Mohler is either trying to walk a fine line or is being pulled by some strings off-stage, and the reason I think this is because the wobbling is extremely apparent. How do you go from (privately) affirming the trailer and looking forward to the film 8 days earlier to then expressing concern and are alarmed the day the trailer drops publicly?
I don’t know what is happening behind the scenes, but it is clear that something is certainly happening behind the scenes.
I can’t imagine anyone is pulling his strings. It seems to me that the same political temperament that made him so effective in SBC denominational politics over the years is now undoing the very Conservative Resurgence he once led. If Ascol’s account of events is true (and I see no reason to doubt it), Mohler’s conduct here is shameful. I’ve read The Grace of Shame, so I understand this isn’t the first instance of something like this, but I was holding out hope that that was a blind spot and not a trajectory. It makes me sad to see.
So true. I can’t tell if he’s a wise operator doing his best with sad political realities or just squishy.
It’s starting to sound like, the conservative resurgence was more about gaining a seat at the cool table then about the purity of the church. Do these event shed new light on Mohler’s reaction to Phil Johnson at the Shep Con Q&A? For some probably not. But people need to see that Mohler is no longer leading a resurgence, he’s suppressing it.
I haven’t watched this yet, but this is a documentary about the Conservative Resurgence released back in 1997. Tom Ascol and Jared Longshore of Founders Ministry cite this documentary as their inspiration for making their own and have recommended everyone watch it. It was made by those who were openly on the egalitarian side of that debate, so it should be pretty interesting.
To me it reaffirms my earlier thought that Mohler thinks he can right the ship by working behind the scenes, but that addressing these things publicly the way that the Social Justice statement and the Founders trailer did will ruin his efforts. Reading between the lines a bit, it sounded like his reaction to Phil Johnson was “you guys need to just shut up and let me handle it.” The problem is, I think he has vastly miscalculated what his politicking can accomplish–and his lack of clarity in his public statements are doing more harm than good.
Here’s my problem, Zak, that whole view to the solution, whether effective or ineffective, puts Al Mohler at the center. We should reject that solution even if it were effective. Little more than the schemes of man.
Frankly, his response at ShepCon was self-righteous because he is convinced that he is the only thing standing in the way of liberalism at SBTS and yet he’s got Jarvis Williams as tenured faculty now. That’s only proof of his mere man status and is not the only reason we should reject his claim to Sovereignty in this matter. But it does cause us to question his motives, since his claims, his optics and his fruit are completely unaligned.
I agree with you there. Mohler has demonstrated much hubris in this. But I am still trying to be as charitable as I can for as long as I can about what his motives are. I think he thinks he’s fighting for the faith and that brokering deals with the Woke Coalition within the SBC is the best way to preserve the denomination’s future. But the fact that I think his motives are (mostly) good, doesn’t mean he gets a pass on the self-righteousness, hubris, compromise, and duplicity we’ve seen.
I agree that we should reject that solution even if it could work. Better to be plain in speech, take our lumps, and leave the results to God.
I appreciate you brother, hope my pushback isn’t quarrelsome, and I do understand a desire for being charitable to Mohler.
I appreciate you, too, brother. I didn’t take it as quarrelsome. My thinking is always much clearer after a few rounds of interaction. 
Why did the Pharisees kill Jesus? He didn’t shut up and let them handle it.
BTW, Al didn’t clean up the SBC. He rode the coattails of the men who did. What he started with, he’d been handed, and what he himself is handing off to the next generation is less—much much less—than he was given. Men like Mohler are a dime-a-dozen and they are visible through their proteges they put in power. Russ is Al’s fruit through and through. You understand Russ through Al and Al through Russ. This has been clear for many years. Love,
A telling quote from one interviewee in the old documentary linked above:
…having known Al and having watched this transformation of Al, when other people called him a fundamentalist, I’d correct them and say he’s an opportunist, that there’s a difference of conviction. I don’t want to say that he’s now not convinced and convicted against women and women’s role in the church. Well just imagine that if Southern Seminary’s atmosphere and political correctness changed once again back in favor of women serving in the role, I’m convinced that Al Mohler would shift with that.
Prescient.
That is indeed one of the more memorable quotes from the documentary.
It was a good watch: helpful and relevant to understanding what denominational fights look like, ones under heavy influence by seminaries.
Were they successful? Did it last?
Is this worth trying in the PCA?
Big warnings against big seminaries, whether the denomination is one of supposed hierarchy or supposed local independence.
I’m really looking forward to the upcoming, new documentary.
New response from Mohler & Aiken:
http://www.bpnews.net/53375/akin-mohler-dispute-claim-of-sbc-liberal-drift
Half of Founders board resigns:
I saw that. Frankly, I’m still boggled. So these men saw an editorial choice of a blurred silhouette for a trailer/preview as sinful? That just blows my mind. Admittedly these men saw this trailer and saw no problems initially, but now that big men from on high come down whispering Page Patterson in their ears, and suddenly they are convinced that the very thing they all agreed to is suddenly sinful enough to split up over it?
“Who told you you’re naked? Did you eat of that tree I told you to stay away from?”
Not to mention that the blurred clip of Denhollander which both men cited was removed entirely from the re-cut trailer and acknowledged by Ascol as “unwise.” Yet that his clearly insufficient repentance for the three men who left the board. I honestly think the Denhollander clip is just a convenient excuse. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.
The resignees’ stuff is filled with exceedingly high claims of sin and harm. Ridiculous. Utterly. When you read this kind of crud, you should smell a rat. And this one is most assuredly running for cover from the extortion/blackmail of the day which is the sexual abuse of…
Women and girls. All you need to know about the resignations. Their real lies are in not giving the true reasons for their resignations. But I suspect it’s because they are lacking any self-critical capacity and don’t even know their real reasons. BTW, this is the first thing I’ve ever read on that web site and I have no personal knowledge of these men. What I do know is the Balkan mentality of factions in the SBC right now.
And that, currently, most church officers are fradycats of women and gays. Love,
This is why we are where we are. Even the few leaders willing to stand up and fight heresy are such massive white knights that they’d rather publicly commit ritual suicide at the slightest perceived mistake than stand behind their team to keep fighting.
https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/08/02/founders-min-board-members-who-resigned-caught-up-in-their-own-sex-abuse-scandal/
Sad times. When men compromise themselves they compromise the gospel.
Well that makes more sense than the nonsense we’d been fed thus far. Kind of confirms my suspicions, and as Pastor Bayly said, that kind of nonsense makes you smell a rat. Or as Doug Wilson recently said at a conference, when everything is smooth, look for the lie.