Just note that the “ARBCA” site linked in the Pulpit & Pen article is NOT the site for the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America. It appears to be an independent site with no actual ties to the denomination. The fact that whoever made it choose to spoof the ARBCA denomination name and color scheme makes me suspicious of the information they report.
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America is ARBCA.com
“Awareness in Reformed Baptist Churches of America” is ARBCA.org, the one linked.
Ok, I did a WHOIS lookup on the site (it’s public information) and it looks like the site was created by one of the parties named in the Fred Malone transcript. I’m not saying that the information isn’t true, but I just want to caution that everything on the ARBCA.org site is very much one side of the story.
The most charitable way I can view Mohler in all of this is that he’s just blind to it, whether he just doesn’t want to see it or he just can’t I have no idea. He’s adamant that no one is teaching from ‘the other side’ (ie the CRT/I side) even when presented with obvious examples. It’s clear he thinks those examples are unhelpful, even going so far as to remove content from his school’s website, but he still says it’s not a danger. That only leaves me to believe he doesn’t see the danger. He doesn’t want to, or just can’t see the creep, the leak, the rot, going on right under his nose.
Yes, that is the most charitable read. I also think it makes the most sense of his public comments. He’s shown no hesitancy in blasting Critical Theory, Intersectionality, Egalitarianism, and Liberalism (political & theological) when he’s speaking abstractly or about people outside the church. But whenever it comes to those within the tribe of “conservative evangelicalism” (whatever that even means anymore) saying the very same things, it’s as if he goes completely blind.
Also, his challenge to judge him by the men he appoints to positions is really telling (I think he issued that challenge at the ShepCon Q&A). It seems like he really believes that doing so will exonerate him instead of the opposite.
“We need to confront the fact that we face real denominational questions, demographic realities, financial issues, and apologetic questions”- Al Mohler
This is from a statement he gave critical of a yet to release documentary by Founders ministry highlighting the push for an unbiblical and worldly social justice philosophy in the SBC. This quote reveals where the motives lie. Demographic realities and financial issues are driving Dr. Mohler to waffle on the SJW stuff.
While I was at Southern, the school became increasingly multi-racial and international. On one hand that is a great sign of the gospel going around the world, but on the other hand it has tied the hands of Dr. Mohler in being truly critical of marxist ideologies. Dr. Mohler believes he cannot afford to look like he is advocating for any kind of uncosmopolitan idea. He can’t do anything that is seen even wrongly as nationalist or “racist.” If he fights hard against the sjw stuff, he fears he runs the risk of doing both and going against the demographic realities he mentioned in above quote. He knows which way the wind blows and he also knows where the finances are. SBTS has struggled financially while at the same time it has constantly put forth a face of financial prosperity. It seems clear he believes that you either go woke or you go broke.
Finances, demographics, and denominational politics are driving the answers to the apologetic questions rather than God’s word.
I think Mohler sees himself as stuck in the middle, trying to hold a fracturing coalition together. He personally lives on the more ‘conservative’ side but recognizes there are more ‘liberal’ types that he doesn’t see as an existential threat. They are all ‘together for the gospel’ after all. He thinks the problem is a split or fracture (as opposed to a spike in practicing critical theory or feminism) and would rather remain unified. He disagrees with their theology regarding such things but thinks a little fly in the ointment is better than splitting up. So he doesn’t want to take a hard stand. Disappointing coming from the man who wrote a book called ‘Conviction to Lead.’
And he’s not a pastor but a seminary leader so his concerns aren’t pastoral - aren’t primarily for individual sheep in his flock - as much as trying to maintain a generally correct course for his ‘flagship’ seminary. He’s trying to play the referee not coach of one of the teams. I don’t agree with his position and I’m just conjecturing but that’s my take on Mohler.
Today’s episode of Founders podcast, interviewing Rod Martin, new member of the SBC executive committee. A bit about the documentary and a good discussion of SBC polity.
I heard from elsewhere that every SBC member church that gives to the cooperative program has the right to send up to 12 messengers to the annual convention. If that’s the case, you really could have–at least in theory–a grassroots movement to take back the denomination. Not sure if that will happen and I’m not sure whether having big denominations is a good idea in the first place (as opposed to decentralized, local networks) but that’s another topic for another time.
If it was a blurred image of your wife following the image of the godless “pastor” Nadia Bolz with a narrator talking about principalities and powers while that image of your wife appears, would you see that as a valid editorial choice?
If not, why are you OK with Mrs. Denhollander’s image being used that way? Do you suppose she is operating under the power of demons? Contextually, the sequential ordering of images and words have meaning.
To suggest this was merely an editorial choice is a mincing of words. It was a statement. The men on Crosspolitic confirmed that Chocolate Knox edited the clip to include a blurred image of Mrs. Denhollander to make a statement. If the statement is true - no issue. If it is untrue, that’s a major sin.
Nah, I suppose he means that if they deceive about who they are that they won’t have any scruples to deceive in what they say. Liars will tell truths that suit them.
Truth is I know little to nothing about Denhollander except that she was at one time a victim of sexual assault and is now a lawyer. That doesn’t give her any special anointing as far as I’m concerned. If Founders wants to make the case that she is connected to this humanistic worldview that is penetrating into the SBC then I am welcome to see it.
So far the biggest mischaracterizations I’ve seen is from the critics, who don’t want the movie made. And by the way Chocolate Knox is the perfect man for the job. This is the real reason people are loosing it. They’ve seen his work and they know he will utterly expose their false narratives.
If you listened to the episode of Crosspolitic where they discussed this, then you must be aware that their primary interpretation of “powers and principalities” is human authorities–civil, political, institutional, & ecclesial. They belabored this point in their episode, yet critics still insist they are accusing Denhollander of being demonized by mentioning “powers and principalities.” Why render judgement on the basis of half their words instead of all of them?
I don’t think they should have included her image in the original trailer and I said that from the beginning. I understand why they did and I don’t think it crossed over into sin. Still–I wouldn’t have done it. But seeing that Founders has removed her image from the re-cut trailer and acknowledged the original choice as unwise, I’m sure your reservations about the film have dissolved, correct?
Does someone require a special anointing to not be vilified? Certainly you don’t think so.
Part of the problem in social media is that those who participate in hot topic discussion tend to mischaracterize. Crosspolitic has done it and I believe some of their critics have.
The strategic placement of Mrs Denhollander’s image where it was placed - directly after “pastor” Nadia, and talk of “principalities and powers;” together - as a unified message - communicated to most people something very sinister. Blame it on the viewers, I guess, but we’re talking about the use of a highly affective medium and it was designed to elicit a response.
Zak,
You’re giving a pass to these guys that I don’t see participants on Sanityville providing to those outside of such a camp. I listened to that segment of Crosspolitic. Let’s evaluate the content of what you’re saying.
Their (Crosspolitic’s) interpretation of powers and principalities includes human authorities. It’s not limited to human authorities. Toby Sumpter acknowledges, Scripturally, that includes angels…and that would also include fallen angels (demons).
Using Sumpter’s own words, the interpretive inclusion of demonic powers remains for that Biblical passage. If the demonic was not an intended meaning for the trailer, the blame resides with Chocolate Knox. Perhaps it was unintentional, but he should be held to a higher standard than the average viewer.
To me it seems like you are picking nits. Now I wouldnt know Denhollander if she walked into my living room. But I saw the trailer and didn’t think anything at all of the part you find completely unacceptable. I distrust documentaries in general because they are so effective at shaping the way people feel and then think. But if documentaries are ok then I think the offensive portion of this trailer is ok. However, several people had a problem with it, said it portrayed something specific that they didn’t intend, so they made a public apology and took it out. What more could you want?
I wish they’d worked it out. I do think Denhollander in the trailer at all was an own goal. Issues surrounding the mishandling of sexual abuse in the church (including the subsequent moral panic and scapegoating resulting from the mishandling) are probably a cousin of the Critical Theory issues but including her in the trailer was just handing their opponents an excuse to dismiss their whole project.
It still seems like a dumb reason for a board to crumble.