Al Mohler on Heresy: Let’s show humility…sometimes

Al Mohler's anticipated response to the latest theological square-off concerning technical points of Trinitarian doctrine among evangelical academics is finally here. One theologian promoted with pleasure Mohler's latest piece:

Mohler's statesmanship is specifically mentioned.

Yes, Mohler indicates more than once—not including his title—humility remains a key factor in these sorts of theological exchanges. While it's true there's a danger in ignoring real heresy on the one hand (Liberals do this), there exists a second danger like with the boy who cried wolf.

Some genuine doctrinal disagreements have nothing at all to do with the line between orthodoxy and heresy.

Consequently, according to Mohler, "Orthodoxy is, in part, an act of humility." What does being Orthodox and remaining faithful to historic Christianity mean to this generation and specifically toward this particular debate in Trinitarian understanding? For Mohler, it means "believing and teaching what faithful Christians have always affirmed as taught in Scripture."

Indeed for Mohler, the technical debate happening presently between evangelical theologians on exactly what implications may we rightly infer from relations between the Eternal Father, Eternal Son, and Eternal Holy Spirit calls for a humble spirit on all sides.

This is a time for cool heads, fraternal kindness, and clear thinking — and for all of us, a good dose of both historical theology and theological humility.

We fully agree.

As Mohler states, "All of our attempts to answer this question fall short of God's glorious reality, but we dare not say less than the Scripture clearly reveals. We ought also to be very cautious in trying to say more."

What is more, not only does Mohler fully acknowledge our lack of "adequate human categories" to understand how to "define these doctrines comprehensively," he also concedes "our finite minds cannot fully comprehend the infinite divine reality."

Thus, even more reason exists to under-gird our theological posture with humility as our primary building blocks.

By way of response, I offer two observations.

Humility for the "other side"

First, while Mohler rightly calls for humility concerning disputable doctrinal matters within Trinitarianism, he nonetheless appears to favor his own "side." If I am correct, how does Mohler fit the supposed posture of a theological statesman concerning this issue? It doesn't sound humble when Mohler says of those critics who charge their theological opponents with unorthodoxy that they're basically reckless in their charges and therefore should presumably stop their unworthy actions.

These charges [the critics make] are baseless, reckless, and unworthy of those who have made them.

Or again, when Mohler writes,

Recent charges of violating the Nicene Creed made against respected evangelical theologians like Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware are not just nonsense — they are precisely the kind of nonsense that undermines orthodoxy and obscures real heresy.

Does this sound humble and statesman-like to you?

Or, finally, as Mohler claims of those who question the teachings of Grudem, Ware and others:

They endanger the very orthodoxy they claim to champion by making reckless charges they cannot possibly sustain.

"Reckless" charges they "cannot possibly sustain"? Does this sound humble and statesman-like to you?

Not to me it doesn't.

Humble Statesman or Irritated Grump?

Second, given the statements recorded above, Mohler seems less like a humble statesman dealing with this theological disagreement and more like an irritated grump who doesn't like it when people imply his "side" is flirting with heresy. Frankly, I don't blame him. Neither do I.

Nevertheless, here's a question for Dr. Mohler.

Where was Mohler's call for cool heads, fraternal kindness, and clear thinking concerning a theological dust-up occasioned by a group of Southern Baptists only a few years ago? Where was his statesman-like humility?

Consider.

In 2012, a group of Southern Baptists published "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation," a theological document, they believed, raised legitimate issues in the Southern Baptist Convention. While the document apparently was the primary theological composition of one author, several Southern Baptists had differing levels of input into the document, Southern Baptists represented by pastors, directors of missions, seminary professors and presidents, state executive directors, college and university presidents and faculty; indeed, virtually every area of denominational life was represented in both composing the document and signing the document before publication.

Once the document went public, however, immediate accusations of "heresy" were vocalized from various sectors within and without the Southern Baptist Convention and continued for several days before Al Mohler wrote on the controversy the "Traditional Statement" aroused.

On June 12, 2012, Mohler published an article entitled "Southern Baptists and Salvation: It's Time to Talk."

In the piece, Dr. Mohler fails to show qualities one would expect from a statesman, qualities for which he pleads in the present controversy and indicated by Mohler's supporters in the tweet above. Hear him again concerning the current debate over implications of the Eternal Trinity:

This is a time for cool heads, fraternal kindness, and clear thinking — and for all of us, a good dose of both historical theology and theological humility.

Even so, rather than calling for cool heads and clear thinking in responding to his fellow brothers and the "Traditional Statement," Mohler piled on more indications that the group of Southern Baptists was flirting with heresy!

…I could not sign the document. Indeed, I have very serious reservations and concerns about some of its assertions and denials. I fully understand the intention of the drafters to oppose several Calvinist renderings of doctrine, but some of the language employed in the statement goes far beyond this intention. Some portions of the statement actually go beyond Arminianism and appear to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings of sin, human nature, and the human will — understandings that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied. Clearly, some Southern Baptists do not want to identify as either Calvinists, non-Calvinists, or Arminians. That is fine by me, but these theological issues have been debated by evangelicals for centuries now, and those labels stick for a reason.

While Dr. Mohler now wants theologians on both sides of the current discussion of the Trinity to embrace "cool heads" and "clear thinking" and definitively avoid implicating the other side in charges of heresy, he nonetheless was not hesitant at all in implicating his fellow Southern Baptists with flirting with heresy.

Furthermore, contrary to seeking humility in understanding theological differences, Mohler sniped to the signatories of the "Traditional Statement,"

I do not believe that those most problematic statements truly reflect the beliefs of many who signed this document.

What is implied in this claim but that the many to whom Mohler references are fundamentally ignorant of either what they were signing or what they actually believed or perhaps even both?

And, to demonstrate I'm hardly stretching a legitimate inference from Mohler's claim, a group of informed scholars from a major Georgia Baptist College (now a university) challenged Mohler on this very point. In addition, several individual scholars wrote in defense of their signing the "Traditional Statement."

To our knowledge, Dr. Mohler never retracted or corrected his understanding that the signatories of "Traditional Statement" expressed what, in his view, was theological language well beyond acceptable and bordered, if not actually crossed over into, heresy.

If I am correct, it seems to me Dr. Mohler's present call for cool heads, fraternal kindness, and clear thinking in theological differences depends as much or more upon who's getting defined the heretic as it does with who's displaying the humility.

In other words,

Let's show humility…sometimes.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Comments

[Lydia]

". Because there are people who want to keep the segments of society as victims so they can "get out the vote" because the only solution to help "victims" is a federally solution - whether it's schools or policing or health care. Some people believe that an elite few should rule from on high thinking they know what's best for the masses. This is all political. People are easily manipulated"

Yes. And it is all done under the guise of compassion which is insidious. There is a bigotry of low expectations that people ignore or view as compassion.

Frankly the situation reminds me a lot of the Palestinians who were used as political footballs for the ruling Arab oligarchies. It was to the ruling oligarchies benefit that the Palestinians stay poor and angry. The worst thing that could happen to them was for the Palestinians to become educated and financially stable. Can you imagine being proud of convincing several generations of people that they are totally unable to progress in their lives? That they need these social activists, politicians and media types to become independent functional self-governing citizens? It is an insult.

The president has fanned the same flames here. And Russ Moore needs for them to be poor and dependent so he can look like a defender in the media. Their definition of racism is if you don't agree with their premise.

All lives matter.

[Mary]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/9/obama-says-motives-dallas-cop-killer-micah-xavier-/

Regarding the Dallas shooter who told police he wanted to kill white people, specifically white cops:

“I think it’s very hard to untangle the motives of this shooter,” Mr. Obama said of the gunman, Micah X. Johnson. “By definition if you shoot people who pose no threat to you, you have a troubled mind.”

So we can't know the motive of the man who told cops his motives but everybody (including Obama) knows the motive (racism) of the cops involved in police shootings.

And what's the "solution"

Federal guidelines for police departments
Federal oversight for police departments
Federal prosecution of police officers

Federal gun registrations/background checks
Federal gun laws prohibiting certain guns
Federal "terrorist" watch lists prohibiting suspected "terrorists" from purchasing guns.

See a pattern here?

[Lydia]

Just like the public schools here, the inmates are running the asylum. At some point there has to be basic right and wrong and those categories pertain to everyone no matter what your color or your status.

The issues that Mary has listed are the exact reason why people are turning against the establishment.

[Mary]

Lydia, there are people who still think the main purpose for Obamacare was to help the uninsured and help with costs. The fact is that now the federal government controls the healthcare of every single American.

[Mary]

I know some people will ignore this article because of the site but they provide links to prove the points being made which is what reputable people do. Disreputable people will call people names who make statements and points they don't like.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/09/dallas-obama-federal-shootings/

[Mary]

I don't know this site and there are some graphic pictures (blood soaked t-shirt of the man who was shot). The narrative has been set but leaks are coming out that don't fit the narrative. Just like the Michael Brown case the facts may not actually match the narrative.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/07/08/the-curious-case-of-philando-castile-falcon-heights-mn-police-shooting/#more-118450

[Lydia]

"Lydia, there are people who still think the main purpose for Obamacare was to help the uninsured and help with costs. The fact is that now the federal government controls the healthcare of every single American."

It is killing the middle class 30 something couples with kids. They cannot get ahead. They have huge deductibles and monthly payments that are an average of 6-700.

And Russ Moore wonders why we are so disgusted with his attempt to get a seat at the establishment table? The republicans did nothing. Now it is here to stay as far as federal control and the IRS can fine you! Not only that but congress is exempt. Oligarchs!

[Lydia]

A federalized police? He will do what he has done with schools and threaten to withhold federal money unless they put in transgender bathrooms. I am stunned that so many people cannot or will not see that we have voted ourselves an oligarchy. There are very few people left in this country that are not in someway beholden to the federal government and its largess . Just the way Obama and Hillary wanted and the Republicans go along with. Because there is nothing worse in this world than being sought to be mean, right?

[Mary]

Lydia, my son has a chronic health condition. Because of his compromised immune system we've had trips to the ER and or hospital stays over these last many years ever winter. We've always had health insurance through my husband's work. Every year it pays for less and less and we have to pay more and more out of pocket. This on top of increased premiums that his employer pays. Turns out all that "free" stuff isn't free. The costs are being passed on to the middle class. This of course was the purpose because the original intent was as has been admitted by Hillary in this election season to move incrementally to single payor health care. When people like us are being hit then of course we cry out for relief and every problem has a government solution - a Federal Solution. More and more people dependent on the Federal Government for another aspect of their lives.

Another thought to remember. Seven years ago when everyone was fighting over Obamacare Dems insisted that Obamacare was not a Trojan Horse for Single Payer. We now know they lied.

Back in the early oughts when Republicans were pushing for a marriage amendment Hillary stood on the floor of the Senate and said a marriage amendment wasn't necessary because gay people didn't even want marriage rights. Obama of course told us he believed (as did Hillary) that marriage was only between a man and a woman. They lied.

Now today liberals are pushing gun control "no we don't want to take away anybody's guns. Just "common sense gun laws" How on earth are we supposed to believe these people who lie over and over about what their ultimate goals are?

[Lydia]

Mary, I think psychologist George Simon is on to something. His view is that the shrinking middle class that works real jobs is carrying this country on their tired backs. The rich and those living off state entitlements are being carried by the middle class. How long can we expect that to work?

I believe there is a real divide and conquer strategy going on for control. And you know what scares me the most? The lack of small businesses. The backbone of independence and independent thinking. The regulation and red tape makes it prohibitive for the average person. our leaders want employee drones.

The gal who fills pudding cups at the hospital is an employee of a French multinational conglomerate. The UN is deciding which refugees we take in. The Chinese are our loan sharks.

We lost our sovereignty as a nation long ago. It will take a serious major route in DC to make a dent in what we have become.

We watched John Adams over the holidays with the teens. Such great lessons in there about what it took and how the idea of self government was so radical. We are giving it away through pure ignorance and apathy. I want to see people become all they can be. What if they don't want that? Is that where we are? Then we have Christians teaching such thinking is a selfish sin. Maybe they just want spiritual control and power?

[Scott Shaver]

IMO, Southern Baptist "leaders" and talking heads like Russ Moore and Alan Cross are part of the Obama/Hillary agenda for America.

Driving in the wedges of anger and racism with their white-guilt rhetoric.

[Scott Shaver]

I would say that Jerry Falwell Jr was spot on with his hunch that Russell Moore is a closet liberal. I'll go one step further and hypothesize that he's also a closet Democrat as well.

[Scott Shaver]

Thabiti Anyabwile is out of his mind thinking Clinton/Kaine is an "astonishingly faith-sensitive ticket."

Black, white or chartreuse, let's see how "faith-sensitive" they are should God-forbid they win the election.

What's this guy smoking?