the extent to which Chinese Christians... must they look like us...
• ...But the current controversies we have are very much out of that same conversation... To what extent can we differ from one another in terms of the way we... do church.... The issue for the Southern Baptist Convention, many of our most pressing issues, have to do with this. You know, the controversy when the president of the SBC says I’m not going to wear a tie. That is a very surface level contextualization question. Can you have a Southern Baptist church plant in a brewery? That is a far more urgent contextualization question... A lot of the tension points in the SBC right now are all over contextualization questions. And I’ll just tell you that I think we have a generation that is radically contextualized, and contextualizing. And I fear over-contextualizing.
• ...This is the first tension point in the SBC. How do we become all things to all men in order that by all means they might be won to Christ, and still win them to Christ and not just to some kind of cultural modification... 

II. Congregationalism

• Going back again to 1845, the one thing that Southern Baptists knew was that Baptists were congregationalists... The model of associationalism developed very early...  The London Confession came out of the London Association of Churches...  But nonetheless you start looking at this and you realize that in terms of congregationalism we’ve still got many of the same issues... And here’s the biggest issue: What does a congregation look like? Baptists are very confused about this in terms of the officers of a church, in terms of the actual operations of a church, in terms of the structure and polity of a local church...  We’ve got churches that are affiliated with the SBC that are owned by a Board of Directors that have non-resident member. This is bizarre. Our Baptist forefathers are pulling out their hair wondering where the Baptists are.
• ...So this is going to be an ongoing tension point as well. What is a church? That is one of the underlying controversies over current debates with church planting. What actually is a church? How do we know when we have a church?...
• The rise of multi-site models, the rise of all kinds of things, have raised new tension points in congregationalism. To what extent can multi-site churches -- truth in advertising, I’m a member of one -- to what extent can they accommodate congregationalism. Or can congregationalism accommodate that reality. And when indeed do you have actually separate congregations, and when have we become effectively Episcopalians, in which we have numerous bishops over different sub-groups of churches. Maybe we have the diocese of Second Baptist Houston rather than the congregation of Second Baptist Houston. It’s not an accusation, it’s a question... Our Baptist forebearers I think would be pulling their hair out again... . ...Many of the controversies right now in the SBC are over what congregations must we recognize as being congregations. 

III. Confessionalism

• Again the Southern Baptist Convention did not adopt a confession of faith in 1845, but it had to by the time the pressures of modernity began to blow by the early 20th Century. By the time of the midpoint of the 20th Century...there had to be a modification of the Baptist Faith & Message...And then of course the pressures that were represented by the Conservative Resurgence... emerged with the Baptist Faith & Message that was adopted in the year 2000.
• Now, many people don’t recognize a basic principle of church history. Now follow me, if you don’t hear this. OK, if you hear this one way it won’t make any sense, but this is a basic principle of historical theology: Heresy precedes orthodoxy... So, you know, Southern Baptists didn’t decide that all of a sudden we’re concerned as to whether gender is important in the year 2000. But the issue is no one was debating it in 1963. So the confession was modified to say gender is part of the goodness of God’s creation... And so you can tell by a confession where issues have to be addressed... Now, the explicit purpose of that was always twofold -- especially in the Baptist tradition of confessionalism. It is to say these issues must be commonly held among us. It’s also simultaneously a statement that issues not addressed in this confession are not those that should divide us... What is not addressed in the Baptist Faith & Message should not be a matter that would divide the denomination. Because had it been a matter that would have divided the denomination, it should have been, if of that importance, included in the confession. If not, by the adoption of the confession that’s not going to divide us.

Dr. Mohler's longest and most interesting section is heading IV. Calvinism. We've placed that section in Part II as a stand alone. In addition, at the end of Part II, a link is provided for the entire transcription of Mohler's address.  

With that, I am...

Peter

Part II "Al Mohler says to state editors: you must cover Calvinism"

¹Dr. Mohler added a fifth during the Q/A: Conversionism

Comments

[lmalone]

Anybody else notice that if he can totally rewrite ALL Baptist history and make people believe it we can have a magisterium and be more like those Episcopalians/Presbyterians? And it will be a good thing, because our "forefathers" did it. (This "forefather" focus confuses me because many of our SBC forefathers were supporters of slavery, too)

How in the world did we get to the autonomy of the local church and a "voluntary convention of churches cooperating on missions"?

These men are dangerous and must be watched closely.

[Max]

“ … we have a generation that is radically contextualized, and contextualizing …" When this SBC rebellion is historically contextualized, it will become clear that there were many factors contributing to it, with Dr. Mohler being at the front of the class.

“ … the one thing that Southern Baptists knew was that Baptists were congregationalists … Our Baptist forefathers are pulling out their hair wondering where the Baptists are.” And wondering how we let Mohler get the microphone to lead this generation away from congregational polity!

“Now, many people don’t recognize a basic principle of church history.” (Mohler’s way of saying majority Southern Baptists aren’t smart enough to understand confessionalism)

“ … adoption of the confession that’s not going to divide us.” Then why would he require adoption of The Abstract of Principles at SBTS? Is Dr. Mohler attempting to frame an exaggerated estimate of the importance of giving full assent to his particular formula of the Christian faith? After all, he has made it clear that Calvinism is the only theological lens through which to view the Gospel correctly.

Will there be any editors of SBC denominational papers (besides Gerald Harris) willing to offer an analysis of Dr. Mohler’s words … to bravely stand against the theological and ecclesiological drift in our ranks?

[Hobart M. Tucker]

It would be interesting to research whether the forefathers he mentioned were drawn to Calvinism because predeterminism appeared to justify their practice of slavery?

Does anyone have information about what these highly visible SBC Calvinists had to say about slavery in terms of predeterministic views?

Just a hunch, but I believe that a proper study would show that because of "predeterminism," more Calvinists supported slavery than "free will" believers.

[lmalone]

Am I the only one who sees him subtly contradicting himself in congregationalism? I think this is on purpose. As if he is saying, we really aren't practicing congregationalism in a lot of places now so we need to change it to make it more honest. And he uses the post modern church growth methods to excuse this. He says he is "asking a question". No, he is planting a seed.

I mention the above because now that I have read part 2 I think I see where this is going. Mohler is simply on a mission to re-define not only governing structure for the GBC (using churches as pretext) but also rewriting all history to make it Calvinistic so we are all believing in their determinist God. See, if we agree with the BFM, we already worship the Calvinist God. We just had to be told.

[Max]

Hobart Tucker writes "It would be interesting to research whether the forefathers he mentioned were drawn to Calvinism because predeterminism appeared to justify their practice of slavery?"

Hobart, I haven't read the following book, but it appears to shed some light on this issue. Quote from a recent Associated Baptist Press article: "Author Bruce Gourley says in 'Diverging Loyalties: Baptists in Middle Georgia During the Civil War' that the Calvinism that caused many Baptists to view the war as God’s providential hand guiding the Southern cause waned as early victories turned to defeat and all but disappeared from public discourse by the turn of the 20th century." http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7079/53/

[Louis]

I believe that this is a thoughtful address and that Mohler raises lots of interesting questions.

Southern had the Abstract from its founding, and Mohler and the Trustees have used the Abstract successfully to guard the orthodoxy of the seminary.

Mohler has built up a tremendous amount of capital for his good work at Southern, his work on the BFM committee, the restructuring of the SBC and the GCR.

There are other voices in the convention. If they can propose a coherent and attractive future direction or emphasis for the convention, they can have a countervailing influence that is effective.

[lmalone]

Louis, All that "good" he has built up as you claim may not stand the test of time with his support of the "people of destiny" big A Apostle. Especially since word is out he is moving to Louisville to plant a church and SGM pastors (his son in law who left when CJ stepped down) are coming to SBTS to "finally" get educated. Now, word on the street is that CJ's daughter is working at SBTS. Word is that SGM is moving headquarters to Louisville. I have no idea what that entails but it could mean Kauflin on staff at SBTS? (Can't help thinking about those guys at SBTS laid off a few years back who the ones who lost their homes and health insurance)

If the messengers ever get wind of Mahaney's shepherding cult tactics and Mohler's support of him even in the secular press, they might just change their minds about the good. The trick will be to keep them from finding out and taking Mohler at his word that the victims, the bloggers and all those who left just do not like "strong leadership". In other words, they are just rebellious.

But I have noticed with you, it is never about truth but who presents the slickest vision.

[Mary]

Louis, Mohler has used the Abstract at Southern to kick out all of the nonCalvinist. Mohler is gradually getting rid of anyone who is a nonCalvinist. He has used the "capital" he has developed to put someone like Ezell in charge at NAMB so as to plant Calvinist church plants that are knockoffs of Acts 29 with the same cultic practices.

Now we see Mohler turning the conversation to say that we're all really Calvinists so of course it's ok that he gets rid of anyone who denies Calvinism.

For all the screeching, ranting and raving of some in the SBC over the last many years claiming that "antiCalvinists" only want to get rid of Calvinists, the silence is deafening when we see that the only people who are actually being forced out of the SBC are those who not Calvinist.

[lmalone]

If you think about it, it was a brilliant strategy to take this to the editors first. If they go along, it will be smoother sailing.

I know we have a fairly new editor and since our state convention has been pretty much cleaned out of non Calvinist at the top and middle, it should be no problem for our paper to go along with these definitions and rewriting of history (if they want to keep their jobs).

Again, we might have to depend on Georgia. After all, without Georgia Index, how long would Bob Reccord have lasted?

[Ron]

Hobert M. Tucker -- you asked:

"Does anyone have information about what these highly visible SBC Calvinists had to say about slavery in terms of predeterministic views?"

I would encourage you to read the book by historian Larry E. Tise entitled - Proslavery: A History of the Defense of Slavery in America,1701-1840. He has a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina.

Tise finds the roots of proslavery thought among the Federalists of New England, some conservative ministers of the north and the gentlemen theologian/pastors of the Old South. Sadly, most of the founders of Southern Seminary are among those listed among the 275 proslavery ministers that were most vocal; he includes their sermons, phamplets, and other written works. The great Princeton professor of Boyce and Manly Jr. is also listed (Dr. Hodge) -- sad indeed.

Tise challenges long held thoughts by historians of the proslavery movement. Go to "Google Books" to read portions of the book and Appendix One:Proslavery Clergymen.

[Louis]

Hobart:

I will add a quick note to what Ron said.

I believe that 2 of the 4 founders of Southern were slave holders, Boyce was one and am not sure of the other.

2 of the 4 were in favor of succession, but Boyce was not in favor. I can't remember who else was not in favor.

Crawford Toy was an ardent successionist. Probably means that Lottie Moon was, as well, though I have not read that anyway. The wealthy in the South favored slavery, but some saw succession (as Boyce) as a bad idea.

[Louis]

Lmalone:

You may be right about Mohler's association with Mahaney. It apparently has not cost him to date because it appears that Mahaney is moving closer to Mohler in opinion and not vice versa.

It's hard to read between the lines here, for me. Is Mahaney just bouncing along from tulip to tulip, all pretty happy go lucky. Or if what appears to me to be an abandonment of his life's work - SGM, a family of charismatic churches with apostles, super authority and all, really a major blow psychologically? I can't tell. For any average person, it would be the later. But for egoists, there is often a complete failure to come to grips with monumental personal failure. It's just a journey.

I don't follow Mahaney closely, and know what I know about him from the blog world.

But I do not think that Mahaney represents the voice that I would like to see represent the SBC in the future - uneducated, founder of a family of churches with what appears to have been a warped polity that allowed for terrible abuse.

[Louis]

Mary:

The Abstract contains a Reformed expression of theology. Mohler did not write it, obviously. He and the trustees now just require that professors actually agree and teach in accordance with it, which was the purpose of the seminary's founders.

As for "kicking out", the only professor whom I know was forced out under threat of being fired was Molly Marshall Green. Her problem was not Calvinism. Others left due to attrition and early buys outs etc.

I remember when it was said in the blog world that Paige Patterson was going to fire all of the Calvinist professors at Southwestern. I did not believe that then.

Nor do I believe now that Mohler has been "kicking out" all of the non-Calvinists.

I think that those terms are an exaggeration. But I will agree with you that each seminary has a flavor that is generally consistent with its history and the executive leadership there.

[Mary]

Louis, I'm happy to see that someone is admitting that only Calvinists are worthy to teach at our seminaries. Now we need to let the SBC at large understand that only Calvinists are qualified to teach and see if the nonCalvinist in the SBC would continue to fund Calvinist only seminaries. Perhaps the dead Founder's can help out with the funding. Perhaps the only reason we need give for not changing our name could be "the dead dudes chose the name so forever and always we are bound to what the dead dudes want."

Thank you Louis for acknowledging that only Calvinists are welcome at Southern Seminary.

Now Louis, what pray tell is being done to make sure that in a convention full of nonCavinist that the Seminary system which the majority nonCalvinist churches fund - what is being done to ensure the rest of the seminaries are not soley focused on serving Calvinists only, but those seminaries are going to be focused on serving the nonCalvinist in the SBC? Or do we see Al Mohler deciding to replicate what he's done at Southern by handpicking who will run those seminaries? Which seminaries do the nonCalvinist get to take over and only hire nonCalvinists on staff?

[Les]

Mary,

You said "Louis, I'm happy to see that someone is admitting that only Calvinists are worthy to teach at our seminaries."

I'm looking for where he said that. Could you point that out please?

No let's assume every professor teaching at SBTS is a Calvinist. I don't know if that is true, but let's assume for a moment that's the case.

Is not the leadership at that seminary authorized to hire whom they want to hire? If they want to hire all Calvinists, why is that a problem?

After all, are there not five other SB seminaries and are the other five surely not 100% full of Calvinists teachers?

Seems to me that there are at least five other seminaries where there are not 100% Calvinists teachers.

"Or do we see Al Mohler deciding to replicate what he's done at Southern by handpicking who will run those seminaries?"

Seems to me that Al Mohler is living in your head...all the time.

[lmalone]

"2 of the 4 were in favor of succession, but Boyce was not in favor. I can't remember who else was not in favor"

Louis, I am right now reading Broadus' bio of Boyce. Boyce, in a letter to his sister, did say he wanted to see the Union preserved but only if the South kept slavery. So, it is a moot point about him being against succession.

This book is a bit of a wake up call. Why would anyone today appeal to the Founders for doctrinal purity? Seems to me, more people will start reading about them, like me, and be even more concerned about appealing to the "Founders".

[Bob Hadley]

"Or do we see Al Mohler deciding to replicate what he's done at Southern by handpicking who will run those seminaries?"

I guess we will see what happens when Midwestern hires a new President. This will be an interesting hire for sure and it may well speak VOLUMES as to what is actually going on behind the scenes in the SBC.

><>"

[peter lumpkins]

Louis,

You suggest Mary employed exaggerated language pertaining to SBTS. But even if she did, you saw her and raised her by at least 3 bits of exaggeration yourself. First, to plead the AP as a document to 'Calvinize' the seminary--or in your terms, hire faculty who embrace a "Reformed expression of theology"--is not well taken. Even if one concedes the AP is a Calvinist document, such does not explain why so many faculty members teach Limited Atonement when so few Southern Baptists embrace it. In addition, the AP is not strictly adhered to. For example, are faculty strictly held to the letter of Article XVII "The Lord's Day" upon their signature? If they are not, then there is at least some arbitrary enforcement going on. If faculty are held to it, I'd like to see some type of proof that faculty are adhering to it.

Second, you leave the impression with the readers that SBTS didn't really experience a "purging" in the early Mohler years by stating that the only person "fired" was MMG. Please, Louis. You may persuade some with promotional puff like this but many of us are not that naive. What you call "buyout" was certainly not optional for so many of those who lost their positions at Southern. While it looks good on a resume, we all know what went down.

And, what did Mohler do to fill the faculty? He stacked it to the nose-bleed section with not just Calvinistic Baptists. Rather he placed in the most influential, key positions strict Calvinists--Calvinists who strongly hold to Limited Atonement; a doctrine which has been controversial among Baptists for two or more centuries in America; a doctrine that, like Landmarkism, was too controversial to put in the Abstract of Principles for SBTS (a document written by those who held to Limited atonement!); a doctrine that Z.T. Cody could say, at the turn of the 19th century, was "repugnant to our people" and that no Baptist church he knew of embraced it.

Hence this idea about certain seminaries holding a flavor of theology that is generally consistent with its history and the executive leadership there may be true to a certain extent. However, that cannot be viewed as a hard and fast rule of thumb, general or otherwise, for the simple reason all Southern Baptists support all seminaries (at least that's how it's supposed to be).

No one--not you, me, trustees, or president--has a right to lead any school away from the mainstream of Southern Baptists. If such a principle is proper, then we CR advocates owe a great deal of sorrow to moderates/Liberals for we expressly told them it was unfair that our schools taught contrary to the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists. In one sense, paradoxically, we are back in the same pre-Conservative Resurgence relationship with Southern seminary we had in 1979. SBTS then taught a view of Scripture most grassroots Southern Baptists did not embrace. We said then it wasn't fair for us to foot the bill but not have representation for our views at our seminaries. Now the doctrine has changed but we're again facing a similar theological disjunction with Southern seminary. Before it was the inerrancy of Scripture; now it is Limited Atonement. Comparatively, few Southern Baptists embrace this, but we have a disproportionate amount of professors at Southern (and perhaps now at SE) teaching this doctrine.

All this to say perhaps Mary was not as exaggerated as you appear to imply.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

Bob Hadley writes "Or do we see Al Mohler deciding to replicate what he's done at Southern by handpicking who will run those seminaries?"

I'm not a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I suspect Russell Moore (Dean of Theology, SBTS) will make the short list. Or ... will MWBTS trustees, citing economic pressures, consider an extended campus of SBTS?

[Stephen]

"such does not explain why so many faculty members teach Limited Atonement when so few Southern Baptists embrace it"

Peter, I apologize for now repeatedly asking such a pedantic question, but I have honestly looked about and I could not find an answer. What percentage of SBTS faculty, either within the Bible/Theology departments or in the entire school, hold to Limited Atonement? All I can find is that Mohler is 5 points, but Moore (and his dean predecessor Akin) holds to 4.

[Max]

Mary writes "He has used the 'capital' he has developed to put someone like Ezell in charge at NAMB so as to plant Calvinist church plants that are knockoffs of Acts 29 ..."

With great sadness, I reviewed the NAMB insert in our church bulletin yesterday, with its emphasis on church planting. For the first time in my long life (knowing what I know now), I became concerned about the destiny of the Annie Armstrong offering.

[lmalone]

"Peter, I apologize for now repeatedly asking such a pedantic question, but I have honestly looked about and I could not find an answer. What percentage of SBTS faculty, either within the Bible/Theology departments or in the entire school, hold to Limited Atonement? All I can find is that Mohler is 5 points, but Moore (and his dean predecessor Akin) holds to 4."

Stephen, I have a different take on this. If you watch, it does not matter because if you affirm the BFM and Abstract you are Reformed/NC/Calvinist. You are on the Mohler train and his definitions and interpretation of history is all that matters. He is brilliant and we are not. It is only a matter of time that believing in Unlimited Atonement will really mean Limited Atonement.

This is less about doctrine than some realize. The doctrine focus is just what fuels the train. The YRR love being part of what they see is a big movement of being "right", having the correct doctrine and others wrong. Yet, we are to unify under that thinking.

[Max]

lmalone writes "It is only a matter of time that believing in Unlimited Atonement will really mean Limited Atonement.'

Perhaps Dr. Mohler should adopt Driscoll's "Unlimited Limited Atonement" view, since the YRR have been camping out with Driscoll the theologian and have rubber-stamped him "right" on most other things. http://marshill.com/media/christ-on-the-cross/unlimited-limited-atonement