Sadly, this is how Southern is run. Mohler grooms his successors, not taking careful inventory of their positions, and then puts them in places of leadership that they should have never been in, to begin with. As an alum (M.Div and Ph.D.), we all know this is the case but if you speak out about it, then you’re scrubbed just like the website.
Adam, I am not yet at the point where I am willing to say how it is happening. But I think we can all affirm that it is happening.
I’d like to offer an idea to help engage the “woke” movement more effectively. I notice that you repeatedly criticize the wokists for engaging in “identity politics.” With all due respect, I don’t think this is accurate. I think it would be better to call it “anti-white politics.” This is because the entire woke movement is aimed specifically at hurting white people. You don’t see blacks attacking Hispanics or Asians attacking blacks.
Furthermore, I think giving their views labels like “Critical Race Theory” is to over-intellectualize them. As I’ve stated in past comments, it’s highly doubtful these are dyed-in-the-wool Marxists or “Critical Theorists” who spend their time studying the works of the Frankfurt School or The Authoritarian Personality. They may employ some of their talking points, but ultimately they’re just anti-white.
That’s the word I think we should use from now on: Anti-white. By calling them this, we’re showing that we’re aware of their underlying motivations and that we’re willing to call them out on it. Furthermore, it shows that we have no intention of legitimizing their notions about critical theory, intersectionality, etc. by trying to have a “good faith” debate with them.
After all, why should we accept the terminology and moral framework of people who hate us?
Armin, the reason I don’t approach it that way is because it communicates ineffectively. And besides, your standard doesn’t meet its own criteria — there are plenty of people who would be willing to sign up for your terminology who hate Christ, and so why should I want to share terminology with them. On top of that, we all speak English, and so that means we have to share vocabulary to a certain extent. The sinfulness of man and the deceitfulness of the devil mean that we must constantly be defining our terms, and not allow the discussion to get hauled off in weird directions. Christ is my identity, and not the sandy foundation of being anti-anti-white people.
The Way back machine has Hall’s article archived.
The video link takes you to the original Youtube link, but the WBM didn’t record the video.
Fred, thank you.
There are many things I want to say about this article, but I will only say what is necessary: my daughter, who is going to attend a large secular university on a full-ride academic scholarship thanks to Bruce Etter and his cohorts at Wilson Hill Academy, has threatened me on many occasions with naming her (eventual) first-born child “Scipio Africanus” whether or not the young lad or young lady is destined to defeat the 21st century equivalent of Hannibal.
This is what comes of a classical education.
Frank, you’re welcome.
I’ll just bet that Matthew Hall even has a token black friend. However, everything I have heard for the last few years would indicate that ALL white men are racist always — simply because they are white men. Therefore, Matthew Hall can be as WOKE as he wants to be and he will still be racist.
Melody, I think he would actually agree.
“But at least we now have our baseline metric to indicate the capability of the SBC in responding to something.”
The SBC actually had this baseline metric long ago, and apparently no one was really brave enough nor man enough to address it then (in keeping with your spot-on effeminacy article a few days ago.) Seems to me an equally critical issue to address is why now and not then?
Given that I am currently attending a bible college/seminary which is egalitarian and moderately liberal in nature, I am thoroughly grateful for the content put out by Canon Press. It is has helped reground myself in various things that I always knew to be true and has helped a few of us on campus band together with the knowledge that we are not alone.
I am attending a reformed-ish, soft-complementarian church deeply affiliated with 9marks, T4G, Gospel Coalition and the like. As far as I am concerned it is theologically sound, and the church life is generally healthy. I love the people of the church, and I respect each of the elders for various reasons. However, there are many views that are put forward that when applied to the family, I find problematic. Examples would include: An overly positive take on Ed Shaw’s rhetoric, destructive views on singleness, and a lack of understanding that children are very rarely not a product of how they were parented. This leads to my first question. 1). When should a someone leave their church over differences in views on the family.
The second predicament comes from a conversation with some elders recently. I discovered that the name Doug Wilson was apparently problematic because some of his “crazy” statements prevent people from hearing the good that he has to say. I immediately recognized that this criticism comes from a model of ministry which is concerned with party politics, image, and branding. I suppose these things are important, but the ideal ministry that I foresee for myself is Wilson or Peterson-esque. Not in terms of scale or influence, but in terms of being able to say what I think to be true without regard to how it impacts the brand that I am associated with. If I stay and attempt to pursue the path of ministry here, then I am going to have to accommodate myself to this ministry culture of protecting the brand. This leads to my second question. 2.) How should a young aspiring Pastor establish himself so as to not become entangled in associational politics? Or should he simply let the chips fall where they may?
Ben, with regard to your first question, I would have to ask what the alternatives are. You can always get out of the frying pan and into the fire. As regarding your second question, I would not recommend joining the staff of a church with an established culture, as a junior member of it, while retaining any hope of change.
Sir, you have managed to effectively call out and entire generation of silently effeminate men. Say a man repents of this spirit of silent effeminacy and finds himself in the eye of the storm or near the front lines. Where must he go and what must he do to get courage, heart, mojo to join the fight? The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
David, I would encourage you to start praying for courage in the current fight, and not so much praying for courage for a future fight. And pray that God make your path clear by launching you before you think you are ready.
Doug, I think you would like this guy.
John, yes, I most certainly do.
Well . . . looks like just maybe the SBC found their Tishbites . . . all the prophets are clamoring for their gods to show up and answer “by what standard.” This should be interesting.
Jordan, yes. Interesting indeed.
Sir, appreciated your thoughts on recent Founders video trailer, and especially your observation that “if we can just get that level of resistance to egalitarianism and identity politics, everything should be swell.” Quite true.
That said, there is something wacky to me about the video and how it was released . . . especially given your recent thoughts on the silence of effeminacy:
Numerous comments criticized the video’s inclusion of Rachael Denhollander, which confused me as I could find no image of her in said video. So I searched and found two versions of the video online . . . Now unless I’m very much mistaken, the video as originally released included said footage of Rachael (around the same time as the audio of “principalities and powers” was overlaid). But it appears that the footage of Rachael was quietly removed, apparently without comment, for the current version on the founders website. Something troubles me here, related to the very masculinity and courage you were recently discussing:
On the one hand, if the producers of this trailer/documentary had in fact intended to imply that Rachael is one prime example of the very dangerous overall problem, then I would expect them to lay out their position unapologetically and deal with whatever blowback would result, defend their position however unpopular, and not cower or back down in the face of hostile reaction to their unpopular belief.
On the other hand, if they sincerely felt they had committed a genuine error . . . perhaps they felt they’d overstated or miscommunicated their case, or perhaps they reconsidered and didn’t feel the implication appropriate, or perhaps the inclusion of Rachael’s image was the unapproved action of a loose-cannon or overeager video editor, or whatever, then I would expect them to be be upfront and honest, and lay out a bold, fearless, and unapologetic apology.
But the quiet, unannounced edit of their video (if that was in fact what happened) to remove the offending section without comment seems indicative of the very silence and cowardice you have been rightly rebuking. If there was any acknowledged retraction, I certainly cannot find it. The approach of, “Maybe we can just quietly remove the footage that is hurting people’s feelings and no one will notice . . .” seems to be indicative of the very problem at hand. Am I missing something here?
Daniel, very perceptive question. Yes, there is some missing context. After you wrote, Tom Ascol released a statement about the trailer which you can read here.
Regarding Dr. Mohler, no, he did not drop his signature from the Nashville Statement. Russell Moore did not so I would not expect him to either. Your question did make my stomach drop for a moment, as I assumed I got something wrong of significance.
However, Dr. Mohler did rescind his signature from the Manhattan Declaration. I do not know why. I have not done much searching, but to my knowledge, he has never discussed it. But I have a timeline which I think makes things clear to me. I will acknowledge upfront that the data excluded is as important as the data included, but I have tried to be comprehensive, brief, and fair.
Summer 1979 – The SBC Conservative Resurgence begins in earnest as an attempt to retake the convention back to conservative understanding of biblical inspiration
October through December, 1982 – The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy issued, and provides statements on biblical inerrancy, here, here, and here.
1993 – Al Mohler appointed President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, as a fruit of the Conservative Resurgence. Dr. Mohler essentially cleans house of those unwilling to be biblical inerrantists.
November 20, 2009 – The Manhattan Declaration is released, drafted by Chuck Colson, Robert P. George, and Timothy George. Mohler is an original signatory.
November 23, 2009 – Mohler publishes an essay, “Why I Signed the Manhattan Declaration”, on his website and other places, such as here. In several places he makes sure to note that he does so, not to excise any of his thinking on the Catholic or Orthodox churches, but to draw a line in the sand.
March, 2014 – Mohler is published in a book where he affirms and defends the Chicago Statement.
Septover, 2016 – Mr. Featherbottom, Esq., and Dr. Wormtongue, Ph.D., say Christians should be winsome Christians, explain nuance, and serve cookies to the angry mob while disagreeing in the least disagreeable manner.
June 12, 2018 – J.D. Greear elected President of SBC.
September 4, 2018 – The Dallas Statement is released (proper title: “The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel”). John MacArthur, Voddie Baucham, Phil Johnson (to name a few) sign. Mohler does not.
March, 2019 – The Shepherds’ Conference is held. During a Q&A, Phil Johnson asks the panel their various reasons for signing/not signing the Dallas Statement. Mohler responds at one point by saying they did not involve him in the drafting, and he is reluctant to sign public statements which he doesn’t help write. See this point in the session.
March 22, 2019 – Mohler silently rescinds his signature from the Manhattan Declaration and removes his justification from his website. See here. He took down his article here without comment. Still available here (for now).
If there was a theological reason to rescind it, let’s hear it. But we should also hear why his original statements no longer hold true. He signed it not without some reservation, but qualified it as much as he wanted to. You said similar things when you signed the Dallas Statement, yet your signature stands.
I was planning on perhaps couching one thing or possibly duveting another, but nah. Here it stands. I have changed my mind since the documentary trailer came out. “Shut up!” is not a really a rational defeater, even if it is efficacious for some.
We voted these guys in, so we do not really deserve better, but we need it.
William, thanks for all the links.
I am a PCA TE. I read your blog and it has been helpful particularly in the area of thinking through public policy matters. We probably have a 95% overlap on theology. This is all to say I’m not an opponent.
However, the effeminacy/silence, post prodded me in the same spot as a prior post. I didn’t bother to research the exact date of that post. In both cases it seems to me that you are broadly calling PCA TE’s who don’t respond to current matters in a certain way effeminate wusses.
My time is taken up preaching the Word, leading a Session, seeking to make disciples in small groups, leading a staff, etc. If a text legitimately confronts a specific cultural matter, then I preach it. My congregation is generally extremely politically conservative and insular. Why do I need to further poke that angry bear? I don’t blog, write about current events, or sit in front of abortion clinics. I have thought long about my responsibilities to confront denominational issues in accord with Matthew 18 and our BCO. This would involve a great deal of time and work between Presbyteries. Time I believe Jesus wants me to put into preaching and advancing the Kingdom through congregational evangelism.
Are you calling me an effeminate wuss? If the answer is yes, then I think the only solution is for you and I to have a fistfight. I think somewhere around Kansas City would be neutral ground. From your pictures you look much bigger, but I can promise you that I am scrappy and won’t quit easily. I think it would be much harder in the future for you to call me names. If the answer is no, then perhaps you will clarify or retract.
Chuck, this is a simple one. The answer is no. Since I am not sure of which earlier post you are referring to, clarifying my point might be difficult, but the answer is no. Think of it this way. There are many who are silent because they are cowards, and I was only talking about them. Others are silent because they are busy, and I it would be crazy to think that someone is effeminate because they don’t have time for everything. But with all that said, keep in mind that all the things you are busy with right now are things you won’t be able to continue to do when they haul both you and me off their Sensitivity Camp.
Another good read as usual. With loads of amens and conviction. I do have a question as I have not been really good at sticking around and making a whole lot of noise. I have typically made a handful of comments, tried talking to the pastor ( at an SBC and a PCA church) and realized it wasn’t going to make any difference, collected my football and went home. Let me explain.
After coming to Christ I started going to a large SBC church in my town with my wife and our two boys. Although I never became a member on the books (didn’t think it was biblical) I was very active. I was in the band, part of a rehab outreach, men’s group, etc. Well, as I started to see liberal/woke/lgbtq affirming tendencies among the youth pastor, other leadership and some of their offspring I started asking questions, making comments, talked to the pastor to no avail. I started reading about church discipline and what not and ended up a Calvinist in the mean time. At this same time we went through some very painful times with my oldest son who was being encouraged by a few of the youth to give in to his struggle against homosexuality. Well after making a little more trouble ( including giving a copy of Future Men and Family Shepherd by Voddie Bauchum to the youth pastor) I decided to take my wife and other children and leave. Which lead us to what I thought was going to be a safe bet (this was before Revoice)
So we started traveling around 80-90 miles round trip and a few towns over to attend a PCA. At first everything was good. Good solid preaching/worship etc. After a while we started considering becoming members so we started attending the adult Sunday School class and almost immediately the music leader/RUF elder/teacher started quoting from the likes of Tony Evans in a positive light. And making comments like “just go to church somewhere, anywhere.” And when I pressed him on this he said he meant one of 3 Presbyterian churches in town. (One of which ordains women elders and deacons.) Almost simultaneously the pastor started quoting from the likes of Timothy Keller. And when I called him on it he said that he realized that Tim was problematic but helpful at times. Maybe I’m being too picky. So I couldn’t align myself or my family there either. How do you become a member of a church and make a bunch of noise going in knowing that there are these liberal tendencies?
I realize that this comment is really long and you may not be able to post it to your site. But could you please take a little time to give a little counsel to a father who is trying to be a Federal Husband? I would be very grateful. These are pretty much my options near by. What’s a man to do? Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? Or should I go back to one and handcuff myself to the door and go on a hunger strike until there is corporate repentance? Is staying home and worshiping with my family while we hunt for a church planter worse than going to “church” at one of these places?
Grace and peace,
Santos, I obviously don’t know all the details, but from what you described I would not give up on the PCA church yet, although you might want to hold off on membership. A couple of stray comments, even though they are from staff members, should not be enough to rip it. I would wait and see what the denomination does in response to the report of their study committee.
Good men who do nothing are not good men. There, fixed it.
Robert, why, look at that! You did fix it.