Christianity Today is out with a cover story on Al Mohler and how he lead the push to purge the SBC from liberal theology by reforming the Southern Baptist Convention’s flagship seminary. The article is entitled “The Reformer”, and certainly Mohler is that. It truly is an amazing story, even if the author of the CT story makes it very clear she doesn’t approve.
What struck me when reading this article was how similar Mohler’s battle for truth at Southern is to the battle that was waged at Princeton in the 1920s by the likes of J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til. The only difference is that Mohler won and turned back the tide of liberalism at Southern. He didn’t have to leave and found his own seminary, like Machen and Van Til did (when they founded Westminster).
“Fundamentalist” isn’t a popular label these days. And it’s meanings are many and varied. But by the truest, historic sense of the term, Al Mohler would have to be considered a fundamentalist. The question is, would today’s fundamentalists (of the independent Baptist variety) accept him?
Sadly, no. At least the vast majority would find some reason to distrust him or avoid allowing him entrance into the “seriously-devoted-to-God” club. Some would point to Mohler’s chairing of a Billy Graham crusade in Louisville as an act that belies Mohler’s true character (or at least points to something worthy of separation), while others would point to his more recent signing of the Manhattan Declaration. As an aside, that crusade carefully excluded the participation of Catholics, and Mohler’s explanation for why he signed the MD should be acceptable to any but the most die-hard of critics.
This is precisely the problem I have with most fundamentalists today. They refuse to get out of their box and see the world through non-sectarian lenses. Mohler is a convention man””not independent, like the fundamentalists. But the original fundamentalists were forced out of their conventions and denominations. Separation from doctrinal error, and militancy for truth have more than one manifestation. And from the fundamentalist side of the aisle, at a point several decades from the original conflicts with modernism which gave Fundamentalism its name, the thought that someone may be employing some form of separation from within a denomination doesn’t seem to register.
Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis recently explained how separation is a hallmark of what it means to be a fundamentalist:
…fundamentalism was always about more than belief in the fundamentals. It was about doing battle for the fundamentals, an attitude that came to be called militancy….
At first, the fundamentalists hoped that the liberals would leave the Christian denominations peacefully and quietly (a hope that, in retrospect, seems astonishingly naïve). Later, the fundamentalists attempted to purge liberal influences from their denominations by expelling the liberals. Failing in that, the fundamentalists themselves severed contact with the liberals by leaving the denominations. In all three forms, however, fundamentalism was about separation, i.e., ecclesiastical non-cooperation with apostasy.
If the original fundamentalists could have had their choice, they would likely have stayed in the denominations. They would have loved to see Al Mohler’s outcome in their own context. It didn’t work out that way for them. Unfortunately, many of the heirs of the fundamentalists can’t give Christian support and brotherly affirmation to their conservative brethren like Al Mohler who have so profoundly changed the SBC for the better. Instead, they find ways to maintain a skeptical distance.
I hope this attitude of distrust will diminish. I hope a greater striving for unity and a mutual welcoming of others as true brothers in the faith, will flourish. And I am happy to see signs of change in fundamentalism. A conference is scheduled at a fundamentalist seminary where Kevin Bauder and other fundamentalist leaders will be speaking alongside Mark Dever, a well-kown SBC leader. I trust this kind of thing will continue.
Fundamentalists have a lot to offer the wider church, and it’s a shame that they are so ignored and marginalized today. Sadly, this is due in large part to their own distrusting attitude toward even the best of evangelicalism””pastors and leaders who are often fundamentalists at heart, going by different names.
Bob,
I welcome this analysis. I have come to greatly appreciate the truth championed by Al Mohler and Mark Dever. I applaud their ministries and thank God for every victory they achieve among Southern Baptists and beyond. I would think it should be a source of encouragement among Fundamentalists to see Liberalism uprooted at Southern Seminary, and strong, historic Orthodoxy implanted in its place.
I am well aware that there remain many problems in the SBC, and I am thankful that I am not a member. However, the SBC of today is much different from the SBC of the 70’s and 80’s, thanks in large part to men like Al Mohler and Mark Dever. It is, once again, a predominently conservative, Bible-believing, cooperative fellowship of churches. I watched Southeastern Seminary, about 60 miles from where I live, change from Liberal to strongly Conservative. It really is an amazing transformation. Lovers of Bible truth should rejoice!
Warm regards,
Greg
Excellent post! Balancing a desire for unity of the faith while standing for biblical truth can be quite perplexing for us all…This subject always brings to mind these lines in the parable of the tares…
Matthew 13:27-30 (English Standard Version)
While unity is VERY important, we can never compromise TRUTH…The Holy Spirit will make the call…We must be prepared to listen and then follow as instructed…
Thanks for the thoughts both of you. We need truth and unity, I totally agree.
Bob,
If I may chime in again. I strongly suspect, that if Al Mohler had thoroughly reversed the liberalism of a major seminary in the 20’s, 30’s, or 40’s, he would be a Fundemantalist hero, even an icon today. He would likely be considered a major figure in the history of Fundamentalism. Since he had the poor judgment (tonge in cheek) to do so in the 90’s and 2000’s, he is viewed with suspicion by many (perhaps most?) Fundamentalists today.
So what has changed? Perhaps we need to be more candid about the drift in modern Fundamentalism away from it’s historic roots. It seems to me that Fundamentalism has changed, but that most Fundamentalists don’t realize a change has occured.
Cordially,
Greg
You may be right, but I am hoping change is afoot….
Bob, you are entirely wrong about this.
Mohler is thoroughly new-evangelical. He eschews the label ‘fundamentalist’ and thinks the new-evangelicals offered a necessary corrective to the fundamentalism that came out of the conventions.
You have to ignore at least 50 years of history and Mohler’s own testimony to insist he is a fundamentalist.
And what does it prove in the end?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
By current standards he’s not. I admit that. But a historic fundamentalist he is.
The three forms of separation shown by Kevin Bauder to be the historic outworking of fundamentalism, are not recognized in today’s fundamentalist world. It’s only the third version of separation that passes muster. I’m hoping to see people realize that fighting for truth from the inside is still a way of being militant and up-front about one’s devotion to fundamental truth.
Bob, by his own standards, he’s not a fundamentalist. Why can’t you accept that?
I am not against fighting for the truth from the inside, certainly not. I think what the conservative Southern Baptists have done is remarkable, but it is by no means over or complete. There is still a lot of dead wood in the SBC. Time will tell how long lasting their work will have been, but they certainly deserve credit for what they have done.
Nevertheless, they remain entangled with unbelief in various ways, Manhattan Declaration, Duke McCall building, etc. as examples.
Anyway, I don’t want to go on and on about it, but I think you are engaging in a bit of wishful thinking. Mohler himself has a pretty clear grasp of what a fundamentalist is and categorically rejects it for himself.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Does he reject what a fundamentalist was, historically, or what a fundamentalist is, in time, today? Or rather, can fighting for purity from outside of current fundamentalist boundaries, not be an act of fundamentalism that’s worthy of the name?
Bob:
Kevin Bauder has in the now 17 part Differences series has inexplicably missed acknowledging that Al Mohler signed the Manhattan Declaration (MD). At least you mention it. Signing that document along side Roman Catholic priests and apostates was without question giving Christian recognition to the deadly enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3;18) and compromised the gospel. Not one can legitimately deny, whether or not intended, that those were the results of Mohler, Duncan and many other evangelicals signing the MD.
You mention the Billy Graham crusade. It was wrong for Mohler to chair the BGEA crusade on two levels. 1) Not only because I was told from a Louisville planning meeting participant that there “may have been a Roman Catholic observer in the some [planning] sessions;†2) It was absolutely wrong for him cooperate with Billy Graham who is the last half century’s high priest of ecumenical evangelism and compromise. Furthermore, Mohler honored rank liberal Duke McCall at SBTS and he has for years been on the board of Focus on the Family along side Roman Catholics, etc. This form of what you think is “Fundamentalism†has never been known.
As Don Johnson noted- Mohler is, “thoroughly new-evangelical,†which the documented evidence verifies.
LM
Bob:
You wrote, “A conference is scheduled at a fundamentalist seminary where Kevin Bauder [Dave Doran] and other fundamentalist leaders will be speaking alongside Mark Dever, a well-known SBC leader. I trust this kind of thing will continue.â€
You can count on it! Doran and Bauder are taking the first step of cooperation and fellowship with the so-called “conservative†evangelicals. Doran has already hosted three evangelicals in his pulpit and seminary. Dever has some issues that raise concerns, but does not have the baggage of Mohler and Piper. As I say, however, this convergence will in no way end with Dever. The entire T4G and TGC cast will be openly embraced in a short time while KB and DD continue to allow for, tolerate, allow for and excuse their doctrinal aberrations, worldliness in ministry and ecumenical compromises.
This never heard of form of Fundamentalism is IMO the Fundamentalism that Bauder is propagating and refers to as “worth saving.â€
LM
I hope you’re right, Lou. But for different reasons obviously. And publicizing hearsay about what might have been (a RC observer), while ignoring what was (a clear rejection to be involved in the crusade unless the RCs were not a part of it), is going pretty low, in my book.
Bob you wrote:
“Fundamentalists have a lot to offer the wider church, and it’s a shame that they are so ignored and marginalized today.”
I suggest that Fundamentalists are marginalized because they marginalize others (often by using antiquated and very confusing multi-tiered matrices for separation). They trumpet their theories on secondary separation which at the end of the day turn out to be some kind of fifth or sixth degree separation.
In contrast to T4G most Fundamentalists I observe would prefer to have an alternate org that could very well be titled “Together 4 Separation.”
There’s a lot of truth in what you’re saying, Mark. I don’t disagree.
Bob:
It is NOT hearsay, it was told to me by a high level participant in the actual planning meetings. If it were not a private e-mail I would give you his name and you’d apologize.
LM
Lou,
I don’t doubt you were emailed something. But this is what you said you were told: there “may have been a Roman Catholic observer in the some [planning] sessions;â€. May have been, isn’t the same as there was. So someone who was there thought there may have been an observer so he told you and you tell everyone and that all means what now? And I need to apologize to you? This is hearsay, plain and simple. You weren’t there. Someone else was and they say they think that someone else was there but they’re uncertain.
Supposedly the old-time Chinese had a proverb that said, “Many laws result in many criminals.” The more criteria you have for defining what makes someone Protestant (a word which includes the doctrine of the necessity of personal faith for salvation, by the way), the fewer “real” Protestants you’ll say there are. One reason i’m not willing to be called a Fundamentlist, even though i hold all the doctrines of the original Fundamentalists and also believe in ecclesiastical separation from heretics, is because I don’t believe in the possibility of perfection.
When the “non-Fundamentalists” demonstrate their commitment to evangelism, missionary activity, care and compassion, and create and maintain a host of organizations committed to the Lord’s work (as the Fundamentalists have done for more than a century) then they can sit in judgment on Fundamentalists’ “separation.” The Fundamentalists’ fulcrum used to leverage the Gospel and provide for the needs of a fallen world must always be (as Archimedes knew) from the outside.
ELK,
The International Mission Board of the SBC is the largest mission sending organization in the world. There is a great concern for missions and evangelism in the evangelical church at large.
Columbia Bible College & Seminary is a conservative, evangelical university that has been training missionaries and defending inerrancy since 1917. We had an opportunity to hire C. Peter Wagner back in the 1980s, but turned him down because, even though he himself was an inerrantist, he didn’t think inerrancy was a big deal.
Bob: Exactly. To its credit (and to God’s glory) the SBC has been an exemplar in missions and other outreach efforts. But that’s the point: all of this was BEGUN when the SBC was clearly in the Fundamentalist Camp. In our haste to “engage” the culture (and sadly, embrace it), the church has forgotten its fundamental task: To Confront the culture with and for Christ, the Lord
I know I’m late to this conversation, but Bob points to my own seeds of doubt toward fundamentalism that first arose as a student at BJU in the 1990s – the inconsistency of approval toward fundamentalist “heros” of the past.
Billy Graham? Borderline heretic. Billy Sunday? We’ll slap his wife’s name on a building in gratitude of his ministry.
Both men were (are) highly ecumenical, cooperated with non-believers in ministry, and offered up spruious doctrinal statements from time to time. And Billy Sunday was just plain nuts in the pulpit. He made Mark Driscoll seem reserved by comparison.
I’ve said this before, but how would the Apostle Paul fare under the scrutiny of present fundamentalists? Yes, he took the apostates (AND legalists) to task, opposing them at every turn, but he also fellowshipped with Christians who were tolerant of their presence.
Paul, in his pursuit of his IDEAL of a church free of doctrinal purity and moral compromise, never abandoned the REALITY that there will always be error of belief and practice. The goal is perfection, but the reality is ongoing reform.
While I’m not arguing everyone should run out and join their local SBC congregation, the actions of Dever and Mohler and similar SBC reformers mirror well those of Paul, Timothy and Titus in the New Testament. They sought to point Christians at Corinth, Ephesus and Galatia toward the truth and away from error w/o sacrificing the fellowship they shared.
Is there a time for complete separation? Certainly. At some point, the cause is lost, and a church or organization becomes unredeemable. I can’t imagine what my brothers and sisters in United Methodist ranks, for example, hope to accomplish. Let apostasy run it’s course, I say… come out and be ye separate.
But I was told that SBC was a lost cause while I was at BJU. Their answer to the minority of apostasy in the SBC ranks was to abandon the ship altogether, which was to basically turn their backs on the millions – the majority – of Southern Baptists who loved the gospel and the Scriptures.
A more shameful and uncharitable pastoral act is hard to imagine, and it is something over which I argue repentance is overdue.
I can’t speak as to whether Paul would have signed the Manhattan Declaration or shared a pulpit with Rick Warren, but we know for certain he maintained fellowship and contended for the faith alongside Christians who maintained ties with unbelievers and apostates. This angered and hurt him to no end, but like a good father, he chose admonishment and correction over separation and disassociation.
We would be wise to follow his example, I think.