By Chaplain Mike
For Scot, this marks a significant shift in evangelicalism. It shows that some of the most prominent and powerful leaders in what is called evangelicalism today are trying to bend it back toward a form of fundamentalism.
The evangelicalism that emerged in the mid-20th century (“neo-evangelicalism”) self-consciously separated itself from fundamentalism, rejected radical separatism and embraced a more profound engagement with the world, and practiced a greater tolerance for theological diversity in their cooperative relationships with fellow Christians.
But Mohler lives out and preaches a different evangelical story: the evangelical world and America are falling apart at the moral seams, and only a commitment to the old-fashioned story can sew those seams back together and save evangelicalism and America.
McKnight laments this development:
This new story of evangelicalism is sad for people like me who have always believed Evangelicalism was a Big Tent coalition of those committed to the basics of the gospel but more than willing to tolerate differences on all kinds of levels.
Evangelicalism for many of us has been a generous evangelicalism. As I said above the numbers are on the side of the older Big Tent coalition, but there is a major, major problem: the old guard coalition is not composed of fighters. They’ve only known peace and cooperation. What is perhaps the secret here is that many of us became evangelicals to escape fundamentalism.  For us, there’s no turning back, which means we may find ourselves disenfranchised from evangelicalism.
Today’s scene is not what it was. It’s a new era. When Al Mohler is on the cover of CT, when he represents the shrewd and powerful takeover of a former liberal-to-moderate seminary, when he has publicly claimed any form of evolution is inconsistent with the gospel, and when he is seen as the voice of American evangelicalism, a new world stands before the American evangelical. It’s actually an old world.
The question is Who will speak for the Big Tent coalition? Count me in.
The iMonk mic is open. I encourage you to go over to Jesus Creed and read Scot McKnight’s reflections. Then, if you would like to discuss his observations with the iMonk community, come on back and join in.
I would like to know: What say you?
The Internet Monk Archives 
Could it be that the term “evangelical” is one that has outlived its usefulness? I think it died some time ago, stinks to high heaven, and needs a proper burial. It is impossible to think of anything evangelical that is not entwined with some sort of American cultural values and biases. This always, to my mind, makes whatever is evangelical be about something other than Jesus the Christ and him crucified. Perhaps just as it the early evangelicals sought to distance themselves from their fundamentalist past, it is now time to distance ourselves from our evangelical past.
I’ll offer up a term for whatever it is that is replacing evangelicalism. I’ve referred to myself (tongue in cheek) as a Mysterion for the past few years. Anything that is not Christ I have been trying to disentangle myself from. This is a continuing and never ending process. To be a Mysterion is to admit one doesn’t know very much, but desires more than anything to know Jesus as he is.
LikeLike
“For I came that ye may have Perfectly-Parsed Theology, and have it more abundantly.”
LikeLike
If “Complementarianism” means what I think it does (and the connection with Young Earth Creationism makes it probable), it can (and often does) slip into “Me Man! You Woman! You Shut Up! God Saith!” throw-your-weight-around Male Supremacism.
LikeLike
YES
LikeLike
me too
LikeLike
I think we’re getting a little too thick with the obscure “-isms” here…
LikeLike
That airport has appeared in more Conspiracy Theories than the Rothschilds and Bilderbergers and UN combined. Check out a satellite photo of their runway arrangement sometime…
LikeLike
Or at the Great White Throne, pointing out “Me Sheep! Him Goat! Him Goat! Him Goat! Him Goat!” with Fully Parsed Theology.
LikeLike
“If people’s minds are fixed on biblical truth, the only way to breach the wall is to get them to stop obeying it. Then, instead of fighting their zeal for sound doctrine, you can co-opt it, even stoke it, until multitudes are repelled from the truth by the way you defend it, not by what you’re defending. Who’s really the bigger threat, packs of barking Christians whose error is visible a mile away or all the ‘deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ’? “
— Your Affectionate (and Increasingly Ravenous) Uncle,
Screwtape
LikeLike
“Hello, sleeping-giant Lutherans: Desparate plea for leadership holding on line one!”
Amen! I am currently making the transition from SBC to ELCA, and I am enjoying the wonderful focus on Christ! Some individuals have a social/political agenda on the liberal side not unlike the conservatives in the SBC, but this local pastor is wonderful about focusing the service and his teaching on Christ.
LikeLike
If complementarianism is the keystone that keeps the arch of scripture above denominations’ heads, then the SBC and LCMS will survive while other denominations suffer ELCA-like collapses. As a United Methodist who is treating complementarianism as a tertiary issue, I’m concerned about this.
LikeLike
I agree with you on this particular point, Mark. However, I don’t see a word about homosexuality or some of the other things you mentioned in any of the creeds or confessions of the church.
That is not to say the things on your list aren’t important issues. Every era has their own unique battles. Just don’t make them the bottom-line. And remember that sometimes people need time to work through their understanding of certain matters. It usually doesn’t help someone who is honestly trying to understand for someone to say, “Unless you believe this particular thing in this particular way you can’t be a true Christian.” We need pastoral wisdom and sensitivity to go along with our commitment to truth.
LikeLike
Really? How does the declaration, “From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead” square with a universalist understanding of salvation? It is your way of thinking that is strange Chaplain.
LikeLike
We need a pro-gospel big-tent movement.
Hello, sleeping-giant Lutherans: Desparate plea for leadership holding on line one!
LikeLike
Some people, who expect leadership, will find that leadership with AM in whatever form the SBC will evolve / devolve to (and not being a member of the SBC I’ll leave that opinion to others).
Others will find leadership somewhere else.
Some people, who believe themselves to be the leaders (true or not), will look to / at themselves and see leadership.
Others will find that they have outgrown leadership – and perhaps the ideas that those leaders offered – that they were previously comfortable with, as Chaplain Mike noted above in regard to his seminary professors.
The issue still appears to be who makes the decision about what is right and what is not. That problem goes back centuries at a minimum. The tent is not so large as people claim. The phone book, in the yellow pages under Church, would suggest a multiplicity of tents of different shapes and colors. AM is merely modifying the tent he is in charge of. That is a pretty common event.
LikeLike
“Al Mohler is herding his fellow believers back together into a new tribe, which will be the (much smaller) SBC in the future.”
Best summary I have ever seen of Mohler and his SBC followers.
LikeLike
I haven’t read Yoder on this, so maybe things would clear up for me if I did, but I have to say that I think we’re stretching the idea of Constantinianism to the breaking point if we start to include voting in its definition.
Another thing to consider is whether Constantinianism is itself always and without qualification a bad thing. I don’t think it necessarily is.
LikeLike
I’m sure he does. Are you suggesting that voting is Constantinian? If so, count me in.
LikeLike
What Mohler advocates is what Yoder would call neo-neo-Constantinism. When the Church does not have popular support among the people in the way that allows them to run the show but “blesses the society it inhabits (and particularly its own national society) without formal identification therewith” (Royal Priesthood 196) you still retain a Constantinian attitude and Christendom hope. Sure most Christians are concerned with influencing the world, but Mohler is in the large group of Christians that believe that requires making an alliance with the world on some level. The Manhattan Declaration seems like direct political involvement and I’d be willing to bet he votes regularly in elections.
LikeLike
I simply compare your list to the Apostles Creed, a true summary of Christian belief, and find what you have included as strange.
LikeLike
Guess Luther won’t be making it into heaven.
LikeLike
I have spent the last 4 years re-examining what I was taught there and do not find myself agreeing with all of it. I made the regenerate comment out of jest. I do believe myself to be saved by faith through Jesus Christ.
However, the point I was trying to make is that what one believes about the Bible (its Authority, inerrancy, inspiration, etc.) is not what make him regenerate. I have a friend that has come up to me and said, “I believe in Jesus. I trust in Him. I want to follow him.” To me that sounds like regeneration. But he says in the next sentence, “I do not believe that everything in the Bible is factually true.” I do not believe this discounts his faith. It shows intellectual honesty on his part. And it shows that he cares most about following the real Word, Jesus.
And as far as my “path in life”, that is difficult to discern on a blog. Please do not assume that you know what sort of path my life is on based on one view that I have. It is also not necessary that I follow every doctrine espoused by SBTS simply because I attended.
LikeLike
David, that is a very good distinction. I was speaking in general terms, but I think you have put your finger on a very important distinction. Mohler is seeking to minister to individual Christians to help them live out their faith in the world. He is not trying to lead a political coalition.
LikeLike
What would it look like to be “tolerant” or “generous” about other views? Do you mean he should hold his views with less conviction? And if that is the case, then why not say the same thing about the folks at Biologos?
I have already said that he has old earth proponents on the faculty at Southern. He disagrees with them, but he has not for that reason kept them from teaching the students at his seminary.
As for the complementarian issue, it is simply one that is going to put some barriers between believers because churches have to decide how they are going to operate: will they have women as pastors or not? In spite of John Stott’s attempt to straddle the fence, there really is no stable landing place between these two views. And while I know you disagree with conservatives on the issue, from our perspective the gender issue is a gateway to a host of other important issues. Wayne Grudem argued in a book that came out a few years ago that evangelical feminism is a new path to liberalism. While I don’t agree with every argument he makes, I think he is right overall, and I think the current drift to the left we are witnessing in so many institutions is evidence of his claim. In one or two generations homosexual practice will be fully acceptable in the institutions that have already embraced the egalitarian view of gender. In some places that is already the case.
So while some might consider complementarianism to be a tertiary issue, I think it is so interconnected with everything else that it has to be a hill to die on in at least some situations. It was a major issue at Southern Seminary in the early 1990’s, and Mohler took a stand for what he believes to be biblical truth on a matter of great importance for the church. If that is what it means to be ungenerous, then I don’t want to be generous.
LikeLike
For someone who thinks universalism may be a legitimate option, I find it absurd that you would call T4G “a joke.” What is a joke are people who call themselves Christians and eschew teachings that the church has held for many centuries (e.g., that unrepentant sinners will be damned to eternal judgment).
LikeLike
Derek, you once used to attend SBTS, am I correct? What made you turn away from their teachings? Did you want to follow a certain path in life that was incompatible with the teachings of Scripture?
LikeLike
Certainly a regenerate person can be wrong about many things. For example, a regenerate person can believe in the real presence of Christ in the Supper or believe that infant baptism is a biblical view of baptism. Thus, if I excluded people who believe in a non-Zwinglian view of the Eucharist or practiced paedobaptism then, yes, that would be nonsense on my part.
However, if someone came up to me in church and told me (with firm conviction) that all the supernatural parts of Scripture is nonsense or myth then I would highly doubt that person was truly regenerate. A person cannot be a true Christian and hold with conviction that some parts of Scripture is non-inspired.
LikeLike
Universal salvation is a possibility should one interpret those texts differently. But alas, if I do I find my self unregenerate by your standards. Perhaps one day God will download all that is true into my head as he has you at the moment of regeneration. If only all of us could be so blessed, Mark. I guess I will have to learn the old fashioned way.
Cheers.
LikeLike
I don’t know enough about Yoga to have an opinion. I did say “a lot” – not everything.
I don’t agree with everything Chaplain Mike has said. It doesnt mean that the rest of his teaching is wrong. In fact, IM remains my most read blog.
Having said that, I would point out several things.
He is not calling for disassociation or saying your not a christian.
He does have a strong opinion, and he directs it towards individuals
LikeLike
Interesting indeed. I’ve just moved back to the Bible belt after having been gone for 20 years and have wondered about the changes that I’ve noticed , especially within the SBC.
LikeLike
“I read alot of AM – I get his RSS feed – I think a lot of his stuff is pretty good.”
@david: The yoga stuff, too? Having grown up in Baptist fundamentalism, his yoga rants raise big red flags.
LikeLike
Even if you include that qualification, divorce/remarriage would still disqualify many Evangelicals. It seems somebody has double standards for what sins allow individuals to be Evangelicals. . . hmm. . . I wonder why?
LikeLike
the 5 Sola’s is a requirement?
That means no Lutherans, to start.
I would say that’s a little odd
LikeLike
“I find it difficult to accept that one’s ‘public niche’ should be so narrow and schismatic if a person is truly irenic, generous, and cooperative with Christians that take different positions.”
No one can doubt the apostle Paul’s commitment to sound doctrine. He wrote most of it. But his epistles are half doctrine and half ‘how to live.’
Part of the ‘how to live’ aspect is modeling how to deal with people who aren’t getting what he’s taught or are getting it totally wrong. Look at how he deals with the Thessalonians who decided to stop working and thought the resurrection had taken place. (!) Now imagine how those Thessalonians would be treated if they were subjected to the blog-and-flog treatment favored in some circles today.
Then do a Bible software search and see how many times Paul calls these people ‘brothers.” Or look at how skillfully he goes from firmness to gentleness in dealing with the Corinthians, who were proud, schismatic, charismaniacal, immoral, etc.
We’re not talking about truth or generosity, we’re talking about both. Look at how hard he works to follow his own rule: “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” (Eph. 4:3)
Jonah knew that God was “gracious and compassionate . . . , slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity” (Jonah 4:2), but he didn’t want to be gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, etc., himself. The messenger and the message have to be the same.
I don’t read AM’s columns very often, so I’m not in a position to offer an informed opinion of whether or not he succeeds. But every one of us knows that how we act and not just what we believe can be a major stumbling block to the unbelieving world and to other believers. I’ll leave you with this, from a recent blog post:
“If people’s minds are fixed on biblical truth, the only way to breach the wall is to get them to stop obeying it. Then, instead of fighting their zeal for sound doctrine, you can co-opt it, even stoke it, until multitudes are repelled from the truth by the way you defend it, not by what you’re defending. Who’s really the bigger threat, packs of barking Christians whose error is visible a mile away or all the ‘deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ’? “
LikeLike
Aren’t we at least in agreement that it is better to have Al on the cover, rather than Osteen or Beck?
My concern that anti-liberalism is no basis for a big tent. This is how Beck is sneaking his way into evangelical leadership. Being “anti” is no definition. To me, this is the fundamental flaw of fundamentalism.
LikeLike
“A person cannot be truly regenerate if he or she has regards a certain part of Scripture as non-inspired (or certain parts of Jesus’ ministry as myth – like his miracles).”
Really? Excuse my bluntness, but Mark this is nonsense. A person can be regenerate and wrong about all sorts of things. You are confusing categories in a major way here.
LikeLike
Complementarianism and young earth creationism are two issues Mohler has come out strongly about in public. He is not tolerant or generous about other views with regard to these issues.
LikeLike
Paul also made the qualification for unbelievers who abandon their believing spouses. Nice try with your comeback though.
LikeLike
Derek, how does my last statement disqualify myself? I don’t believe that only Calvinists, Baptists, and premillennialists are evangelical. There are members in Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Pentecostal, and even Independent Fundie churches who would be considered evangelical. Perhaps what you’re thinking is anyone who doesn’t hold to the list above, and you’re right (but that doesn’t contradict what I said in my last point).
Also, universal salvation is not an option because it goes against points 1, 4, and 6. If you believe that universal salvation is true (or even a real possibility) you would have to cut off whole sections of the Bible that talk about final judgment and the final destruction of the unfaithful and unrepentant.
There is a difference between a person who thinks that certain parts of Scripture is non-inspired and a Christian who interprets certain passages differently from another fellow Christian yet holds that the Bible is fully inspired. A person cannot be truly regenerate if he or she has regards a certain part of Scripture as non-inspired (or certain parts of Jesus’ ministry as myth – like his miracles). This is different from someone who holds to a non-literalistic view of creation or the end-times, because it is non-essential for salvation.
LikeLike
I disagree – I don’t think his blog is about “culture wars”, at least as I define it
–
To me, Culture Wars is the overt attempt to influence, in particular, govt,, elections and the such – to have an overt influence on goverment.
To me, and this may cut to fine a line for you, is that what AM is focused on is how does one live as a Christian in the world – he is attempting to influence what individuals think about them selves, their faith, their role in the world.
For example, I think this post is an excellent example of that –
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/10/04/between-the-boy-and-the-bridge-a-haunting-question/
I also think most of his posts come back to representing the gospel to the world.
LikeLike
What is strange about it? I would like to hear a more detailed interactive response than your glib answer above.
LikeLike
I don’t think you have confused some categories here. Being involved in the culture war does not make Mohler “narrow and schismatic.” Most of the time he is simply addressing important cultural issues from a Christian perspective. He is not so much focusing on issues that divide Christians as he is focusing on cultural issues that all Christians face. While he holds his positions strongly, I wouldn’t say that makes him a “schismatic.” If anything, the “culture wars” approach to contemporary issues is very much compatible with a “big tent” view of evangelicalism. I think McKnight’s feathers are ruffled more because of the specific stances Mohler takes on certain issues than because of any philosophical commitment to “fundamentalism” as opposed to “evangelicalism.”
And just to carry C. S. Lewis’s illustration further, I think Mohler definitely is very much devoted to a particular tradition as it pertains to his leadership at the seminary.
LikeLike
I’m sure AM is no different than many of the fine teachers and professors I had in Bible College and seminary. I appreciate them for what they gave me. But I am no longer in the same place.
I find it difficult to accept that one’s “public niche” should be so narrow and schismatic if a person is truly irenic, generous, and cooperative with Christians that take different positions. If anything, if one takes C.S. Lewis’s “hallway and rooms” approach, it is in private that one should be dogmatic and devoted to a particular tradition, while humble, hospitable, and magnanimous in public.
LikeLike
His blog is primarily dedicated to culture war issues. As I said in another comment, Mohler’s public niche is the culture war. But that is only one side. As one who attended Southern Seminary for 7 years, I can testify to the foundational role of the gospel in his thinking and ministry.
His commencement address at my graduation ceremony was simply outstanding:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/05/14/starting-something-you-cannot-finish-the-eschatology-of-christian-mission/
In my years at Southern I heard many addresses that were in a similar vein to this one.
LikeLike
Mohler views his public niche (that is, his ministry apart from the seminary) as equipping Christians to think as Christians about the issues of the day. I think it is a bit of a generalization to call this Constantinian. Sure, Mohler wants clear-thinking Christians to have an influence on the world, but then what sincere believer doesn’t?
Mohler is not of the same fabric as, say, Falwell and Robertson. Direct political involvement for him is quite rare. He is more concerned with the big ideas that inform how we think through politics, culture, etc.
LikeLike
I don’t think he is wrong to speak on tertiary issues, any more than you or I are wrong to, including taking “strong” positions.
What’s wrong is to disassociate over the issue. To place them outside of christendom.
I read alot of AM – I get his RSS feed – I think a lot of his stuff is pretty good.
Your mileage may vary
LikeLike
I agree with you, Chaplain Mike. As one who attended SBTS and sat under his teaching, he spends way too much time on the tertiary and not the primary.
Together for the Gospel was often a joke to many of us who were on campus because it was praised as reaching across boundaries for the sake of the gospel. I think this is difficult to sustain.
I heard more chapel sermons about what we should be against than what we should be for.
And it was rare to hear a sermon that discussed how most of the seminary students were just complete jerks and felt as though this was ok because they were “right”.
If the atmosphere bred by Mohler at SBTS is anything like the resurgence of faith that he desires to see in our country we should be very concerned.
The only big tent needed will be to have enough room for those whose heads are puffed up up with knowledge but are not built up in love.This leaves little room for anyone else.
LikeLike
Mohler is a culture warrior. The culture wars of the evangelicals and and fundamentalists are the major expression of their commitment to Christendom. Christendom isn’t just a literal Christians rule and all obey. It’s the mentality behind it that makes it a drive for a large sect of Christianity to be involved in legislating Christian values in government and demanding certain Christian values reflected in the economy. I’d recommend familiarizing yourself with John Howard Yoder’s five versions of Constantinianism in his book The Royal Priesthood.
LikeLike
Someday Mark will join Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates checking everyone’s ID.
LikeLike
Mark,
It appears as though you disqualified even yourself with that last statement. Also, considering those of us who hold a universalist approach (a la CS Lewis) that is dependent upon Christ’s work of saving, how is that not evangelical considering it is competely dependent on the finished work of Christ? Also, as far as inspiration goes, I believe that it is easy for someone who holds to a more literalist view of Scripture to accuse another of disbelieving certain parts of Scripture because we choose to interpret it differently.
I fear your absolutes are what concerns me about evangelicalism and the neo-reformed.
Are they advancing the Church or is it your way of thinning the crowd?
LikeLike
It would be easier to express appreciation if he talked like this regularly. 90% of what I’ve read is culture war rhetoric and absolutism regarding what he himself calls “second-level” issues.
LikeLike
Yikes! I totally forgot about the blogosphere! That is a beast of it’s own. I’ll admit the reformed can be real jerks online.
Calvinists will rename you “satan” if you don’t tow the tulip. But for the most part, those are usually Baptists, on the internet. Baptist Calvinists are almost always fundamentalists, we shouldn’t be surprised that they act like it.
LikeLike
I have always liked AM, and thought he was in general pretty on target. That article you cite is a great example of it.
LikeLike
excellent observations
LikeLike
Something else that McKnight (and most of Mohler’s critics) completely ignore is Mohler’s important article on theological triage from several years ago. The way Mohler critics argue, you would get the impression that Mohler anathematizes anyone who is not a five-point Calvinist, complementarian, SBC, young earth creationist. That is simply not the case.
Mohler holds his own convictions and makes arguments for them, but there are varying levels of relationships with other believers where theological leeway is both permissible and even required. Of course, it’s no surprise that Mohler would require the most narrow theological commitment from his faculty at Southern Seminary. It is, after all, a confessional Southern Baptist institution, accountable to the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. To the dismay of many, Mohler actually enforces the doctrinal standards upon which the school was originally founded in 1859, expressed in the school’s doctrinal statement, “The Abstract of Principles.” Nevertheless, Mohler has hired numerous professors who disagree with him on a range of questions, including the age of the earth.
As levels of relationship and cooperation expand outward, so does theological leeway. Read Mohler’s article on theological triage to see how he lays it out:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/05/20/a-call-for-theological-triage-and-christian-maturity-2/
Mohler’s critics have been unfair to him by completely ignoring this article, which has been out there for six years now.
LikeLike
Mark, you have a strange list of absolutes.
LikeLike
In what way does Mohler advocate Christendom? I would argue that his theological convictions actually oppose the idea. Mohler is a Baptist, which means he does not recognize infant baptism (the chief tool in the spread of Christendom) as valid.
LikeLike
You say that “Calvinists disagree without resorting to character assassination.”
Do you read the same websites as I do? 😀
Most of the Reformed websites that I regularly read do not tolerate much difference in opinion. I rarely come out of lurk mode, for fear of being called names (I’m Methodist, and have some real problems with some current neo-Reformed trends). But if there’s some good Reformed websites where I wouldn’t be treated with benign contempt, be certain to let me know, I’d love to check them out.
LikeLike
“Any group of individual that believes that homosexual behavior is a biblically legitimate alternative sexual act”
Wait. So, what about believers who believe divorce (for reasons other than sexual immorality) and remarriage is ok (Matthew 19:9)??
LikeLike
From what the post said here, let’s take an honest look at Scott McKnight’s assertion:
Al Mohler on the cover of CT is bad news for the faith.
Are you serious? CT features quite a plethora of perspectives.
McKnight is not afraid of fundamentalism. If he is from the Anabaptist tradition, he’s living in a glass house.
McKnight is afraid of Calvinism. And if he’s like most arminiams, he can’t stand the overwhelming likelihood that the next evangelicalism will be reformed. I’ve got to say, at least Calvinists disagree without resorting to character assassination.
There are plenty of arminians who believe in young earth, staunch moralism, and doctrinal exclusivity. This is, imo, how Arminians handle the rising influence of Reformed theology.
LikeLike
For me, evangelicalism is a movement that embraces doctrines formulated in the early ecumenical creeds, the five solas of the Reformation, and upholds the full inspiration and authority of Scripture (though not necessarily embracing inerrancy like the way fundamentalists hold to).
What is NOT part of evangelicalism:
-Any group or individual that holds that certain parts of the Bible are not inspired or authoritative for life, faith, or doctrine (though one can still hold to a non-6 day creation view)
-Any group of individual that believes that homosexual behavior is a biblically legitimate alternative sexual act
-Any group or individual that believes hat universal salvation is a legitimate doctrinal option (either the Barthian kind or the Talbott kind)
-Any group or individual that believes that salvation can be found in other paths, deities, or religions outside of Jesus Christ
-Any group or individual that believes that salvation can be earned by our own law-keeping apart from or in addition to Christ’s sacrificial work
-Any group or individual that believes that justification can be totally separated from sanctification (i.e., that experiential sanctification or persevering in obeying God’s commands is NOT a necessary consequence of the new birth, being forgiven and justified, and having eternal life).
-Any group or individual that believes that they are the ONLY church or denomination that will enter the Kingdom of Heaven
LikeLike
What we’re seeing here is the continued splitting up of the SBC into a group of cults. Or it may be better to say “into smaller groupings of like-minded churches.” The SBC has had room in the last many decades for a diversity of practices, everything from rigid fundementalism to Saddleback clones and charismatics. There were internecine battles, but in the end they were all “christian soldiers, marching as to war” under the same banner of the SBC.
This is no longer the case. Churches have been leaving the SBC, and many churches that remain in the SBC for the benefits of being associated with a denomination, have taken the words “Baptist” and “Southern Baptist” out of their names. Many long-time members have left the SBC because they cant fit into a local congregation for one or more of the following reasons: (a.) They dont believe “The purpose driven life” is a companion volume to the Bible (b.) for them the Eucharist is not “just a symbol” to be shunted aside so the praise team can get in more solos (c.) YEC, complementarianism, full quivers, “christian schools” and the duplicity of the culture war (d.) 5 point calvinism (e.) Arminianism (f.) The Holman Standard Bible.
The SBC used to be large enough with a broad enough constituency for everyone to fit. Narrowing and hardening of positions and taking sides is not limited to the SBC. Look at the Church of England/Anglican/TEC schism going on now. The SBC will split and reform in much the same way, with the same rancor and legal disputes over property, seminaries and endowments.
Society is reforming back into tribes and Christianity is doing the same thing. We can find people who believe like we do, even if we have a very narrow range of beliefs. If there’s no “group of like minded believers” where we live, we can find them on the internet. We can be members of an electronic virtual tribe of “fellow believers” and don’t have to pass tests, act happy when we’re not and can have our own eucharist with merlot and homemade bread.
Al Mohler isn’t going to burn down the big tent and turn evangelicalism into a new fundementalism. The big tent burned down in the 1990’s, and the survivors of the fire just stopped running and turned to look back at the destruction. Al Mohler is herding his fellow believers back together into a new tribe, which will be the (much smaller) SBC in the future. I don’t think it’s good or bad, it just is. At least, that’s what I think.
LikeLike
Is McKnight arguing against the Reformed, or against fundamentalist? Oh, thats right, he’s equating the two so he can say he’s displeased with evangelicalism becoming more Reformed without using the word.
There are things about Mohler I like, and there are things I don’t like. He is definitely a mixed bag, but I think he’s better then worse (I think the same of McKnight BTW). So he wants to bring evangelicalism back to it’s Reformed roots, and McKnight seems to want to bring out it’s non-reformed roots (It does have both after all). Is this anything new?
McKnight looks back at evangelicalism with rosy glasses. He speaks of the old guard coalition not being made up of fighters, yet mentions both Packer and Stott who had a couple fights under their belts. Saying that the old guard is not made up of fighters almost reads as a desperate please “Don’t argue with us, we are not the kind of people who will argue back so you’ll get the better!”
Evangelicalism from it’s very beginnings in Wesley and Whitefield has had opposing sides on doctrinal issues, and each side has always tried to get it’s views to become predominate. So Mohler’s side seems to be winning this right now, if McKnight’s vision was winning someone would complain about the liberal takeover. This comes off more then anything as a sour “That should be us on the cover”.
LikeLike
Until that last few years, I spent a couple of decades in secular work oblivious to what was happening in the ivory towers of church hierarchy.
Much of that time, I was not a “member†of a church, having left one that didn’t care what the Bible said.
I always figured I was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.
My goal: to provide for my family. I never stopped believing. I never stopped reading my Bible.
The meanings of the terms Evangelical and Fundamentalist have obviously gone through several changes while I’ve been on hiatus. It seems that now the terms mean different things to different people. If I’m wrong, it’s because of a lack of understanding on my part, one about which I’m really not concerned.
I’m glad I missed all of fuss during the past few decades. I’m glad I’ve had the Psalms and the Sermon on the Mount to lean on.
Having read the article referred to, I’m even happier that I’ve been out of the loop.
’m not saying that something important didn’t happen when a certain Christian publication printed something by a certain man.
At the same time this is my observation:
While leaders in churches have been arguing over this and that, the majority of those inside and outside of church walls have gotten very far away from God.
It strikes me that religious leaders today are more than ever before, in this country at least, like those with whom Jesus got so angry.
In fairness, there are obviously still men of God in some of our pulpits.
They have become the minority, in my opinion, and that is why the simplest of Christian teachings are unknown by the majority of the people.
LikeLike
I was agreement with you up until you took Mohler’s side. Mohler is an advocate of Christendom, not of taking evangelicalism back to its roots. Christendom and true Christianity are polar opposites. Mohler is no Reformer. He’s the same tired old story and part of the problem in the SBC. He won’t be getting nearly this level of attention in 15 years.
LikeLike
Scot is overreacting. He should know better too since he’s anabaptist and anabaptism is quickly becoming the new darling of Christianity. Christendom is in its death throes and Mohler is evidence of that. It used to be said that “As goes the SBC so goes evangelicalism.” Anyone with their eyes open can see that “As goes the SBC so goes American Christendom.” The SBC has always been married to the State. As the SBC declines and the younger generation gets fed up with it Christendom will lose its power.
Scot, I think, is also waxing nostalgic about evangelicalism’s past. The strong revivalist spirit of the Billy Graham crusades and all of the imitations it inspired is the beginning of where evangelicalism went wrong. The big tent coalition existed because people tolerated cheap grace and cheap discipleship. The SBC ate this stuff up and pushed further by backing church growth paradigms of mission. Evangelicalism (and the SBC especially) became bloated with converts that don’t know true faith from their shoelaces. The plateau and decline in numbers in categories across the board in the SBC is the evidence that they are now reaping what they sowed. Our beloved Michael explored post-evangelicalism and it seems to me what Scot is describing as generous evangelicalism is more in line with post-evangelicalism than what evangelicalism historically was.
LikeLike
“but more than willing to tolerate differences on all kinds of levels.”
I think he makes the argument there for why people are moving away from “anything is good as long as you believe it.”
Most of us know there is a difference at the level of the gospel that is “fundamental” without being legalistic.
LikeLike
Your photo looks like Denver International Airport. 🙂
LikeLike
“Evangelicalism” is notoriously difficult to define. Historians trace the movement to the revivals of the 1730’s in England and later in America, although the term “evangelical” has been applied going all the way back to the Reformation.
The “big tent” evangelicalism of the 20th century, a doctrinally minimalist movement, has left in its wake all of the silliness that is almost daily mocked right here on this blog. It has led to an obscuring of the gospel, an obsession with pragmatic concerns at the expense of sound theology, an evisceration of any sense of a biblical ecclesiology, and a general conformity of the church to the world. When I survey the landscape of modern “big tent” evangelicalism, I see a heritage of revivalism, some of which I would gladly salvage, but much of which I am hoping will pass into the dustbins of history. I see “evangelical” institutions sliding more and more into heterodox theology. I see churches obsessed with numbers and personalities with pastors whose primary responsibility is to function as motivational speakers and psychotherapists rather than as heralds of the risen Christ. All in all, I don’t see a movement that is much worth salvaging.
Like Mohler, I want to see evangelicalism restored to its roots, which can only be accomplished by a robust commitment to the biblical gospel. McKnight is lamenting the work of a man whose work is helping to bring gospel renewal to churches broken by the legacy of big tent evangelicalism.
Who is the real heir to the word “evangelical”? From a historical-theological perspective, I think Mohler has a stronger claim.
LikeLike