Al Mohler: Intellectual Visionary or Pseudo-Intellectual Legalist?

We build fences to keep ourselves from committing certain sins. Soon these fences – instead of the sins they were designed to guard against- become the issue. We elevate our rules to the level of God’s commandments.  Jerry Bridges

(image from www.puritanboard.com)

 

Back in the 1990s, when I was safely ensconced in a graceful non-denominational church, I viewed the goings on in the SBC as a much-needed correction to what I presumed was liberal theology or doctrinal shenanigans. I guess one could say that I fell for the SBC generated press on this action. Yes, some doctrine, such as the essentials of the faith (Virgin Birth, for example) needed to be reclaimed. What I (and apparently many others) didn’t understand was that this course correction went far deeper than suspected.

 

I had long been a member of churches that seemed to understand the difference between “A” issues (Christ’s resurrection) and “B” issues (age of the earth). Major on the majors and minor on the minors was the guiding principle. I had friends that were all over the place on these issues yet all of them toed the line on fundamental principles.

 

This past Sunday, one of my pastors gave an interesting lesson on the problems with legalism. He stated that fear is often the basis of retreat into legalism. In Galatians 2:11-13 we read

 

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

 

Note that Peter bowed out of eating with the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. In fact, Peter had to be convinced by God that he should not become a Judaizer. Imagine what this fear could have led to in the new church” forced circumcision, dietary laws, etc. Imagine the role that women would play if only the physically circumcised were “true” Christians?  

 

After an eye opening experience in an SBC church, I became aware that the SBC takeover had little to do with conservative doctrine. Instead it was a witch-hunt, revolving around secondary issues, that were being raised to primary importance. Not only that, but an adherence to 5-Point Calvinism was now the philosphy du jour, further alienating a large core of individuals who had competing, yet doctrinally acceptable, beliefs.

 

No one has done more than Albert Mohler to usher in a new era of “my way or the highway” doctrine in the SBC. His alliance with the New Reformers takes this movement well outside the SBC, forging historical bonds with like-minded group such as Sovereign Grace Ministries, Mark Driscoll and Acts 29 among others.  

 

In the October 2010 issue of Christianity Today, a cover article, entitled “The Reformer,” provided an interesting insight into the life and thoughts of this polarizing figure. Mohler, and his fans, seem to assert his intellectualism. Much ink was devoted to his supposed academic prowess. As proof of his  scholarly acumen,a 2003 Time Magazine, calling Mohler “the reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement,” was offered.  

 

I subscribed to Time Magazine for 35 years, only recently dropping my subscription due to my growing boredom with its predictable responses on a number of issues. Why one should believe this is a compliment from Time is beyond me. This is a magazine which routinely disparages certain beliefs, such as 6 day creationism, that are near and dear to Mohler’s heart. In fact, this supposed compliment might actually be read this way. “This is who they have as an intellectual, good night!”

 

Mohler took on the Presidency of Southern Seminary at the age of 33 and has, according to CT “put the finishing touches on the conservative resurgence.” What, pray tell, is this conservative resurgence? The Virgin Birth? The Second Coming? Jesus’ Resurrection? Nope, nope and nope. Get ready for it folks. It is “Biblical inerrancy”, a” complementarian view of gender roles”, and” conservative politics.” Add to that the following: Southern Seminary used to “embrace evolutionism’ along with higher level Biblical criticism and is now a “bulwark of Reformed theology and creationism.” This is all nuanced by a world-view rooted firmly in Reformed, Five-Point Calvinism.  

 

Let me decipher this. Al Mohler is a Biblical literalist who believes that gender roles, more specifically, complementarianism are an “A” issue, vital to the survival of the faith. He also removes theistic evolution from the realm of creationism, ignoring the fact that many theistic evolutionists believe in God as the Creator. But why bother with details? He disavows devout Christian theistic evolutionists, such as Francis Collins, who believe that God created the heavens and the earth. Why? I would contend that he is afraid that dissension, from his views on these issues, will cause the demise of Christianity. In fact, for him, they define the faith far more than many of the fundamental principles of the church. In other words, true Christianity is defined not only by Christ’s death and resurrection but also by adherence to these principles. In this, he moves dangerously close to the Pharisees of old with their rules and regulations that put burdens on the faithful.  

 

Somehow, he ties this all to the survival of the SBC, which has seen a dramatic decline in membership. As the article in CT states “SBC baptisms have fallen for the second year in a row and everyone admits that the official membership tally of some 16 million is a gross exaggeration-perhaps by as many as half.” (Translation-The SBC has declined to a probable paltry 8 million members-something TWW has contended for the past year-glad to see CT and others catching up with us). Youth are leaving in droves and church-planting has stalled.”  

As to his reformed views, Mohler apparently believes that Biblical inerrancy can only be defended via the scholarship of the Reformed movement. He has successfully supplanted dissenting viewpoints on the Southern Seminary faculty to such an extent that “some faculty prove the school’s diversity by saying that they only support Four-Point Calvinism.” Great Scott! A revolt is at hand!  

 

Mohler’s brand of fearful legalism is well demonstrated by his bulldog approach to governance at the seminary. In fact, he could be called the Jack Bauer of Southern Seminary. According to CT, within 3 years of his arrival he had turned over almost all of the faculty and administration. He insisted that even inerrantist evangelicals be fired if they supported women’s ordination. A report from one professor says “Al recruited young lieutenants, students who were spies in the classes who would report back to him what was being said in every classroom.” I guess he couldn’t afford to have recorders hidden in the walls as has been alleged by some in a certain family of churches.  

 

I think that last fact proves that inerrancy is not what this is about. It is about three issues: complementarianism, young earth creationism, and numbers. Complementarianism is not just a simplistic view of women in church leadership. Simply put, women are to be in a submissive role within the church, within their marriages, and for all eternity. Say what? All eternity? I refer you to the current “intellectual” scholarship coming out of Southern. They propose a new doctrine, The Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS). This is a convenient new doctrine cooked up by Bruce Ware which states that, “ The eternal subordination of the Son means that Jesus Christ is eternally the Son of God, equal in essence and in eternal divine nature with the Father, that the Father exercises eternal authority over the Son in function, and the Son eternally submits to the authority of the father”.

 

However, TWW believes the real reason that this doctrine, supposedly about Jesus, has gotten such play has to do with gender roles. These theologians now claim that women are to be submitted to men throughout all eternity. If Jesus does it, so must you. Please go to this link at Wade Burleson’s blog to get you started on this issue. Also, TWW has a category of ESS that will take you to some posts we have done in the past.

 

What is even more unbelievable is Mohler’s seminary believes that men should actually be called patriarchs! Don’t believe us? From a previous TWW article we see the following dialog: 

 

"Here's an interesting statement by Southern Baptist Seminary's Russell Moore unburdening himself about the nomenclature of the sex battles; and more particularly, expressing his extreme dislike for the word 'complementarian' and preference for 'patriarchy.'
 
Russell Moore: Gender identity and complementarianism … I hate … the word 'complementarian', I prefer the word 'patriarchy'…


Mark Dever: So then, why is it you don't like the word complementarianism?

Russell Moore: Because complementarianism doesn't say much more than the fact that you have different roles. Everyone agrees that we have different roles, it just a question of on what basis you have different roles? So an egalitarian would say, "Yeah, I'm a complementarian too, it's on the basis of gifts." I think we need to say instead, "No you have headship that's the key issue. It's patriarchy, it's a headship that reflects the headship, the fatherhood of God, and this is what it looks like, you then have to define what headship looks like…

 

Frankly, I find this newly adopted line of thinking somewhat dangerous and definitely not intellectual. It just sounds like a bunch of redneck theologians who want to be worshipped in eternity as patriarchs with women who are to attend them, hand and foot. In fact, it sounds a little bit like Islam to me-you know, the forty virgins thing.  

 

Secondly, Al Mohler adopts the decidedly anti-intellectual viewpoint of extreme literalism. He claims that “the exegetical defense of a 24-hour calendar day (in Genesis) is sufficient” and takes to task the likes of John Stott and J I Packer (not intellectual lightweights) for their conciliatory view of the fossil record. Let me translate this for you: “The Bible said it; I believe it; so don’t bore me with evidence like the fossil record, modern dating methods, etc”  

 

Here is the issue. A true intellectual would carefully study the science to make an intelligent decision about the evidence, even if the evidence contradicts his Biblical conclusions. It is always possible that our interpretation of Biblical passages might be in error. If the reader disagrees, then why are there so many denominations with so many diverging viewpoints on issues such as baptism, eschatology, etc.? One must remember that the church has been wrong on many counts of Biblical conclusions in the past. These would include an earth-centric view of the universe, the rotation of the sun around the earth, and the belief that some men were lesser creations resulting in the travesty of slavery. We will be addressing the beliefs of members of The American Scientific Affiliation on Thursday and how Francis Collins is reaching the New Atheists for Christ on Friday.  

 

Here is the problem with Mohler. He is not a true intellectual. He is quite proud of his 40,000 book library which is supposed to show he is, as CJ Mahaney (no intellectual himself) said, “The smartest man that I know.” Yet, as the CT article states, “His own books rehearse familiar arguments about the importance of maintaining a biblical worldview and offer little in the way of original analysis.” Even though he wrote a PhD dissertation on Karl Barth, “Ivory tower discourse is simply not his primary calling.” However, sometimes ivory tower discourse is necessary to field ideas, review research, and challenge assumptions. My guess is that very few members of his seminary or the SBC are challenging Mohler to consider opposing viewpoints. In other words, he is part of a self-talking enclave and that can be stultifying.  

 

Thirdly, Mohler, like any CEO of any old company in the US, looks at numbers. He admits his affinity for Mark Driscoll’s Acts 29. “When you look for theologically vibrant, healthy models that lead to growing churches, where else are you going to look?” Great Scott! A foul-mouthed pastor who threatens his dissenters with a punch in the nose is his idea of a great model? (Please click on Driscoll’s name under TWW categories. We did an eye opening series on Driscoll). In his world, it doesn’t matter how the pastors act, so long as they bring in the numbers, are reformed, young earth creationists, and gender conservative.  

 

Mohler is guilty of ignoring abuses in his own denomination and pointing his well manicured fingers at others. On his blog, he had this to say about the Eddie Long situation.

 

"Many of these independent mega-church pastors are defacto dictators, totally without accountability structures. The congregations lack the discipline of a denomination and the pastor or leaders often lack any accountability at all."

 

 

His hypocrisy on this issue speaks volumes. The SBC has refused to set up a sexual predator database. In fact, they coddle those who hide pedophiles. Lydia, a commenter on TWW, printed this quote from the Stop Baptist Predators website.

 

“Steve Gaines (Senior Pastor-Bellevue Baptist Church) was not put out of the convention after keeping a pedophile minister of prayer on staff without telling the congregation he had raped his son years before. And the son had gone to Gaines to tell him about his dad and ask that he not keep him on staff.

Gee, Gaines was given speaking engagements in the SBC to buck him up over the scandal. However, a Baptist church in Georgia that had a women minister was disfellowshipped.They don’t mind coddling pedophiles but a woman pastor? Now, that is the real sin.” 

 

I would like to add that if the SBC was all that Mohler claims it is cracked up to be, why was there a need for a website like Stop Baptist Predators? It’s because Mohler and his buddies are not doing their jobs like he claims. In fact the SBC has a growing scandal involving pastors accused of pedophilia and rape. “Hey Al, the SBC has done squat in this area. So quit the pontificating and be ashamed.”

 

Here is what I predict for the SBC with men like Mohler in charge.

 

– Women will reject the hard line, patriarchal nonsense.

-Young people, attending college, will find that supposed science that they have been taught by the likes of young earth creationists like Ken Ham is embarrassingly shoddy. This may lead many students to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject the faith along with the science.

-Insistence on 5 point Calvinism will be just another mandate that will alienate many who think differently. From the CT article we read “Faculty at Southern say their graduates have struggled to find pulpits in the Deep South, where fear of a Calvinist conspiracy is the strongest.”

 

With these factors, we believe that the SBC will continue to see a declining membership. In fact, the SBC recently lost your two glamorous blog queens.

 

Finally, much is made about the sartorial splendor and camera friendly visage of Al Mohler. Apparently, there is a hair salon on campus that advertises for eyebrow waxing. It’s really swell that Mohler wants everyone to rid themselves of the humiliation of shaggy eyebrows and look glamorous. However, you can put lipstick on a pig but there is still a pig under that lipstick. Protestations of intellectualism, fancy, private libraries (who paid for this?), boutique clothes, and polite manners go a long way but do not make up for the fact that the SBC is in big trouble and Mohler appears to be just a legalist in lipstick.

 

 

Lydia's Corner:  Genesis 13:5-15:21    Matthew 5:27-48    Psalm 6:1-10   Proverbs 1:29-33

 

 

Comments

Al Mohler: Intellectual Visionary or Pseudo-Intellectual Legalist? — 130 Comments

  1. Yes, as Dee stated in this blog post, Al Mohler and Company played a HUGE part in my finally deciding to leave the SBC after being a loyal member for 10 years.

    Extensive research about the following contributed to this decision:

    Eternal Subordination of the Son to the Father (ESS)

    Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (housed at SBTS)

    A ‘Push for Early Marriages and Lots of Babies

    Patriarchy (cleverly disguised as Complementarianism)

    Young Earth Creationism

    “Singles’ Ministry is an ‘abomination’”

    Cozy Relationship with C.J. Mahaney

    and, of course, Five Point Calvinism

    Perhaps Dee and I have Mohler to thank for pushing us to start The Wartburg Watch. We became so appalled by what we were learning through our research that we had to find a way to sound the alarm!

  2. First let me say that I appreciate your blog in many ways and I enjoy visiting here.

    Second, I have no problem with your disagreement with various positions that Al Mohler may take or that the SBC may take.

    Having said that, let me say that I think Al Mohler has done a great job at Southern and has contributed greatly to the SBC.

    At Southern Mohler came into the Presidency as a relatively young man at 33. He was younger than almost all the faculty and many of the students.

    You were right when you noted as an SBC outsider in the 1990s that the SBC needed a course correction theologically. Southern was the bastion of neoorthodoxy. If you have the interest, you would find The History of Southern Seminary a very good read. Southern had suffered for years with a faculty that was problematic from a theological standpoint. Several Presidents – Sampey, Fuller and McCall struggled with that issue, but all failed to rectify the situation. The main reason was that the faculty was in charge of selecting new faculty.

    The main contribution of Mohler to the situation at Southern was to break the hold on faculty selection. That allowed Southern to retain conservative scholars to replace outgoing professors. Mohler was fought tooth and nail by the faculty over this, to his near dismissal. That is something for a 33 year old man. Had it not been for his own personal determination and the support of some trustees (Grady Wilson, in particular, was one and by an extension, Billy Graham), he would have been dispatched.

    Mohler and his family suffered personal threats, he was hung in effigy on the campus and was treated very rudely, all in an effort to preserve the status quo. The mistreatment of Mohler and his family is a story that has not been fully told, and probably will not be for 20 or so more years.

    Even people who are not in agreement with Mohler theologically (i.e. not Calvinists) have spoken highly of Mohler’s performance in those days.

    The vast majority of the faculty left of their own will. Molly Marshall Green was the only faculty member to have resigned because of the likelihood that she would be fired for teaching outside the seminary’s Abstract of Principles. That is one of the founding documents, and all faculty must sign it when they become professors saying that they will teach in accordance with and not contrary to the Abstract. It had been ignored for years. Mohler had the courage to dust it off and remind the faculty of their commitment. It is a mainstream confession, with a Calvinist flavor, consistent with Baptist roots from the London confessions forward.

    All of the things that you mention – ESS, Young Earth Creation, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, etc. were not part of Mohler’s reform efforts, and have been more recent events. These positions are not agreed upon by all faculty or all the trustees. They generate a lot of press, however.

    The faculty that has been at Southern since Mohler’s arrival is first rate. You mention one faculty member, Bruce Ware (who I think came from Trinity), but there are several others. Mohler’s leadership has brought Southern into the mainstream of evangelical doctrinal confession. The result is that Southern has exploded in enrollment. The same cannot be said for other seminaries in the SBC.

    I believe it would be good for people to have a full picture of Dr. Mohler’s contribution to the seminary. Many people will not agree with the direction, but the vast number of Baptists are pleased, and after all, it is their seminary.

    With regard to the SBC, Mohler has also done much good. The reorganization of the SBC (reducing the bureaucracy), the BFM revisions, the GCTF report are all heavily influenced by Mohler. Again, these are all things that most people in the SBC agree with.

    You have mentioned some things that Mohler has said and believes in, some of which I do not agree with. I have concerns about some of these. Others do not bother me, and others I agree with. Again, I have no problem with disagreeing on various points of theology or practice as advocated by Dr. Mohler or others.

    Other things are not Mohler’s decision or responsibility (e.g. the proposal that the SBC have an abuser database – the worst idea of the Century).

    Still others, are simply innuendo – who paid for the library? From what I have heard, Mohler started collecting books at age 12. At that age, I was watching TV etc. He moved into the seminary with something around 20,000. If you want to know the facts behind this, I suspect you could find out.

    Finally, I don’t think that the pronouncement, “Here is the problem with Moher. He is not a true intellect.” is really supported by anything in the post.

    I know people who are intellectuals with whom I strongly disagree. But that doesn’t mean they are not intellectuals.

    One of the reasons I remain in the SBC is because of Al Mohler and people like him. Again, I don’t agree with all his opinions, but his overall contribution over the many years in the SBC has been a good and strong one.

    That doesn’t mean that I don’t hold your decision to join some other church as a bad one. I have lots of friends in all different types of churches.

  3. Annonymous

    Thank you for your defense of Mohler. Your thoughtfulness and thoroughness shows your understanding and is appreciated.

    Could you expand on a few things?

    Why is the database for sexual abusers who were pastors or leaders in the SBC the “worst idea of the Century? I have many more things that would rate much higher on the worst idea of the century-ESS to start. Are you not alarmed by the number of predators in the SBC? Are you not alarmed that people like Steve Gaines gets coddled for coddling a pastor who molested his own son? Have you read Stop Baptist Predators? What is your solution?

    I gave an excellent example of his nonintellectual approach to a subject and that has to do with his supposed proof texting of Genesis.It appears to me that there is no possible way for him to say that his thoughtfulness on this subject approaches any semblance of rigorous academics. Why is this example not sufficient?

    The “vast majority” of Baptists are pleased with the direction of the Seminary? Which ones? The ones who have left? The nonCalvinists? Women? Reformers? The SBC continues to hemorrhage members. Why, if everyone is so pleased?

    The press for ESS, YEC, CBMW – perhaps these are not major issues for you. They are for many of us out here in the evangelical wilderness. The press is right to focus on these developments. They underline the direction of the seminary and represent major doctrinal divides that portend the direction of the SBC. These proposals are harbingers and are not merely theological differences. He has made them major.So why aren’t these major issues worthy of focus?

    The books thing is very interesting. He has 40,000 volumes of books kept in cold storage, catalogued, etc. and everyone is given tours of said library. Is the Seminary contributing to the storage and acquisition or is this fully a private venture paid for out of Mohler’s private funds? Merely a question unanswered by the article.

    As for the threats against Mohler, well, welcome to the club. The SBC is known for the poor treatment of many people. Ask Wade Burleson. Ask Doug Pitman. How about Tom Rich? I assure you that the poor treatment is not just the bastion of the lefties. Some of the good old boys do a fine job of that as well. How sad there is so much of this bullying in the SBC.

    Mohler fired more than just nonorthodox, leftist heretics. That is the real story. He fired some good people who did not adhere to his absolute insistence on secondary doctrines. He also was involved in some stuff that showed undercover activity on his part – spies in the classroom – good night! It all seems tit for tat. Am I wrong?

    The GCTF purposely left out pastors of smaller churches according to the CT article. Small churches, which make up the majority of the churches in the SBC, are not “important” enough to Mohler to include them in his top secret deliberations. . It is the big fancy churches with lots of dough that get his attention, and that is what he intends to focus on. He might not have enjoyed the early church – not much money, always losing people to the Coliseum, etc. Tell me why sidelining the little church is Christlike?

    Billy Graham, whom you mention, might not meet with Mohler’s exacting standards. He believes in an Old Earth and believes his daughter Anne is a better preacher than he is. Mohler would have fired him as well. Why would that have been a good idea?

    Finally, I think you should be sad that the SBC is losing members like me. I support the church financially, I work hard at teaching in Sunday school, I love missions, I am very evangelical and invite lots of people to church, I volunteer to help at lots of events, I even bake brownies for functions. I am the type of person the SBC is driving away. If you want to know why the membership is shrinking, maybe I can help. But, perhaps it will keep shrinking until the SBC is made up of people who worship at the altar of secondary issues and will be a wonderful mutual “bless me” club.

  4. Anonymous, I would like to know why you think that the SBC having a database of credibly accused sexual abusers so that abusive pastors and workers can’t move from church to church to abuse again is “the worst idea of the Century”? Right now, there are no safeguards in place to keep sexual abusers out of the pulpit, the Sunday School class, the youth ministry… and as a result an abuser can rack up many, many victims over many years and never be caught.

    Why do you think it’s such a bad idea?

  5. Dee, I’m curious about a contradiction that I think I’ve discerned in your article about Mohler. You’ve often bemoaned authoritarian structure within, say, SGM, but yet you’re troubled by Mohler’s failure to call out more authoritarian pastors on their abusive tactics (but by that, of course, I don’t mean sexual abuse). I can see, I suppose, your point about a hypocritical approach in purging folks for adhering to what you’ve described as minor theological issues whilst ignoring what you view as major issues. But isn’t one of the hallmarks of Baptist “organization” the lack thereof? Which is to ask, isn’t an organizationally laissez faire structure something you’d advocate is appropriate within Christendom generally and the SBC specifically?

  6. “In fact, it sounds a little bit like Islam to me-you know, the forty virgins thing.”

    Or LDS.

    Mohler is a fundamentalist. That’s the essence of fundamentalism: making non-essentials (young earth creationism, complementarianism, political views, etc.) essentials and separating from those with whom you disagree. Furthermore fundamentalism is, at heart, an anti-intellectual movement where all dissent and questioning is squashed. Sound familiar? I’d even go a step further and say that much (though not all) of the New Calvinist movement is nothing more than Fundamentalism 2.0 (albeit a version of fundamentalism where women can wear pants, the occasional beer is allowed, and where the ESV has replaced the KJV as the version of choice).

    Furthermore a scholar is someone who does original research, publishes his or her findings in peer-reviewed journals, and presents those findings at professional conferences. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but to my knowledge Mohler doesn’t fit *any* of those criteria.

    Regarding your first two predictions it’s already happening to a lot of people, and not just in the SBC (the first one in particular has been a struggle for me). That’s part of the premise of Julia Duin’s Quitting Church and Rachel Held Evans’ Evolving in Monkey Town.

  7. Amanda

    Never, ever question your two glamorous blog queens on the existence of hair salons. Just doing our part to keep a well arched brow in the kingdom. 🙂 Thanks for the link.

  8. Hi Warrior of Thor
    There is a deep rooted hypocrisy in the structure of the SBC. They throw out a church with a female pastor yet keep churches with pastors who have hidden pedophiles and rapists in the pulpit. They can’t have it both ways. Either they are “hands off” or they are “enforcers.” Mohler’s statement seems to indicate that his denomination adheres to an oversight that would prevent an Eddie Long thing. HOGWASH!!!!!!!

    I’m just calling it for what it is. A pretend “hands of.” By the way, my guess is that Mohler, given his history, is an authoritarian patriarch and will worship at that altar.

  9. Amanda

    Good one on the LDS thing. In fact, I think ESS leans more to LDS than to historic Christianity.

    You are right on about your statements on the beer and ESV stuff. In fact, it sounds like you could be writing this blog!

    The only thing Mohler has done is a dissertation on Barth.Instead of research, he went into SBC politics quite rapidly. He reminds of Dr Jason Lisle, the supposed astrophysicist at Ken Ham’s group, Answers in Genesis.He got his PhD and went directly into the scientifically deficient YE advocacy group. A true physicist would have done research, set up a lab and published data in peer reviewed journals.

    As a contrast, Hugh Ross, at Reasons to Believe, did do the post doc, peer reviewed, research thing and is far better trained than Lisle. Unfortunately, many Christians are not aware of true scholarship and are overly impressed when someone puts a “Doctor” in front of their name.

    In fact, Doug Pittman is on a tear down in Georgia, wanting to exposed a fairly significant group of men who go by the name “Doctor” but do not have earned doctorates.It is almost an embarrassment that such a thing exists.

    On Friday I am going to look at Christopher Hitchens, the rabid atheist who has just contracted throat cancer. Interestingly, Francis Collins is one of the few Christians that Hitchens respects and I am going to stress that in my article. Mohler derides Collins, and exhibits his naivete that belies his supposed intellectualism. This devoutly Baptist scientist, who will win the Nobel Prize in the near future, can do more for the cause of Christ amongst the greatest scientists in our generation than Mohler and the Acts 29 crowd could ever imagine. They are too fixated on more important things like patriarchy.Rant finished.

    I have never heard of the two books you recommended but will look them up on Amazon.

    Blessings

  10. Tikatu

    Thank you for your comment! We must keep the children of the SBC safe and the SBC is doing precious little in this regard. Oh, they had a little committee that agreed that this stuff is bad and made “resources” available to help. Then, stuck their heads back in the sand. Then they made the bold move of kicking out a church with a female pastor. It is almost laughable if it wasn’t so sad.

    Maybe they would rather not face the true nature of sexual abuse in the pulpit in the SBC. They can pretend that they are theologically pure while children go on getting molested by their theologically pure pastors. Praise God for Christa Brown at Stop Baptist Predators. She is putting a human face on this issue within the SBC. Also, over at ExChristian.Net, these atheists/agnostics are posting all the news stories of the pastors who get arrested for sexual predation. How embarrassing it is to read of the number of SBC pastors in the lineup.

    Finally, I have to raise this question. Why will these men (no ladies involved) not deal with this issue? Frankly, there must be a reason that they don’t see this as much of a priority as patriarchy. Are there some in the SBC hierarchy that they are afraid will be found out? I expect a hew and cry from this statement but it is the only logical conclusion that I can come to. Are they hiding somebody?

    Nothing gets me madder than this issue. Jesus loves the children, the weak, the vulnerable. That’s who he spent time with. They come into our churches and molested by the wolves. And the weenies in leadership refuse to deal with this travesty. How sick is that? They are like the Pharisees-protecting their own.

    Good job, Tikatu. Let’s hold their feet to the fire.

  11. I’m a five-point Calvinist, consider myself a soft complementarian, and am an old-earth creationist who wouldn’t agree with throwing out a theistic evolutionist from the church. After sitting under a pastor who strongly believes in inerrancy and an old earth for decades I could never think that the two believes are mutually exclusive. Yet in general I line up more with Mohler on a lot of the second and third-order issues than against him. Maybe that’s why I’m a big skeptical of the CT article where this post draws much, though not all, of its information.

    I’m not part of the SBC, so I haven’t seen how things work out in practice. In theory, however, I agree with Mohler’s own list, from the horses’s mouth, of first-order, second-order, and third-order theological issues, although I’d say that some churches have managed to consider the mode and timing of baptism a third-order rather than a second-order issue. If the reality there is that, like the hyper-conservative wing of my own denomination, they keep trying to put a “hedge” around inerrancy by making the third-order issues the main thing, that I would definitely have a problem with.

    I was disappointed in the CT article putting Mohler in the tradition of the great Post-Reformation Reformed Scholastics where Old Princeton was and yet questioning his intellectual credentials. Talk about double-speak. The traditions they place him in contain some of the smartest minds in Christian history – none were ever completely correct, because no one person is sinless – but all were intelligent. What do they want readers to think, that Mohler is just a wannabe? It didn’t seem like a very charitable spin to either party, Mohler or the Scholastics.

    Having never read Mohler myself beyond a few blog posts I don’t feel I’m in a position to comment on his intellect. I’m not yet convinced either way. While I appreciate the work of strong Christian scientists who believe in old earth, during my growing up I read a lot of creationists and I don’t believe one has to throw the brain out the door to be YEC, although I think some YECs undoubtedly do. I’d love clarification on what you all mean by, “a true intellectual would carefully study the science to make an intelligent decision about the evidence, even if the evidence contradicts his Biblical conclusions,” as the sole provided reason to doubt Mohler’s intellectual credentials. My reading of the sentence concerns me, but I believe better of the gracious blog hosts.

  12. As the SBC numbers (and contributions) dwindle, the leadership’s grip on these so-called “autonomous” Southern Baptist churches will tighten… It will be interesting to watch what happens in the coming years.

  13. Hi Watcher

    There is a difference between Biblical conclusions and Biblical absolutes.There are some conclusions that we draw from the Bible which are colored by our own assumptions of cultural mandates and scientific truths. Please do not misunderstand. There are absolutes which are unchanging-Christ’s Resurrection for one.

    However, if one were to ask Christians from the pre-telescope days, “What does the Bible have to say about the earth?” Some would (and did) answer that the sun revolved around the earth and offered Biblical proof for this conclusion.

    Today we “tee hee” at their naivete. Yet, we offer similar arguments for YE creationism. I have no problem with those who wish to believe in an YE. However, those who use the science of the YE crowd are in deep trouble. Not only is their science shoddy, but most scientists, Christians included, know it. I will offer proof for this statement on Thursday.Unfortunately, there is more and more evidence that gives rising concern that the YE crowd is looking more and more like the church in the past that jailed those like Galileo because they knew what the Bible said on this issue and had scientists to prove it.

    There is a little known incident at Southern. Mohler hired Dembski, an ID guy, to run his faith and science operation. Within a short period of time, Dembski was out and Wise was in. Why? I am taking a guess here. Most ID guys are old earth creationists and that is a “no,no” at Southern.

    Biblical conclusions based on the nonessentials change over time -slavery, racism (blacks used to be thought of as inferior and many used the Bible to prove it), I could go on and on. Please read this TWW post by a guest author on the subject of natural and Biblical revelation.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2010/05/28/two-books-of-revelation-scripture-and-nature/

    Perhaps that would help you understand my thinking.

    Finally, Mohler’s response on the creation issue shows a lack of intellectualism but perhaps that is only in this area. But, I also have problems with ESS and other stuff coming out of his seminary. I perceive, rightly or wrongly, that his theological biases drive the research to come up with conclusions that meet with his interpretations. This is not true scholarship. It is making the conclusions meet the assumptions and that is bad research whether it is done by Christians or atheists.

    Thank you for your well thought out comment. I love to be challenged.

  14. Thanks for the helpful follow-up. I’m not sure I will do more personal research on the YECs to determine what I think of their intellectual rigor personally, and since it’s been years since I’ve even run into one (liberal me…), I really can’t say what I think. I get annoyed when elders in my denomination try to make YEC a credential for all elders in the denomination, but since they keep getting shot down I haven’t tended to think about it too much. I look forward to your Thursday posting to increase my knowledge in this area.

    Everyone I respect these days would be right on board with your guest poster on the two books of revelation. I’ve heard that phrase many times before.

    I know ESS is considered a modern version of the Arian heresy on this blog, and I’ve read with interest what you and others have written on it. The thing is, I can neither agree with you that functional (not ontological) ESS is modern-day Arianism nor that it shows an essential lack of scholarship. I’ve read the blog posts, but not the books, on both sides, which means I’ve only dabbled in the issue at this point. I respect those who are carefully watching for heresy in the church, but for the moment remain as unconvinced by your position as I believe you would by mine.

    Isogesis and fake research to match conclusions is always a problem. What I’d look to TWW to do in this case is pull some quotes from the source and show me, as you have done with the YEC issue. I realize that could probably be a book-length treatment. CT, in my opinion, completely failed in that regard.

  15. I find it interesting that Southern Seminary didn’t embrace Young Earth Creationism until just FOUR years ago (2006). Why the sudden change? It’s worth noting that the Creation Museum – located about 100 miles from SBC’s flagship seminary – opened the following year (2007).

    Ethics Daily focused on Mohler’s shift toward Young Earth Creationism in an article entitled “Seminary Professor Says Dinosaurs and Humans Lived Together”.

    http://ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=12866

    Here’s an excerpt from the article:

    “Southern Seminary embraced a young-earth creationism in 2006, when it replaced William Dembski, a proponent of Intelligent Design who left after a year as first director of Southern’s newly established Center for Science and Theology to become a research professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, with Kurt Wise, a young-earth creationist who formerly taught at Bryan College in Dayton, Tenn.

    “With the addition of Kurt Wise, we are recognizing that creation is a ground zero theological crisis point right now in American culture and even in our churches,” Moore said at the time in a press release.

    “We need to train Southern Baptist pastors to equip young people to engage Darwinism from elementary school on,” he continued. “We also need to train Southern Baptists to recognize Darwinist thinking in ways that are subtle that they don’t even recognize.” ”

    Interesting title, isn’t it? Here’s why… Russell Moore, Mohler’s protege, filled in for Mohler on his “Ask Anything Wednesday” radio program (which has now gone the way of the dinosaurs).

    Here’s what Moore had to say:

    “I tend to hold to a relatively young-earth position,” said Moore, who has a Ph.D. from Southern Seminary, “which means I would believe that dinosaurs were created on the sixth day of creation, which I believe was a 24-hour day in the relatively recent past, and so that means you would have had dinosaurs and human beings existing at least at the same time.”

    Moore went on to say that doesn’t answer all the questions raised by science.

    “I think there are all kinds of questions that are asked by science, but I think we have to keep in mind that science is shifting, it’s provisional, it’s transitional, and some of the theories and explanations given by science a hundred years ago, even 50 years ago, even 20 years on some things, are completely discredited,” he said. “So I think we just have to say this is what the Scripture seems to be indicating, and we’ll go with that.”

    Yep, let’s discredit all the scientists…

  16. Dee:

    Thanks for the nice reply to my response.

    I am slammed today, but I will get back with my thoughts about the good questions you pose.

    We may not end up agreeing on some of this, but the spirit of our communication is excellent and I enjoy dialoging with you very much.

    Take care.

  17. anonymous,

    That’s the point. There is room for discussion and even disagreement in this forum; however, it appears that those at Southern Seminary must fall in lock step behind Mohler. There is no room for disagreement. That’s what concerns us about his growing influence in the Southern Baptist Convention, particularly with regard to his rigid,reformed position.

  18. And theology isn’t changing? Last I checked slavery is no longer kosher and there are those who agree that the earth goes around the sun.

    I find the naivete scary. They say there is only one way to view evolution and that is godless atheism. There is no room for a Francis Collins or other bright Christian scientists who believe that God used the vehicle of evolution. In fact, the vast majority of Christian scientists are not YE types, something they never, ever tell the people in the church. I shall provided stats on this tomorrow.

  19. Anon, What about all the folks he threw under the bus? one man was only 6 mos away from retirement. He was fired for disagreeing. He lost his retirement.

    There are tons of stories like this. Mohler is more like those who hung him in effigy. It is just that he is slicker and hides it better but he is a cruel tyrant.

  20. “Last I checked slavery is no longer kosher….” But it is halal.

  21. Interesting guy. There is no question that evolutionism is compatible with the faith if people can get over the idea of philosophical naturalism which sometimes masquerades for science. The playing field needs to be leveled so that we talk science, not philosophy.

    I have to admit that I am frustrated that the fundamentalist crowd has co-opted the word
    “creationism.” At its most simplistic is the belief that God created the heavens and earth. The process He used and how He intervened in species development is up for grabs. But creationists now say it must mean YE and only YE. I want to reclaim the term for all committed Christians of conscience who adhere to both a Creator God and evolution. It drives me bonkers.

  22. “it appears that those at Southern Seminary must fall in lock step behind Mohler. There is no room for disagreement. ”

    That is exactly right. As to Mohler being an intellectual, how can that be when other non salvic view points are not allowed to be debated? And don’t be fooled, they are not allowed.

    As a matter of fact, it is quite “anti-intellectualism” at SBTS. ESS, Calvinism and Comp doctrine are just a few examples. Barth and NT Wright are considered heretics. While I can disagree with both on certain issues, I cannot understand the outright disdain they have for folks.

    Mohler is a very astute politician. He is more politician than he is theologian but many miss that because he is very clever. He is also a culture warrior. And he rules with an iron fist.

    There is also a lot of hypocrisy. Seminary wives are to listen to Mary Mohler lecture on “modesty” but then they see the daughter at an event in a mini skirt and spike heels. It all depends on who you are.

    What is interesting is that the only people who see the real doctrinal problems and anti intellectualism there are those who go there later in life to obtain an advanced degree. The forty and older types who have been out in the real world for a while. The young minds full of mush just become more indoctrinated and are like lemmings following the great leaders. They do not think for themselves.And if you are in sync it helps your Christian career.

  23. Lydia

    Thank you! I was hoping you would comment on this issue because I was sure you had great insights.

    You know, that was an interesting point on the Mohler daughter in a mini and spiked heels while mom is talking modesty. I have heard that this happens at Bellevue Baptist with the Gaines family. I read a sermon he gave on female modesty and then someone sent me a photo of his daughter dressed up for her school dance. I would never have allowed my daughter out of the house dressed like that and I don’t pretend to give lectures on modesty. (Well, I do try to live up to my glamorous reputation 🙂

    The greatest hypocrisy lies in his pointing at Eddie Long’s situation alluding to the need for denominational oversight. Yet the SBC, with Mohler’s influence, steadfastly refuses to address the horrible sin of pedophilia found in its ranks. This, above all, clinches it for me and makes me sick.

  24. I guess Mary Mohler forgot to give her own daughter a copy of “Modeling Modesty” if she’s out in public wearing mini-skirts.

    http://www.albertmohler.com/documents/modelingmodesty.pdf

    Here’s Mary Mohler discussing her daughter with Carolyn Mahaney over at the Girl Talk blog:

    http://www.girltalkhome.com/blog/Mary_Mohler_The_Interview_Part_3

    “Katie has strong convictions about presenting herself in such a way that she will honor her Lord. She sets an example for those who openly choose to do otherwise and has not succumbed to the very real peer pressure that exists to cross the line. I cannot express how thankful Al and I are that our daughter pleases us in this way even as she seeks to present herself in a very feminine manner. She is truly a girly girl who has always liked skirts, dresses and heels and there’s not a thing wrong with that.”

  25. This is indeed a lively discussion Dee! I would like to posit that just as you’ve stated: “…There is a difference between Biblical conclusions and Biblical absolutes…”, the same can apply to science (conclusions & absolutes). Now I know that won’t wash well with some folks here, and that’s cool because I know that some of the folks here are committed OEC’s and theistic evolutionists (conclusions based on available science).

    I am still not ready to throw out YEC altogether, and I must say that I look forward to your upcoming post in which you make the claim that YEC is intellectually shoddy. My training is in Mathematics and in that discipline one must be very careful to distinguish between a trend of evidence and a formal proof.

    Pax,
    Muff

  26. Dee wrote in her article:
    “His (Mohler’s) alliance with the New Reformers takes this movement well outside the SBC, forging historical bonds with like-minded group such as Sovereign Grace Ministries, Mark Driscoll and Acts 29 among others.”

    Want proof? Bruce Ware (Mr. ESS) recently spoke at Mars Hill Church about “Marriage and the Trinity”. Check out this link:

    http://blog.marshillchurch.org/2010/09/10/marriage-and-the-trinity-a-lecture-by-dr-bruce-ware/

    I was tipped off that Ware is making the rounds in the Acts 29 network because he recently spoke at a local Acts 29 church. See below.

    http://theologicaldevelopment.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/first-topic-for-september-25th/

    “Dr. Bruce Ware will be teaching our first Theological Development Seminar, Saturday, September 25th beginning at 9:00am.”

    It’s amazing to watch the formation of these alliances on the internet.

  27. Muff
    I have a simple solution for you. Go to Answers in Genesis and click on any of the available studies(which, by the way they only allowed to be peer reviewed by YE adherents showing their fear of an impartial review) and then go over to Answers in Creations and read their rebuttal of the science on these studies. You may also do so on Reasons to Believe. I believe you will find the science far more robust on the other sites.

    There is another point that my husband has made that has much validity. If there was legitimate evidence for a young earth, scientists would discover it and make these observations. They would just be atheist young earthers. There are no atheist young earthers. Why not if there is sound evidence? Scientists do not march in lockstep with philosophical naturalism anymore than Christians march in lockstep with various doctrines. Any scientist who had evidence would be happy to publish it and get the fame.

    The issue is well defined. There is precious little evidence for a young earth in science. However, if one wishes to use the Bible as a proof text,without invoking science, I am far more comfortable with that stance although I am OE in my beliefs.

    Tomorrow my husband is presenting an unpublished study for the first time from the ASA which will show the belief system of Christian scientists and will offer our readers a unique opportunity. I hope you will participate.

  28. Junkster

    You are too funny. Someone else told me about that site and I forgot about it. Aren’t they also into the conspiracy theory that we never landed on the moon. I saw the Myth Busters disprove some of the claims like shadows coming from the wrong direction on the moon and faked footprints. I love good conspiracy theories there just don’t seem to be any good ones. Do you know of any?

    I spent a couple of years talking with a Mormon who went to Naval Academy and I have become convinced that people will suspend disbelief for just about any theory.

    On another subject: I find the book, Skeleton in the Closet eerily similar to Wil’s Bones. I think it will end the same way. I think I may do a post on it. I have a firm trust that nothing we ever find will ever contradict the fundamental truths of the Bible. The problem is what some consider fundamentals.

  29. Mohler’s daughter roomed with one of the Gaines’ daughters at Union. Perhaps still does.

    And the Gaines girls dress like tarts. Consistently.

  30. “The greatest hypocrisy lies in his pointing at Eddie Long’s situation alluding to the need for denominational oversight. Yet the SBC, with Mohler’s influence, steadfastly refuses to address the horrible sin of pedophilia found in its ranks. This, above all, clinches it for me and makes me sick.”

    And his own church refused to tell the congregation they had an accused molester working at their school and volunteering at their church. And Ezell (Mohler’s boy) refused to testify concerning this claiming pastor confidentiality.

    These men should have no moral or ethical credibility with the rank and file. But they do and that is dangerous.

  31. BTW: I would like to know how much Ware is being paid for this lecture. I would also like to know if the payment is being sent to SBTS since Ware is an employee of an SBC entity. Time we started policing their gravy train. If you check the “SBC book” you will see these guys make quite a nice salary at SBTS. They have no need to “double dip” on our time.

  32. The lecture was free according to the Mars Hill website; however, in all likelihood Mars Hill paid Ware an honorarium and possibly travel expenses. I became “aware of Ware” about two years ago. I feel a personal responsibility to warn my brothers and sisters in Christ about his heretical teaching regarding the “eternal subordination of the Son to the Father (ESS)”.

  33. To all those reading this thread

    I, for one, am quite weary of some of these leaders who lecture us on how to give, how to dress, how to raise our kids and then do exactly the opposite with their own children.I,with my own baby blues, have seen some pictures of Gaines’ daughter, dressed up to go out with her friends. I am most startled that the Gaines allow this. I would not be startled if they hadn’t talked about how modestly their daughter dresses.

    There are some in this circuit who tell folks to sacrifice but accept large salaries and give their children Lexus SUVs when they get their driver’s license. And the world sees this going on and can’t figure out what this whole Christian thing is all about.

    To avoid sounding like “Do as I say; not as I do” I suggest the following: Don’t hold yourself or your loved ones as examples. Say that your own family struggles in this area. Say that you give into your children when you shouldn’t. Be real. Everyone struggles to be consistent with their kids. But when you make it sound so easy, many who listen to you become discouraged because they think something is wrong with them.They think they are the only ones who have to make stands on various issues with their kids. They think their kids are the only ones who press the envelope.And sometimes, they give up because they have no real examples of struggles from the pulpit. Just platitudes of how wonderful their families are.

    Even James Dobson has had his struggles with family members but there is a veneer on “I’ve got it all together.” Maybe the Christian set have developed a dual identity. The pretend on and the real one. And when someone like Tom Rich points out the real one, he gets stomped on as his pastor throws the church’s ruling class, the sheriff, the state attorney, the newspaper and anything else to obfuscate his dual identity. The rule: “We must never, ever speak of the reality of the lives of our leaders. If we do, we are to be crushed because the reality is to hard to face.”

    Whoa, what was in my coffee this AM? Tirade now under control.

  34. Deb
    I am more concerned when doctrine gets developed to become “proof text” in order to be applied to how folks live. In other words, the motivation behind this doctrine is questionable. It is not some humble hearted attempt to better understand the functioning of the Godhead.It appears to be used to push an agenda of patriarchy.

    Patriarchy? The very concept that some of these men think they can even be spoken of in the same breath of the OT patriarchs shows chutzpah of the highest order. CJ Mahaney speaks of his humility in a book.(I love this game: I’m the worst sinner I know and I am therefore the most humble but I will pretend that I am not humble so people will tell the world how humble I am-what an interesting study for some psych inclined scholar). He who grabs at the title of Head Apostle and Patriarch is also the least humble, most humble person.No wonder he is the darling of the patriarchy set. Double talk is king.

    What WAS in my coffee this AM?

  35. I think this doctrine is debatable, but it seems like a stretch, both to consider it heretical and especially draw the connection to gender roles. It’s a weak connection, I think.

  36. “I would not be startled if they hadn’t talked about how modestly their daughter dresses.”

    Gaines preached a sermon on Jezebels who dress provacatively! And no one dresses more provacatively than his daughters!

    It always amazes me how much cognitive dissonance there is out there in the pews.

    Dr. Who:

    “Yoga” is a problem. “Stretching” is not a problem. It is the YOGA componet that is a problem when it comes to ‘clearing your mind”.

    Remember this:

    Luke 11

    21″When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. 22But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils.

    23″He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.

    24″When an evil[h] spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ 25When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. 26Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first.”

    I was stunned to see Mohler interview well known Egalitarian Doug Groothius, a philosophy prof at Denver seminary, on this topic. His wife edited the book response to the “Recovering Biblical Manhood and womanhood”, which was something like Complimentary without Hierarchy…I have the book but cannot remember the title. It is excellent.

    See here for the danger in Yoga and for an orthodox egal who agrees:

    http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/search?q=yoga+discussion

  37. No, I did not know that. However, I agree it is one of the most under-reported stories out there. Esp if one is reading Christa’s blog for any time at all.

    If a story was done on all the perverts (caught and convicted) over the last 5 years, it would be a book. That leaves out those accused but not even investigated like Steve Gaines’s pedophile minister of prayer he kept on staff even though the victim asked him not to. I would like to see that story in Time.

  38. Still slammed. I will get back to Dee on her questions.

    But I had to come here and address what our paper says Al Mohler said about Yoga.

    This is a great example, I think, of what we have going on here.

    Mohler likes to comment on contemporary issues. When he does, I have found that he often discusses them from the philosophical point of view, not the real world practice.

    I am able to read what Mohler says about yoga, and understand what he is saying. I note that Lydia has a similar perspective on this issue.

    But both Mohler and Lydia are looking at the distinctions between the philosophical and theological bases for Christianity and Yoga. They are right.

    In practice, however, thousands of people trek down to the local YMCA and take a Yoga class which has absolutely none of the philosophical side of yoga in it. It is basically a stretching class in a soothing environment.

    So, people read Mohler (and Lydia) and say, “Hey, wait. I go to yoga class and I am a Christian. What are these people talking about?”

    Actually, Mohler and Lydia are right. But the practice of yoga in the U.S. is so varied that many people would not understand they are right because as it relates to their “watered down” yoga experience, they are wrong.

    Mohler is constantly finding himself in situations like this.

    The basic point of my first comment was to say that Mohler’s contribution to Southern and the SBC has nothing to do with all the stuff that one hears about Mohler. It has been good and substantive stuff, from the theological cleansing of the SBC’s first and most important seminary (in my opinion) to the restructuring that reduced the bureaucracy, the BFM and the GCTF report.

    This other stuff is not first order business. I do not think that it will come to dominate Southern or the SBC, anymore than the SBC will become an “anti-yoga” denomination. I know too many dissenters at Southern and the SBC who will not let that happen – myself included.

  39. Oh, one other thing, guys.

    I know that you CAN make a case for it, but I suggest that we lay off people’s children. The Mohlers’ children and the Gaines’ children really shouldn’t be talked about like this. There are probably lots of dynamics in the home and nuances to all this that we just don’t know about. Plus, the kids haven’t interjected themsevles into any of this.

    Again, I know that a good apologist can make a case for why discussing the kids is fair game.

    But just because we CAN do something doesn’t mean we SHOULD.

    I have always kept to the rule – in discussing politics (like Sarah Palin’s children) or the church world, that the kids did not get to choose what family they were born into. They have personaliies and ideas of their own that might not often mesh with their parents. The parents may have done everything they can do, and may continue to be trying (and we have no idea how that dynamic might be working in each household).

    Seems like there is enough to discuss without bringing people’s children into the discussion.

  40. I haven’t seen pictures of either of these young girls, but I’m going to have to disagree here, especially if the young women in question aren’t yet adults. When they are adults it is something of a different matter. Think I Timothy 3:4-5, “He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)” (NIV) and Titus 1:6 “An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient” (NIV). If this is a man who is teaching on an issue that he believes is important, why isn’t he seeing to it that he instill these values in his daughters? The qualifications for pastor are to manage your own family first. I know men who have left office voluntarily over their children’s disobedience. There are degrees and times for grace and I’m glad to see you holding it out. Of course one doesn’t want to fall into the trap of expecting perfect PKs, but one does want to see God’s Word followed.

  41. Anonymous,

    To some degree I can see your point; however, the Mohlers have taken a very firm stand on “modeling modesty”, as evidenced by the Southern publication written by Mary Mohler.

    http://www.albertmohler.com/documents/modelingmodesty.pdf

    “Modeling Modesty” concludes with these words:

    “Does God care how we dress? Yes, He does. He cares about every aspect of our lives…. A lost world is watching.”

    INDEED!!! I don’t know anything about these young ladies, but if they are wearing mini-skirts in public, do their parents know about it? After all, a lost world in watching, according to Mary Mohler.

  42. It is a mind relaxing, mind relating, mental and physical exercise. Nothing more nothing less.

    I guess the next thing we will hear is running is satanic too… I too agree —— Good Grief!

  43. Anonymous

    I agree with you except for one very important point. When the parents inject the children into a debate on modesty, holding them up as examples of said modesty, then a discussion based on that very limited fact can ensue. I know many, many things about pastors’ families-mental illness, sexual immorality, drug addiction, etc. However, I would never say anything about those children because the parents have decided not to make them part of their public appeal.

    However, I am really sick and tired of pastors holding up specific family members as examples of some virtue that they espouse when it is saliently clear that their child is not what they profess.

    Do you know how hard that is on those who follow these guys? People begin to wonder if there are two sets of rules: one for Christian leader’s families and another for us, the great unwashed. I want these pastors to join the discussion on an equal footing yet they pretend they are the role models and point to themselves as such.

    Here’s the deal for me. If they leave their kids out of the discussion, show some humility in their ability to control the actions of their children, not tell us we should be able to do what they obviously cannot do, then I will shut up about the failings in their families.

    As for Sarah Palin, I think that her daughter’s pregnancy was up for discussion because she made it a part of her campaign. However, there should be silence on the rest of her kids because she has not publicly raised them as an example or issue.

  44. Anonymous

    I had this discussion with my mother in law who practices this. She is not a Christian by any definition that we might use. I told her I had some issues with some of the meditative techniques. She asked me what was wrong with saying we are one with all men and woman, bowing to them to acknowledge this fact. I said it is because we are not one with those who are outside of the faith. We can feel kindly to one another, realize that we all exist on this planet with one another, wish to live with one another in peace but we are definitely not one with each other.

    She also claims that by focusing on a phrase, one’s mantra, that you can get in touch with the universal consciousness! I asked her what that meant? She then descended into some gobbledy gook that made absolutely no sense and had nothing to do with the beliefs of the faith.

    If this was only about stretching and keeping ones joints supple, then I would agree. However, it is far more than that as my mother in law has demonstrated.

    But, let me make another point. There are children being molested within the SBC by those in ministry and this convention has done precious little to protect these kids. Maybe yoga is a good distraction from the very serious issues of pedophilia and rape. We can justify our stand against yoga because it is “anti-Christian” and shouldn’t all good Baptists stand up against stuff that is anti-Christian. But, they refuse to protect the young and innocent in the faith so I believe they have their priorities wrong.

    Clean house before trying to convince the world of all the things that they are doing wrong. I can come up with my distraction list as well-Rastafarianism, The Church of Body Modification (this is in the news in my area and apparently a fair number of kids like this), The Secret, Oprah theology,and on and on.None of these are Christian or good. Anything works to get our eyes off the harm that is being done to children.

  45. Let me be more concrete. I know of a pastor who has a family member with a mental illness. He is most humble man and never discusses the pain of this issue. Now, suppose, one day, he decides to jump on the bandwagon of “accept Christ and raise your family right and there will be no mental illness.” He then says his family is a good example of mental health because he subscribes to this philosophy. And he starts pushing this issue with his congregation, claiming they will have mentally healthy families if only they do it his way. At that point, I might speak up and say that his family member has a mental illness and he is being treated for it ,so what gives. Fair question.

    Now, let me tell you a true fact about one of my daughters. She is a fire fighter (a decidedly non-complementarian choice 🙂 ). But, if this was not true, I should be challenged.

    Maybe these guys should be encouraged to leave their kids out of their proof text of their perfect families.

    Oh, I know of one theologian who is a rabid complementarian and is big on roles for women and preaches submission to his authority, etc. His wife is an egalitarian and often goes to a different church than he. This theologian might do us all a favor of saying this stand has cost him dearly.

  46. I think ANON was just saying there are exceptions to anything. Yes, just like there are great Baptist Pastors who deserve nice blogs and then there are those who are bad need to be exposed. People who are involved with YOGA – some are just exercising others , like your M I L is out there…….way out there.

    YOGA all together now……………………………….

    hhh – mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

  47. YOGA
    hhmmmmmmmmmmmm 🙂 However, do you not think it would be better to call it something else if it is not the real thing. For example, let’s assume some Mormons decided to stop believing the mandates of Joseph Smith, stop reading the Book of Mormon and instead embrace the principles of Rastafarianism (my word of the day). But,they wish to be called Mormons. Sure they have a “right” to call it that but is it true?

    As I told a friend recently, I could call myself Norwegian all I want but I am an American of Russian descent and no amount of claiming otherwise is going to change that fact.

  48. Great response. Thanks for trying to get us to see beyond our preconceptions.Promise me that you won’t let the patriarchs attempt to reinstitute the wearing of veils-it messes up my hair.

  49. Lydia
    I, too, have heard about the famous Jezebel sermon.How do you think it affects people who come to his church, hear his rants, then see a different standard in his family. Are there really two Christian classes: pastors/theologians (who get a pass) and the rest?

  50. Michael
    Good halfway point. However, I think it is important to see when and how a new doctrine develops. When it develops in response to a secondary issue, then its Biblical grounding is suspect/ There is a problem with subordination. You have a prince and you have a farmer.Which one is superior. Oh, I know we all mouth words of equality but even a child knows their is functional inequality. I believe both theology and genesis of this doctrine is suspect.

  51. Anonymous (Mohler)

    One further point. I know I can latch on.

    There are some pastors who are jerks and i would never comment on anything they said about their kids. But, I believe that Mohler and Gaines are considered, by many, to be top flight in their judgement of thoughtful actions. That is why they are quoted and given top billing. So, are you saying that Mohler and Gaines exhibit a lack of judgement on what they discuss publicly?

  52. Have the two of you ever considered writing down all the corrected responses, theological positions and organizational structures? This way we could consult the two of you and save a lot of time not going to all the wrong people that you have named.

    You can also stand as beacons of marital and parenting perfection so that no critic could ever say…. oops wait a minute, that would work would it?

    Never mind;)

  53. Old Skeletons

    I found your boneheaded;0 response fascinating. It makes me wonder if you have even read our posts beyond the superficial. Let me flesh this out ( I couldn’t resist) and give you the bare bones of our beliefs.

    -We absolutely do not believe that we are perfect parents. In fact, it is due to our imperfection that we would like to see less pontificating and more real in the pulpit.

    -As for marital perfection, my guess is that you do not like us disagreeing with an eternal patriarchal role for men. What we are saying is that there are other views that are quite valid and we do not feel that one view should get jammed down the throat of the SBC as the only correct view. In fact, we are the ones who believe that we should major on the majors and allow for charity in the minors. But that is not the trend in the SBC.

    On the organizational side, there are many who are questioning the structure of the American church-especially the role of hyper-authoritarian pastors which seem more to reflect a patriarchal view of the universe instead of the priesthood of all believers.

    Finally, this blog is about debating the trends. We don’t have many answers but we have many questions. We are on the side of the evangelicals. If you find us having some difficulties, you can be darn sure an unbelieving world is struggling. This is about reaching a lost world for Christ instead of dickering over whether women will bake brownies for the men in heaven.

    But, I bet you still have a bone to pick with us.

  54. Dee,

    Good question.

    There’s a lot here I don’t know. I do know that Mary Mohler has talked and written about modesty and such, and I assume Al Mohler has, too.

    I don’t know how their children dress, really. If someone has pictures, I guess they can be posted so we all can make a judgment. But all I have seen so far on this site seems to be rumor.

    Also, I don’t know if their children are “children”. If a child is in your home and under your control (so to speak), the parent has more leverage. If the child is 18 or over, they are no longer children. I don’t think that the passages in the Bible about ruling over one’s home (or whatever the language is that is used) applies to adult children who make different choices than we do.

    Finally, modesty is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t think all mini skirts or high heals are bad. But I suspect from reading this blog that what I consider to be acceptable is way beyond what lots of people think is acceptable.

    I am pretty adamant about not letting the legalistic and homeschool crowd at our church set standards for people. It’s a pretty tiring job to be honest with you. I could easily preach one Sunday on Modesty. But if someone tried to tell me they did not think my daugher was modest, I would probably hit them with a 2 x 4.

    Your final question is whether Mohler and Gaines exhibit a lack of judgment sometimes.

    I have never heard Gaines preach, except one time at the convention. I did not care for the message or his style. We are not friends. But I feel sorry for him. I think that he made a disastrous judgment about how to handle that staff member, and that all has been pretty tough for him since.

    So, I don’t know what to say about Gaines.

    With respect to Mohler, what I have read of his blogs and such is about 90% dead on. He is an excellent writer and really a better speaker. I am glad 90% of the time that he is a spokesman for the SBC.

    I do agree that from time to time he says things that I would not agree with, or that he takes positions that I do not share. I think that he should be more careful about some statements, especially in areas where he is untrained. I also think that from time to time he could make the same point and be less provocative. If he ran all of his blogs by me (or someone wiser, really), I think that once in a while, I could improve them, and keep him away from the unnecessary damage that he causes and the grief he experiences from time to time.

    The young earth evolution debate is one of those. But I have to confess that I am not a scientist or that astute in so many fields that question addresses.

    The Bible is true, no doubt. And sometimes what the Bible says completely contradicts known scientific facts – e.g. the resurrection, the virgin birth, the ascension, the promise of eternal life, the plagues in the OT, healings, Jesus’ miracles. These things just do not happen – according to science, any more than alchemy.

    But science is not a closed system and has no answer for some very fundamental questions. We believe in a being who created all there is and that he has transcended scientific law.

    When it comes to Genesis and the creation, I believe that we just need to be very careful and open to lots of possibilites there – both as to interpretation and as to how and when God transcended the natural scientific laws we see every day.

    Isn’t it just as crazy to assert that someone rose from the dead and ascended into heaven as it is to claim that some of the things that are claimed about the age of the earth and creation?

    Having said all that, I do not ascribe to young earth creation. I am not in a position to truly judge the science on that, but it seems pretty clear to me.

    I understood that Dembski was coming to Southern and did not because he has a son or family member maybe (this is really fuzzy) who is a special needs person and they had a really good situation in Texas and that caused problems.

    The Kurt Wise came, and I heard that he is a young earth guy.

    That’s all I know.

    So, “lack of judgment on what they discuss publicly” – no. But lack of care in how they address certain subjects from time to time – definitely yes.

    And I say that believing that Dr. Mohler’s contribution has been a positive one and I hope will continue to be. It’s just that sometimes we are remembered for the one thing that we say out of 1000.

  55. Dee:

    I have read criticism of the doctrine but have not read one single biblical verse that disputes it. That’s what I’m after. There has been a vague, weak connection to gender roles and it seems that because of that implication alone, the doctrine is labeled heretical.

    The parallel, as I am understanding it, is drawn between God, the Father, being eternally superior to the Son, and men being superior to women.

    First, I don’t see that analogy in scripture. Second, the bible makes it pretty clear that there there is equality between all, spiritually.

    But here’s the backfire…If someone wants to imply that women are subordinate to men eternally because of the eternal subordination of Jesus to the Father, the analogy of which is NOT in scripture, then to be consistent in logic, they must accept the doctine of eternal subordination of women to men based on the eternal subordination of the church to Jesus Christ, which IS in scripture.

    Ephesians 5:23,24 – For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

    I don’t think anyone would argue that the church will be eternally subordinated to Jesus. And if you draw on the analogy here in the same way in which it was drawn on regarding Jesus and the Father, then you would have to conclude there is eternal subordination of, at least, wives to their husbands.

    Let me be clear, though. I don’t believe that women will be eternally subordinated to men. I simply used the scripture to point out the fallacy in drawing the comparison of the eternal submission of Jesus to the Father and implying the same regarding men and women.

    So, acknowledging that parallel as an inadequate argument, are there other scriptural evidences that you know of that could be used to refute ESS? Thanks.

  56. Anonymous,

    As always you make some good points. I can assure you that we are not overly modest. I have seen some of the homeschool crowd with their Duggar uniforms. We grew up in the era of hot pants and miniskirts and I was raised in a non-Christian family.You can be assured that we dressed in the fashion of our day up in the northeast. There is an old saying about pornography: I can’t define it but I know it when I see it. What we are discussing would push boundaries in most schools.Once again, they made it an issue. We did not. Once they raise it and use themselves as examples, they are fair game.And even your age distinction would work in a few examples here.

    As for the creation thing, there is a distinct difference between God intervening in history to change a unique event which we call a miracle and God changing so much in the world and the evidence that we are on the verge of worshipping a cosmic trickster who has deceived us from everything from the speed of light to rock strata The YE crowd want it both ways. We supposedly can’t trust science because it is all fallen but we can trust the science that they, and only they, offer as evidence. In fact, they will not let anyone outside the YE crowd peer review their studies.Why not? Are even Christian scientists gonna take issue with their stuff?

    My husband makes a good point when he says that if the science could prove it, there would be scientists that believed in a young universe. They would simply state that they are atheists who believe the universe is young. The fact that there are none shows the poor science of this movement.

    Of course science has no answer for fundamental questions especially the Uncaused First Cause. But we cannot extrapolate that the because they have no answer for origins that the rest of science is bankrupt.

    I have a different view of God. In nature we discover wonderful things like penicillin and digitalis. Yet if it was all fallen, how can we even trust that there is anything good there?

    A person reviewing a book on creation mentioned that he has a friend who has such difficulty dealing with the evidence for an old creation that he has come up with his own solution. “Satan put the dinosaur bones in the earth to confuse us”.This is the type of pretzel we must twist ourselves into in order to deny much of the evidence.

    I have to call it as I see it. The YE contentions are scientifically bankrupt and, if we need to think about God tricking us as to the evidence that is clear, then they are theologically bankrupt as well.

    As for Gaines, I feel more sorry for the people in his church. He exposed them to a known pedophile and protected said pedophile. I fell sorry for the man’s abused son who had to witness the church protecting his father from exposure.I feel sorry for the witness that we give the world for blowing this incident off. Why the SBC does not seem more concerned about this than women in leadership shows a denomination that has lost its real priority. That is the safety of its children above some theological squabble over a woman pastors. But maybe the SBC thinks that a woman in the pulpit is far more dangerous than pedophiles and that is simple astonishing.

    Finally Mohler is blessed to have such a supporter as you. I wish i could believe in your 90% wonderful but i can’t. There is too much legalism in what he says.

  57. Michael

    How can wives be eternally subordinate to their husbands in eternity since there will be no marriage in heaven?

    I will try to get you some articles on this subject and will post some links. Wade Burleson, who opposes this doctrine, has had a number of people post links to papers on the subject. Give me a day or so and i will get you more reading.

  58. “The basic point of my first comment was to say that Mohler’s contribution to Southern and the SBC has nothing to do with all the stuff that one hears about Mohler. It has been good and substantive stuff, from the theological cleansing of the SBC’s first and most important seminary (in my opinion) to the restructuring that reduced the bureaucracy, the BFM and the GCTF report”

    Extremely uninformed. Reduced bureaucracy? You have got to be kidding! He simply filled up the bomb crater up with his young sychophants that hang on his every word…

    And don’t forget what Mohler tried to do with the BFM 2000 and the priesthood of believer.

    http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/7_17/pages/bfm_meaning.html

  59. Dee,

    Thanks for the nice reply.

    I agree with you. I am not a YE, and for the very reasons you cite. When the “pretzel” gets that difficult, I agree. There must be another way. I like what Collins says in his book about Genesis. He is very respectful of the Biblical text.

    I, also, know a lot of wonderful Christians who believe in YE and think that it is a requirement for the faith. It is not. I am disappointed that Dr. Mohler has said that. But I guess hope srings eternal for people we admire in other ways.

    I am still not clear on the timeline for Gaines, so I am sure that I will say something that is not accurate.

    The way I understand it, this was something that happened years (maybe 15 years or so earlier), and Gaines was faced with what to do about it now when the son (or father) told him. I am still not clear about Dr. Rogers in all this, but I think so highly of him that I have just assumed he handled it correctly, but I really don’t know that.

    I get the impression that Gaines simply used terrible judgment in what to do about it now. I think that he, like most pastors, believed that he could handle it and whatever he decided to do would be right. It is a classic case of a pastor thinking he has the best judgment, when he does not, and because of his background and the polity of the churches he has served, he does not have the kind of expertise and leadership in the church (this is one of the reasons why I believe in elders – the pastors needs some other pastors whom he does not oversee that he can go to in situations like this).

    As to the SBC, I do not expect the SBC to get involved in matters like this.

    The SBC is just a group of churches that put their missions contributions together to fund missions and education. If the churches in the SBC want to speak to a matter, any messenger can do that. I think that because each church is autonomous and that each of the members are priests, when the group of churches meets, it does not want to get in the business to telling one particular church how to address a particular issue. So, I am not surprised that Gaines’ decision would not be brought forward at the SBC for discussion and a decision of some sort. I have never seen that done at the SBC. It is not that the messengers don’t care. It’s that they see that the members of Bellevue are fully capable of addressing that to their satisfaction, and that it is not the business of the other 39,999 churches in the convention to tell them how to handle it or to rebuke them if they don’t handle it well.

    Deciding which doctrinal standards and confessions should be qualifications for those joining the convention seem to me to be questions that the larger body would want to address.

    Each of us has a place in God’s kingdom. None of us is perfect. I or my friends, pastors or not, are likely to make mistakes, to have bad judgment and to sin. We each play a role somewhere in the kingdom, given our gifts and opportunities that God has given to us.

    I have lots of friends who are in the SBC and lots who are not. I believe the Lord has me there, and I really appreciate your encouragement that Dr. Mohler is blessed to have a supporter like me. I know that you mean that.

    But I certainly can see why you don’t agree with him and are disappointed by some of the things he has said. I think that your church (whatever it is – Bible church, maybe?) is lucky to have you for a member.

  60. “I know that you CAN make a case for it, but I suggest that we lay off people’s children. The Mohlers’ children and the Gaines’ children really shouldn’t be talked about like this. There are probably lots of dynamics in the home and nuances to all this that we just don’t know about. Plus, the kids haven’t interjected themsevles into any of”

    Yep, you are right, the case can be made. After all, these are the folks that teach all the rules a roles for “Christian” families. It is just about all they talk about. Everything from comp doctrine, patriarchy, roles, Family Integrated Church, etc.

    We have every right to look at what their kids do because they are public teachers telling us what we need to do in order to look Christian. How can one listen to a sermon on Jezebel’s in the church who dress provacatively from a man whose daughter dress provacatively? And while they are living at home in High School!

  61. “I have read criticism of the doctrine but have not read one single biblical verse that disputes it. That’s what I’m after. ”

    See Isaiah 9:6 for starters.

    Not one single ESS proponet can tell me what they do with John 5:18 and what that means. And they completely mangle Philippians 2. You know what their foundational verse is for ESS? Are you ready? 1 Corin 11:3! Pretty flimsy considering it is not chronological at all and it mentions the “head” of Christ as “God” not the Father! (The source of Christ is God, btw)

    Remember, they are claiming a hierarchy in the Trinity before and after the Incarnation for all eternity. A chain of command outside the Incarnation for eternity past and future

    Jesus Christ, Lord of Hosts, was present at Creation. The Trinity has a complete united will. Anyone that teaches different because of the different functions within the Trinity, is teaching heresy.

    Forget the mapping to men and women stuff. Anything that lessens Jesus Christ at all is heresy. All “Christian” cults tamper with the Trinity such as Mormons and JW’s.

  62. Anonymous,

    We did a series of posts on Steve Gaines last year, which you can find in our “Categories” section under both Bellevue Baptist Church and Steve Gaines. The titles of the posts may sound quirky, but since Elvis made his home in Memphis, we thought we would honor “The King” while telling the story of what happened at Bellevue from our perspective.

    I did extensive research on this topic, and I agree with you that Steve Gaines made a terrible judgment in concealing a pedophile pastor who molested his own son. It’s important to point out that the sexual abuse took place while Adrian Rogers’ was senior pastor. Joyce Rogers (his widow) adamantly denies that her husband knew about the abuse. I hope and pray that this is true because as you will see in the Bellevue series, Dr. Rogers meant SO MUCH to me!

  63. Lydia said:
    “Mohler is really promoting CJ Mahaney. That speaks volumes to me. SGM is a cult.”

    AMEN and AMEN!!!

  64. Anonymous/Lydia/Others

    Today I violated a cardinal rule. I believe that any doctrine is not just a theological debate but has real life implications. I personally know of a young man who was taught the YE “science.” He was very bright and was accepted into an Ivy League school with aspirations for becoming a doctor. Well, the science he was taught in church was bogus and easily disproved by his first year professors. He began to study it for himself and decided that he had been deceived by his church and pastors/Sunday school. He then walked away from the faith, deciding that if that was a lie, so was everything else he had been taught. I tried to convince him elsewise but to no avail.

    One simply needs to visit the EX Christians site a couple of times to see that YE creationism is a major reason for defection from the faith.

    I promised that I would always keep this young man in front of me for any argument that I would make on this matter. I simply cannot see sacrificing our young people on the altar of YE creationism when it is a nonessential. Yes, the Virgin Birth is a die for; the exact method of creation is not.

    Also, I know of kids who become discouraged when they see the pastors kids getting away with stuff that they get called on. I have seen this happen in church Sunday school classes, youth groups, etc. So when pastors hold up their kids for certain behaviors and the other kids know that it is a pile of nonsense, they begin to doubt the honesty of their very leaders.And some walk away.

    Now I like a good theological debate for the sake of debate. But this blog is dedicated to calling out the church for behaviors that are potentially harmful to the witness of the church.

    I remember some kids who were molested at a church. They were sacrificed for another’s benefit. I vowed I would always remember them as I went about life.

    My point is this. I think these secondary theological issues can harm our witness to children, teens and women because they provide a stumbling block to the faith. The only stumbling block should be Jesus but I think that certain Christians are willing to throw people to the wolves in order to prove something. I guess that is why it is good to be a 5 Point Calvinist. You never have to put any blame on yourself if others reject the faith because of your mandates. They were just condemned for eternity. No harm, no foul, no guilt-problem solved.

  65. Dee,

    Your final comment about 5 Point Calvinists never having to accept blame when others fall away from the faith was spot on! Doesn’t that sound eerily similar to what those in the Word of Faith movement profess when something doesn’t have their prayer answered or falls away – “They just didn’t have enough faith…”

  66. Dee:

    “How can wives be eternally subordinate to their husbands in eternity since there will be no marriage in heaven?”

    You will find my answer to your question in my post.

  67. Lydia:

    Regarding Isaiah 9:6, I agree with you and I’m glad you brought it up. Finally, scripture!

    Well, I know what to do with John 5:18. First, let’s look at why the Jews were trying to kill Him…because He not only broke the Sabbath…okay stop. Did he break the Sabbath. No. It was only the belief of the Jews that He broke the Sabbath. So in keeping with the same kind of misunderstanding the Jews had, when Jesus said God was His Father, it was the Jews’ conclusion that He was equating Himself with the Father. Jesus never said the He was equal to the Father. He continued to speak in language showing the Father’s superiority. So, that scripture is not going to work. It’s debatable, at best.

    Regarding Phillipians 2, I’m not sure how you think they mangle it, but it seems clear that Jesus’ attitude was that He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped. Jesus had 33 years to say it, but never said that He was God. He said He was the son of God. He confirmed that He was Messiah. But, never said He was God.

    Regarding I Corinthians, that’s a pretty weak verse if they’re using that to hang their hat on. The whole context of that chapter is not dealing with eternity and you would be hard-pressed to have that verse serve as a foundation to ESS.

    “The Trinity has a complete united will. Anyone that teaches different because of the different functions within the Trinity, is teaching heresy.”

    First, the term Trinity is nowhere in the bible. But, I agree that there is unity among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But, that does not mean that Jesus or the Holy Spirit purposed things to happen. They were involved in a process, but the purposes came from the Father. The son didn’t send Himself into the world, the Father did. It was according to the Father’s will and purpose. And mind you, that purpose was determined by the Father before creation. Jesus came from the Father. That, alone, should tell you something.

    The point is, this is a very long and HUGE discussion and is not nearly as cut and dry as this blog makes it seem. There are compelling arguments on both sides and this issue isn’t even close to being resolved. So, to call a different opinion about this, “heresy,” is just ridiculous.

    Finally, it’s interesting that neither Dee, Deb, or you responded to the main point in my earlier post, which was that ESS has absolutely no implications regarding gender roles in eternity. And if you believe that there is a parallel, then consistent logic would demand that you land on the side that says women would be eternally submissive to men. But, as I said in my earlier post, I don’t believe that because it’s unbiblical.

    The point is, it’s a wrong argument for ESS proponents to make, drawing the parallel to have implications for women. And it’s equally wrong for those who disagree with ESS to use as an argument anything to do with gender roles.

  68. Dee:

    “I believe both theology and genesis of this doctrine is suspect.”

    The genesis of this doctrine occured hundreds of years ago when they argued whether or not Jesus was God. Finally, they came up with the trinity. If you want to suspect something, start there.

  69. Dee:

    Yes. The debate was even before that, of course, but you have to question what were the politics around the Council of Nicea, as well.

  70. “I guess that is why it is good to be a 5 Point Calvinist. You never have to put any blame on yourself if others reject the faith because of your mandates. They were just condemned for eternity. No harm, no foul, no guilt-problem solved.”

    Dee, what you described is classic hyper-Calvinism, a doctrine rejected as dangerous, unbiblical, and heretical by five point Calvinists, fought against by Spurgeon and others throughout history. Hyper-Calvinism is to Calvinism what Pelagianism is to Arminianism. Pelagianism and hyper-Calvinism fall off the fence on two different sides where most Christians I know would firmly believe that Calvinism and Arminianism are divisions over second-order issues that stay planted on the fence.

    Such digs make TWW feel like not the place you described. You said “finally, this blog is about debating the trends. We don’t have many answers but we have many questions.” Deb said, “there is room for discussion and even disagreement in this forum.” Then you go and take pot-shots at the beliefs of some of your readers. Why? If you want this to be a place where trends can be levelly debated rather than an echo chamber, why?

  71. Watcher

    There is room for disagreement and discussion here. In fact, that is precisely what you are doing. I think it is important for proponents of some views to see what others think. Once you see what we think, then I want you to prove why I am wrong in my perspectives. Honesty is one of the first places we must go in order to understand our differences.

    To be perfectly frank, I have heard this point of view expressed by those who claim to be 5 Point Calvinists. I think some of them would not consider themselves to be “hyper” but we often to like to take on a pejoratively charged label.

    I know of a youth minister, graduate of one of the Reformed Baptists Seminaries who said he does not place a high value on evangelism because people will come to Christ, with or without it.

    I have also heard people use this as an excuse for their putrid witnessing styles. Instead of clearly looking at their presentation and their obvious lack of knowledge about the faith, they make some comment about how that individual was not meant to become a Christian.

    So, these opinions are honest and based on some observations. So, prove me wrong. I am always willing to listen to reasoned debate. Most disagreement in the faith is often based on emotional experience and so it is fair to bring up one’s perceptions.

  72. “There is room for disagreement and discussion here. In fact, that is precisely what you are doing. I think it is important for proponents of some views to see what others think. Once you see what we think, then I want you to prove why I am wrong in my perspectives. Honesty is one of the first places we must go in order to understand our differences.”

    Ok, playing opposite side here: How can I prove something that God may not want us to be able to prove conclusively?

    I must admit that one thing that turned me off to OEC is Ben Steins film about the attitudes of those in Academia toward Christians and a “creation” viewpoint whether OE or YE. Did not matter, it was the Divine Creation that was the problem.
    As if any “real” scientist could not be a Christian. That stuff can wear on people after a while and I certainly hope that does not cause Christians to falther in those academic areas. It hurt careers to believe in Creation.

    You see, God says it is all about Faith. period. There are many things we cannot prove. Many wanted miracles as proof that Jesus was God in the Flesh… but even then did not believe. That is why I have little concern about the proof.

    To me, it is not a salvic issue and YEC’s should not make it one.

  73. It doesn’t matter whether someone who is a hyper-Calvinist wants to embrace the (yes, highly charged, since it comes with a charge of heresy) label or not, it’s true. If one firmly believes that evangelism is only for the elect, one is a hyper-Calvinist.

    Does Calvinism tend to draw those who don’t focus on evangelism the way that they should? I think it’s a pretty easy argument to say that it does. Two days I ago I was highly convicted by Frank Turk’s post at Pyromaniacs to that effect. A critical take-away from that post is that Calvinists who avoid evangelism do so in spite of, not because of, their theology.

    True belief in the Bible as held by a Calvinist does not let us “off the hook” with regards to people not coming to the faith. Calvinists read the same Bible you do. Matthew 28:18-20 and Romans 10:14 is in our Bibles as well as yours. There is an excellent book entitled Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: the Battle For Gospel Preaching. As that book correctly illustrates, Calvinists believe that all people have a duty to believe in God and come to faith. We believe that the proclamation of the Gospel is for all people. We believe that no human being can know who is of the elect and who isn’t outside of finding his or her own assurance of faith, so we are to work to bring the Word to as many as we can.

    For proof that what I say is truly the doctrine I claim it to be, let’s look at the Westminster Shorter Catechism and Heidelberg Catechism – undoubtedly two of the more Calvinistic documents in existence:

    (WSC) “Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
    A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will.”

    (HC) “Question 4. What does the law of God require of us?
    Answer: Christ teaches us that briefly, Matt. 22:37-40, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first and the great commandment; and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.'”

    In other words, these documents teach that all are required to obey God by loving him as God, something which requires salvation!

    Of course, we also strongly believe that God is the loving and just God of the Bible, and the facts above do not negate this:

    (HC) “Question 9. Does not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?
    Answer: Not at all; for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation of the devil, and his own wilful disobedience, deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.”

    We also firmly believe that preaching is the means of God’s grace most commonly used to salvation, even though salvation requires the work of the Holy Spirit:

    (WSC) “Q. 89. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
    A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching, of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.”

    (HC) “Question 65. Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, whence does this faith proceed?
    Answer: From the Holy Ghost, who works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the gospel, and confirms it by the use of the sacraments.”

    (WSC) “Q. 29. How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?
    A. We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit.

    Q. 30. How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
    A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.

    Q. 31. What is effectual calling?
    A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ,[86] and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.”

    Finally, you can see these points in the teachings of the theologian Charles Hodge.

  74. ‘So in keeping with the same kind of misunderstanding the Jews had, when Jesus said God was His Father, it was the Jews’ conclusion that He was equating Himself with the Father. Jesus never said the He was equal to the Father. He continued to speak in language showing the Father’s superiority. So, that scripture is not going to work. It’s debatable, at best.”

    Wrong. In the Hebrew mind living in a Greek world of the Pharisees, if a Father sent his son with a message…then the son was just like dealing with the father. (We do not think like this at all)
    That is what made the Pharisees so mad. He claimed to be God’s son on earth. There is more to it but this is not the place.

    “Regarding Phillipians 2, I’m not sure how you think they mangle it, but it seems clear that Jesus’ attitude was that He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped. Jesus had 33 years to say it, but never said that He was God. He said He was the son of God. He confirmed that He was Messiah. But, never said He was God.”

    Why would He even think of “grasping” equality with God if that were never the case before the Incarnation?

    This one involves a bit of logic to see. What did Jesus Christ, Lord of Hosts give up to come to earth as a human. It is there in Phil 2.

    5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

    How could the Lord of Hosts “humble himself”? You are taking a metaphor about humility of ourselves from the INCARNATION and applying it to Jesus for all eternity. It is a metaphor to teach us about humility and what Christ did but DID NOT have to give up the splendor and glory of heaven!
    Jesus IS God. In the OC, He is described as the Lord of Hosts. Please find me one place the Lord of Hosts is shown to “report” to God?

    Another problem is that the persons of the Trinity often do the same work. There are a ton of examples but just one: It is said in the NT that God raised Jesus from the dead. Another time, the Holy Spirit raised Him and another Jesus says He will raise Himself. How can that be?

    Micheal, please check yourself and what your view means about Jesus Christ. If only the Father has the purpose then taht makes Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit lesser gods in the Trinity.

    Jesus is called “Everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9…did you catch that?

  75. “Finally, it’s interesting that neither Dee, Deb, or you responded to the main point in my earlier post, which was that ESS has absolutely no implications regarding gender roles in eternity. And if you believe that there is a parallel, then consistent logic would demand that you land on the side that says women would be eternally submissive to men. But, as I said in my earlier post, I don’t believe that because it’s unbiblical.

    The point is, it’s a wrong argument for ESS proponents to make, drawing the parallel to have implications for women. And it’s equally wrong for those who disagree with ESS to use as an argument anything to do with gender roles.”

    Micheal, I admit, I have no clue what you are talking about. perhaps you ahve not read enough of Ware to know what is going on. I have no idea, specifically, as to what you are talking about in your last sentence.

    I think there has been some misunderstanding somewhere along the time. ESS has become very popular just in the last 10 years or so. It has been linked with gender roles mostly by the masculinists. We are only pointing that out. I have never met or read anything by a mutualist who believes in ESS. It’s roots are in authoritarianism.

    I do not have time to find the link to the CBMW article that speaks of hierarchy and patriarchy in heaven. but it is there…it is not the main topic of the article but does go into it. Most of the ESS proponets map it to gender roles.

  76. Watcher, I recommend reading as much as you can about the life of Calvin. Avoid the stuff written by the Reformed crowd that rewrite history and try to make it look like Calvin had no power at all. That is a lie. That second time in Geneva, he was the “it” guy.

    Frankly, I doubt he was even saved. The man was a tyrant and even told Genevans how many courses they could have in a meal. He was a big player in managing every single aspect of their lives.

    He even wrote to a friend to say that if Servetus ever showed up in Geneva he would not leave alive. Yet, the Reformed crowd want to act like Calvin did not want to burn him. Calvin had an employee of his do all the dirty work in coming up with the 30 charges against servetus. Oh, I could go on and on but ask yourself this:

    If he was SOOOOO brilliant a theologian, why did he teach and implement the sacral system? Baptize infants? Stay in a state church where it was mandatory for eveyrone to attend! (Think about that with the main teaching of Calvinism: Limited Atonement! How did they know who was saved if it was mandatory to attend! The IRONY OF THAT just blows my mind. They forced believers and unbelievers to worship together!@! Do you not see the ridiculousness of this thinking? oh yes, brilliant theologian.

    And now his name is mentioned more than Christ by his followers. It breaks my heart.

  77. Lydia – I have read the stuff on Calvin’s life; I know both sides. I think he’s fallible. I also think that if I wanted, I could say that as a Christian I find the doctrines of grace as set forth by Augustine, the Three Forms of Unity, the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession (OK, on the doctrines of grace it’s almost word-for-word WCF), Jonathan Edwards, etc, etc, etc closest to what I believe the council of Scripture teaches. Calvinist just happens to be a convenient short hand for what I believe is an accurate summation of the teachings of the infallible Word of God as far as I’ve studied them to the best of my ability.

    Here’s the thing – I don’t hang my trust in Jesus Christ on Scripture as interpreted by John Calvin or on his personal faith and practice. I hang it on Christ. That leaves me free to believe Calvin is fallible and still see that in many areas he offered insights I find quite valuable about what Scripture says. I could say the same about things I’ve read by William Law, whose “A Serious Call to the Devout and Holy Life” was seriously Pelagian and seriously challenging.

    So the sacral system and paedobaptism make someone stupid or a poor theologian? Being tied to the thinking of the times in regards to church and state mean one has no intellect? You’re going to have to rule out men like Luther then, as at that time pretty much no one got church & state right. Think of the number of intelligent men and women you’re ruling out here. Does one have to agree with you on the proper mode and timing of baptism to be intelligent? Does one have to have a post-American Revolution view of church and state? Where does the “you must agree with me to be smart” stop? I find myself on the opposite side of many on this blog on many issues, but I’m hardly questioning your own intellect or that of those you admire based on a difference of opinion. Point me to logical fallacies in Calvin’s writings, places where the conclusion does not follow from the premises, if you want to convince me the man was not intelligent. One can be intelligent and very wrong, or Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have the standing he does and have written his most recent book.

    Wherever Calvin is invoked more than Christ it is not just a tragedy, but quite possibly idolatry. No Christian whose theology stands in his tradition could disagree.

  78. Lydia:

    “Jesus is called “Everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9…did you catch that?”

    Yes, Lydia, I caught that. That is why the very first sentence in my post was, “Regarding Isaiah 9:6, I agree with you and I’m glad you brought it up. Finally, scripture!”

    Did you catch that?

    “Wrong. In the Hebrew mind living in a Greek world of the Pharisees, if a Father sent his son with a message…then the son was just like dealing with the father. ”

    I understand your point and your point is correct. However, you can’t overlook that the Father and son were different. And although the son carried the same authority as the father, in relation to the recipients of the message, you can’t overlook the fact that the son was the one sent by the father, making the father the one with authority over the son. The father was the originator and it was the father’s purposes which were being carried out, not the son’s.

    I could make a case that the Jews were not upset about Jesus equating Himself to God, the Father, but that they were upset with the implication that He, the Son, came from the Father, making the authority of what He said the authority of the Father, like you said. That was true and Jesus understood that He had that authority of God. But, He also understood that the authority was delegated to Him from someone greater than Him; the Father. That is why He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.

    “Why would He even think of “grasping” equality with God if that were never the case before the Incarnation?”

    I understand that logic and I agree with it. Your conclusion is valid, but it’s implied, not declared. Can you show me where Jesus is equated with God before the incarnation where it’s more definitive and not simply derived as a conclusion?

    Lydia, I agree with you, that Jesus is God and is equal to the Father. The superiority of one over the other is a man’s debate, and is short-sighted. I don’t believe God thinks about it in those terms. It’s like having an argument about whether the head is greater or the body is greater. Whatever conclusion is arrived at, there is no debating that one can’t exist without the other. The Father, Son, and Spirit are one and it’s a fruitless debate to rank them in some type of authority structure. So if one is going to draw any parallels to gender roles, the parallel would land on, we exist as one and can not exist without the other. So the gender role debate is a fruitless one, as well.

  79. Lydia:

    Regarding ESS, I’m sorry you’re not getting my point. Let me simplify.

    I have observed people on this blog bashing ESS, not because of any scripture, but because of the parallel to gender roles drawn by CBMW. They have framed the argument and they have fallen for it. My point was simply to say, there is no parallel.

    They are wrong to draw the parallel. So, those who disagree with ESS should not use their beliefs about gender roles as an argument against ESS, because the parallel is not there. If they disagree with ESS, give me a valid biblical argument, as you have done, that attacks the ESS beliefs at the core, with biblical evidence, and not attack it using an egalitarian approach, when the parallel is bogus.

  80. Michael

    This is a difficult concept. As you know the concept of the Trinity is not specifically stated in the Bible and we must extrapolate using a number of verses.That is why Nicea happened. It was to ratify and describe the Trinity once and for all. This was about 375 years post Jesus. I believe this doctrine is adding an eternal component of subordination of Jesus to the Father that is not at all clearly spelled out in Scripture. Absence of clarity does not mean it isn’t true-to wit, the Trinity. however, it does not mean it i true either. Did you visit Wade Burleson’s discussion on this through the link provided?

  81. Lydia

    Many Christian scientists are joining forces both through the ASA and individual campuses. At UNC Chapel HIll there is a monthly gathering of Christian scientists in all the disciplines and they present a paper or topic. Students and faculty members are invited and they get a good turnout. This is happening all over the country.

    I saw Ben Stein’s Expelled too. I love him-his voice cracks me up. One thing that I have observed is that at all universities, except Christian ones obviously, have a liberal and godless bias whether you are dealing in science or the humanities. Christians have deserted academia and the liberals happily took their places.I wish Stein had shown rays of hope in academia. Just like everything else there is a remnant.

    I bumped into an English professor at Duke one day. I asked him about the new ways they go about translating classic works, such as Jane Austen. Why in the world do they now treat Austin like some symbol of sexual repression when that was not the intent of the author.He claims we are free to interpret things through the eyes of our culture or socioeconomic status. I told him I thought it was deceptive and intellectually bankrupt. He said I had a point but we were standing in line at an ice cream shop and I bet he wanted to get me off his back.

  82. Watcher

    I am so impressed with your thoughtful reply. I will try to respond to it in depth later. Thank you.

  83. Dee – that article highlights one question I’ve had in reading through the ESS stuff under the section on the covenant of redemption. As someone who was taught the covenant of redemption with the caveats mentioned and still finds it to be true to what I see in Scripture (Eph 1:3-4, Jn. 17), when I heard ESS I filed it away under “another expression of the covenant of redemption” and moved on.

    Michael, I so appreciate your point that ESS and gender roles should never be made to be parallel doctrines, thanks for making it. Another person has said in a comment on a different blog what I believe is the only possible, tenable way of relating the ideas of functional roles in the Trinity to gender relationships.

    The way I usually hear subordination in the Trinity applied to husbands/wives is not that the first instructs the second, but just that wives ought to consider the fact that Christ submitted His will to the Father as evidence that submission in general is not a substandard thing of which to be ashamed. I haven’t heard it taught that BECAUSE the Trinity has roles and subordination that husbands and wives should to.

  84. “I have observed people on this blog bashing ESS, not because of any scripture, but because of the parallel to gender roles drawn by CBMW. They have framed the argument and they have fallen for it. My point was simply to say, there is no parallel.”

    Micheal, You need to tell Ware, Mohler, Moore and Grudem (and others) to stop mapping it to gender roles and hierarchy. They are the ones making the parallel. Otherwise, they would not be promoting ESS. It would serve no purpose.

  85. “. Why in the world do they now treat Austin like some symbol of sexual repression when that was not the intent of the author.He claims we are free to interpret things through the eyes of our culture or socioeconomic status. I told him I thought it was deceptive and intellectually bankrupt. He said I had a point but we were standing in line at an ice cream shop and I bet he wanted to get me off his back.”

    Oh, I know! It is amazing what they get out of Austen these days. But this professor misses the bigger point that is devestating to us: We do not even try to understand historical settings. We are too lazy. Or we use it for benefit. If you have ever read much about Lincoln, you will know his letters to his personal friends sound like love letters. Men slept together and expressed their love for one another openly back then.

  86. Dee:

    “That is why Nicea happened. It was to ratify and describe the Trinity once and for all.”

    Once, but not, “for all.” We have to be careful to not give more credibility to this council than they deserve. There are compelling arguments surrounding the trinity. My friend, is bringing up compelling arguments that could debunk the trinity doctrine. One problem we get into, is calling things in the bible names other than what the bible calls them.

    The bottom line for me is, if ESS seems to be a problem, which I think it might be, what are the scriptures that debunk it and which back your view?

    I have not checked out Burleson’s link.

  87. From Dee’s article, Robert Lehman said:

    “As the Son became incarnate and the Spirit came at Pentecost, the Father sending, so the indivisible omnipotence of God comes to expression in distinct ways.”

    Problem is, we have example in scripture of Jesus saying He was sending the Holy Spirit, too.

  88. Lydia:

    I could tell them if they had a place to comment. But, I’m on this blog and my comment is to those here, which is, if you’re going to acknowledge that there is a parallel, by letting them frame the debate, and you argue the debate from that approach, you will lose the debate. That was what my first post was about, if you’ll read it, carefully.

    But, if instead, you debunk the core beliefs of any subordination of the Son to the Father, than any parallel they might imply will be to your advantage. In other words, if you prove the equality of the persons in the Godhead, then you simultaneously prove the equality of men and women, if they want to draw the parallel.

  89. “I could tell them if they had a place to comment. But, I’m on this blog and my comment is to those here, which is, if you’re going to acknowledge that there is a parallel, by letting them frame the debate, and you argue the debate from that approach, you will lose the debate. That was what my first post was about, if you’ll read it, carefully.”

    Well, that line about allowing them to frame the debate is a moot point. And for the reasons you outline in your first sentence. They do not dialogue. They go on stages and have huge audiences of young men with minds full of mush who hang on their every word. They would not dare take questions unless it is a very controlled venue. Trust me on this. I used to control the venues. :o)

    You have to ask yourself why ESS has become so hot in the last few years? What is the point? What is the reason behind the doctrine that was not even on a radar screen 5 years ago? And why all of a sudden has it become such a focal point for them. If you are following them closely, you might understand why. It has everything to do with gender roles and the fact that more and more people are wising up to the problems with comp doctrine. ESS is meant to finally plug the mac sized truck hole folks are driving through the Danvers Statement.

    And if you have read my comments closely you would see that I wrote that we can forget the gender roles stuff because this heresy is too serious because it lessens the deity of Jesus Christ. I am serious about that.

    “But, if instead, you debunk the core beliefs of any subordination of the Son to the Father, than any parallel they might imply will be to your advantage. In other words, if you prove the equality of the persons in the Godhead, then you simultaneously prove the equality of men and women, if they want to draw the parallel.”

    I agree. But most people cannot think outside the Incarnation. I am constantly amazed at the lack of understanding out there. Many folks do not know who the Lord of Hosts is in the OT! The foundational knowledge just is not there.

    I had no idea it was this bad until ESS came along. But if you think about it, the last 30-40 years have been about church growth movements. Marketing Christianity.

    So, people get confused. The ESS/masculinists are the champions of confusion. They use big words and lots of them mingled with vague concepts to confuse people who follow titles and seminary degrees instead of Christ.

  90. Lydia:

    I dropped out of Southern Seminary in part because I lost respect for it. I told them why and at least some people there gave it serious consideration. I would agree that the PR has become ubiquitous and often does not reflect the reality of the institution.

    However, I must say that I’ve never seen Katie Mohler in a mini-skirt. I’m not saying it didn’t happen but I’ve never seen her dress in any way that I’d consider revealing or inappropriate. I’d be very happy if my own kids turned out as good as they seem to have. Like all of us, the Mohler kids did not pick their family and I think they should be left out of this.

  91. Lydia/Ryan

    The SBC has a history of tolerating physical abuse of women (see Paige Patterson) and pedophilia-refusla to set up a data base. I think it is time to call this issue on the carpet. I agree with Mohler that divorce rate is a travesty. But I am for a hierarchy of problem response. First, let’s deal with the safety of our children and women then get onto to the problem of divorce. What this woman cannot fathom is the extreme reluctance of leadership to focus on the abuse problem. Could it be that abuse goes far deeper into our churches than thought?

  92. “The SBC has a history of tolerating physical abuse of women (see Paige Patterson) and pedophilia-refusla to set up a data base. I think it is time to call this issue on the carpet. I agree with Mohler that divorce rate is a travesty. But I am for a hierarchy of problem response. First, let’s deal with the safety of our children and women then get onto to the problem of divorce. What this woman cannot fathom is the extreme reluctance of leadership to focus on the abuse problem. Could it be that abuse goes far deeper into our churches than thought?”

    But the way they deal with this is to insist the piece of paper in “divorce” is the evil but it works backwards from scripture.

    I have often wondered after studying this issue biblically, if they are doing this on purpose. The “divorce” happens before the piece of paper by the breaking of vows. That is the evil.

    God hates divorce yet seeJeremiah 3

    7 And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me.’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. 9 So it came to pass, through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees.

    And Mal 2 which shows us abuse is the divorce!

    15 But did He not make them one,
    Having a remnant of the Spirit?
    And why one?
    He seeks godly offspring.
    Therefore take heed to your spirit,
    And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
    16 “ For the LORD God of Israel says
    That He hates divorce,
    For it covers one’s garment with violence,”
    Says the LORD of hosts.

  93. Lydia,

    Thanks for the info. I have been warning my daughters (both in college) about the rise of patriarchy in the 21st century. It truly is a travesty. Wives are almost treated as chattel like they were when the patriarchs reigned. We here at TWW, including all of our thoughtful commenters, are doing our best to GET THE WORD OUT!

    Thanks for helping us shine God’s light in a VERY, VERY DARK PLACE…

  94. Lydia and Dee,

    I have seen the underbelly of the beast and it can be very ugly. I’m not about to defend Mohler, York, or any of those guys. They’re big boys and can fend for themselves. But *if* Katie shows too much skin, I could really care less and don’t see what it matters here. She’s at the age where kids get rebellious. I did worse at age 20 and thank God there wasn’t an Internet full of people waiting to pounce on me because they’d didn’t like my parents.

  95. Actually, Ryan, the expression is “I couldn’t care less”.

    I thought we had moved beyond the topic you have highlighted, and now you’ve brought it up again…

  96. Ryan

    I have one last thing to say about this subject. I, personally, couldn’t care less about what young people wear to church. With the way things are going, I’m just glad they are present. I am also glad when pastors address the issue of modesty.

    This issue has little to do with who is wearing what. It has everything to do with hypocrisy on the part of church leaders. I have heard pastors and leaders railing against rap music and then play it at parties that their children give. Then when someone raises the question, that person is chastised for being judgmental.

    I have heard pastors and teachers giving lectures on modesty and holding their kids up as the examples to model. Except their own children do not reflect those sentiments.

    I remember a “dance” that the “real” Christians gave. One woman even speaks on the subject of raising kids. What I saw at said dance made my eyes bug out and I grew up in a liberal climate as a non-Christian and pushed the envelope myself.

    I know one couple who speaks about the awful music that is out there and tells parents to not allow that music in their home. Except they do. When I asked about it, they said they couldn’t control what their 16 year old kid does.

    Its called doublespeak. Here is what I suggest. Unless it is absolutely true, pastors should not hold up their family members as role models. It is a backhanded self congratulations anyway and does not appear to be humble in any sense of the word. But, this crowd admires CJ Mahaney the guy who wrote the book “Humilty” and is not. So, its all nonsense anyway.

    Pastors and leaders should say that a certain standard of behavior is ideal but they have trouble enforcing it themselves. Cut the perfect family malarkey. Be real, instead of saying one thing for others and allowing something for one’s own family. Go over the exChristian.Net. See how many of them point out the frank hypocrisy in pastors families. The world is watching and is trying to figure this all out. Most of these very ungracious pastors could do well to focus on the subject of grace for their own congregations. You know, the same grace they give their own families.

    Maybe, just maybe, this little conversation will cause a few self-important church leaders to reconsider their presentations. Nuff said.

  97. “I have seen the underbelly of the beast and it can be very ugly. I’m not about to defend Mohler, York, or any of those guys. They’re big boys and can fend for themselves. But *if* Katie shows too much skin, I could really care less and don’t see what it matters here. She’s at the age where kids get rebellious. I did worse at age 20 and thank God there wasn’t an Internet full of people waiting to pounce on me because they’d didn’t like my parents.”

    Ryan, The question is not what Katie does. The question is what her parents teach others.

  98. Here is an interesting excerpt from a sermon:

    http://www.galaxie.com/article/13945

    “In 1974 I was fourteen years old and at that vulnerable, easily impressionable stage of adolescence. Prior to that time, my life was tranquil. I enjoyed a happy home and a wonderful relationship with my Christian parents. But then a man came into my life who heaped all kinds of abuse on me every day. Every day after school I would go see this man before I went home, and he would subject me to the most intense forms of physical torture and verbal abuse imaginable. I would leave with my body wracked with pain and indescribable feelings of inferiority because of the verbal abuse he inflicted upon me. Yet, strange as it may seem, I always went back to him. That man was my wrestling coach; and he helped me understand that if I went through this kind of physical torture, if I learned to negotiate the rigors of his practices, then I would ultimately be a better wrestler. I would be disciplined.”

    If a young man experiences “the most intense forms of physical torture and verbal abuse imaginable,” could it manifest itself in destructive ways “off the wrestling mat”?

    There appears to be a serious problem with what has become known as “Battered Woman Syndrome” (defined below):

    http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battered+woman+syndrome

    “battered woman syndrome (BWS),
    repeated episodes of physical assault on a woman by the person with whom she lives or with whom she has a relationship, often resulting in serious physical and psychologic damage to the woman. Such violence tends to follow a predictable pattern. The violent episodes usually follow verbal argument and accusation and are accompanied by verbal abuse. Almost any subject-housekeeping, money, childrearing-may begin the episode. Over time, the violent episodes escalate in frequency and severity. Most battered women report that they thought that the assaults would stop; unfortunately, studies show that the longer the women stay in the relationship the more likely they are to be seriously injured. Less and less provocation seems to be enough to trigger an attack once the syndrome has begun. The use of alcohol may increase the severity of the assault. The man is more likely to be abusive as the alcohol wears off. Battering occurs in cycles of violence. In the first phase the man acts increasingly irritable, edgy, and tense. Verbal abuse, insults, and criticism increase, and shoves or slaps begin. The second phase is the time of the acute, violent activity. As the tension mounts, the woman becomes unable to placate the man, and she may argue or defend herself. The man uses this as the justification for his anger and assaults her, often saying that he is “teaching her a lesson.” The third stage is characterized by apology and remorse on the part of the man, with promises of change. The calm continues until tension builds again. Battered woman syndrome occurs at all socioeconomic levels, and one half to three quarters of female assault victims are the victims of an attack by a partner. It is estimated that in the United States between 1 and 2 million women a year are beaten by their husbands. Men who grew up in homes in which the father abused the mother are more likely to beat their wives than are men who lived in nonviolent homes. Personal and cultural attitudes also affect the incidence of battering. Aggressive behavior is a normal part of male socialization in most cultures; physical aggression may be condoned as a means of resolving a conflict. A personality profile obtained by psychologic testing reveals the typical battered woman to be reserved, withdrawn, depressed, and anxious, with low self-esteem, a poorly integrated self-image, and a general inability to cope with life’s demands. The parents of such women encouraged compliance, were not physically affectionate, and socially restricted their daughters’ independence, preventing the widening of social contact that normally occurs in adolescence. Victims of the battered woman syndrome are often afraid to leave the man and the situation; change, loneliness, and the unknown are perceived as more painful than the beatings. Nurses are in an excellent position to offer assistance to battered women in several ways, because encouraging a woman to talk about the battering and the injuries may help her to admit what she may have been too embarrassed to reveal even to her parents. A realistic appraisal of the situation is then possible; the woman wants to hear that the nurse thinks the battering will not recur, but the nurse can tell her only that the usual pattern is for the abuse to continue and to become more severe. The woman may be referred to the social service department or given directions for contacting community agencies such as a battered women’s shelter or a hotline to a counseling service. Caring for and counseling a battered woman often require great patience because she is usually ambivalent about her situation and may be confused to the point of believing that she deserves the assaults she has suffered. Written, photographic, and videotaped records are maintained to document the extent of the problem, including the form of abuse reported, the injuries sustained, and a summary of similar incidents and previous admissions.”
    Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

    In coming weeks, I plan to explore this topic and share my findings with you. Adrian Rogers excoriated men who abuse their wives, and TWW will as well.

  99. Imagine the role that women would play if only the physically circumcised were “true” Christians?

    Hmmm… isn’t that pretty much what we’re already seeing in some circles today?

    I know that you CAN make a case for it, but I suggest that we lay off people’s children. The Mohlers’ children and the Gaines’ children really shouldn’t be talked about like this. There are probably lots of dynamics in the home and nuances to all this that we just don’t know about. Plus, the kids haven’t interjected themsevles into any of this.

    No, the kids haven’t, but the parents have. That’s the point. Their kids can walk around in public half naked for all I care (and some do), but when their parents start telling the rest of us we’re Jezebels if we walk around half naked, then we have a problem.

    I haven’t seen pictures of either of these young girls, but I’m going to have to disagree here, especially if the young women in question aren’t yet adults.

    I have. All but one of the girls in question is of age now (and she’s close), but all were underage when they were still living under their parents’ roofs and running around with their breasts popping out and a lot more skin showing than covered. I’ve seen only a few photos of Mohler’s daughter, and she was a little more modest than the Gaines girls.

    Back when Steve Gaines was at Gardendale FBC he was said to have regularly gone on rants about the skimpy state of teenage girls’ clothes. At the same time his older two were said to be dressing very immodestly. One time he reportedly told them that teenage girls and women should not wear bras that “lift and separate.” Seeing the shocked looks on people’s faces he said, “Can you believe I just said that? Yes, I did!”

    He does that at Bellevue pretty often, too. Recently during a sermon on pornography he admonished females not to wear anything “too low, too high, or too tight.” I wondered then if they actually have mirrors in the Gaines household or if they ever paid attention to what their daughters were wearing when they left the house. Then someone sent me a photo of one of them with half a dozen or so of her friends, all dressed in extremely skimpy dresses prior to a dance, and Steve was in the photo, so I guess it’s true. One set of rules apply to the Gaines girls and their friends. Another set of rules apply to us Jezebels.

  100. notastepford

    Thank you for weighing in. You definitely have the inside tract. Once again, for anyone reading this, we are not talking about the kids. We are talking about pastors who tell us all what to do and don’t do it themselves. It reminds me of the Politburo of the Soviet era. It is time to get real out there. BTW, notastepford, I am too glamorous to be a Jezebel.

  101. For more on the post-Reformation era teachings that are the precursors to the oh-so-hated-on-this-blog ESS, check out what Paul Helm had to say about the relationship between what the economic relationship of the Trinity looked like here on earth and the pre-temporal economic relationship of the Trinity.

  102. Watcher

    In fact, we were fascinated by the link and see how an attempt is being made to link Genesis to a complementarian view. And this would then translate into a doctrinal mandate that we must believe this in order to be classified as Christians.The article by Helm cause us to read much further on this subject, and we hope to formulate our thoughts in order to write a post on it in the near future. I am having some surgery which may delay things a bit. But, your link helped us to understand a few things, and I am so appreciative of your willingness to share this with us.

  103. I realized today that I’d asked a question here that wasn’t answered (or, at least it hadn’t seemed to be answered as I skimmed through the many responses). I’m not sure if the anonymous that showed up later in the thread was the same who made the statement I asked the question about. But I’ll ask the question again. If it was answered, I’d appreciate someone pointing it out to me.

    From anonymous: “Other things are not Mohler’s decision or responsibility (e.g. the proposal that the SBC have an abuser database – the worst idea of the Century).”

    My question: Anonymous, I would like to know why you think that the SBC having a database of credibly accused sexual abusers so that abusive pastors and workers can’t move from church to church to abuse again is “the worst idea of the Century”?

  104. “From anonymous: “Other things are not Mohler’s decision or responsibility (e.g. the proposal that the SBC have an abuser database – the worst idea of the Century).”

    This is technically not true. Mohler is the IT guy in the SBC. His guy, Ezell, was just made NAMB president. Do you think tht would have happened without Mohler? All Mohler would have to do is make a presentation at the next convention on why we need a database to protect children and IT WOULD HAPPEN. People follow him like he is Jesus.

  105. From Paul Helm: “If the relations between the persons of the Trinity in the economy are in harmony with the mutuality of the persons of the Trinity, then it is hard to see how the eternal covenant of redemption could fail to be an expression of the same sort of relationship.”

    This is very interesting. Ware says just the opposite in several sermons I have heard. Cheryl Schatz quotes him saying the opposite on her Trinity DVD.

    That is another thing about these guys. They are inconsistent. Many times their partnerships are about image or marketing. It is a shame. I see it all the time. That is why I believe little of what they say and always focus on being a Berean instead of following man.

  106. Lydia,
    If you check out the link Deb provided to JT’s blog, you’ll see that Ware and Helm hold differing perspectives on the doctrine of God (with respect to the spectrum of open theism, compatiblism, or determinism). They may also have somewhat differing perspectives on the economic relationship of the Trinity.

    I don’t think writing a book or teaching on the same faculty together necessitates that two scholars must agree. Especially since there are all those Four Views books out there that precisely don’t agree. I once heard it said that the more you agree, the more closely you can work together, but you can work on some level as long as you agree at all.

  107. “oh-so-hated-on-this-blog ESS,”

    Watcher, If you are listening close to Ware on ESS, he does a bait and switch. Much like Rick Warren does with PDL. Many folks do not catch it with Ware and his ilk because they are too impressed with all the big words and scholarly concepts. The bait and switch is exactly the same one they use with comp doctrine. It is quite clever.

    They don’t catch it with Warren because he is so likeable and persuasive.

  108. Lydia

    That’s it! I was trying to think of a description for this and your term “bait and switch” truly covers it. There is so much of that in America’s churches. Next week, we are going to look at another bait and switch. The reason YE is absolute primary doctrine is because they have made it an essential for strict complementarianism. I was startled when I saw some articles. It has to do with Adam being the first patriarch. Have you read anything about this?

  109. Pingback: William P. Farley: Gospel-Powered Parenting « Half a bridge