Posted by Tim Rogers on July 6, 2011
Posted in Dr. Al Mohler • Humor • SBC Issues | 1 Comment
When Southern Baptists left Phoenix, Arizona they left a delayed “dust-up” with the response of Dr. Al Mohler. Well we now see the results of this dust storm. I pray the dust cloud doesn’t cover the SBC as it did Phoenix, Arizona.
Posted by Tim Rogers on June 30, 2011
Posted in Convention • Dr. Al Mohler • Homosexuality • SBC Issues | 1 Comment
Dr. Al Mohler
In order to keep from appearing pedantic, this is my last post on Dr. Mohler’s response. I was fully prepared to not write anything further the last time I said this but Dr. Mohler responded in two different venues since that time. Thus, unless he responds again with anything other than an apology to Southern Baptists I will drop this issue.
@albertmohler Same-sex marriage approved by 33-29 vote in New York senate. Sad day for marriage…and for us all.
The tweet above was tweeted by Dr. Al Mohler from his twitter account late at night on June 24. Dr. Mohler’s tweet was retweeted by over 100 others which included many younger Southern Baptist pastors and leaders. What is confusing with all of this?
First, I am saddened by the vote of New York. I believe if we ever give up the fight against making same-sex marriage normal, our children’s children will accept it as normal.
Second, Dr. Mohler seems to have surrendered, not the Biblical position against same-sex marriage as normal, but the cultural fight concerning the nature of homosexuality. I submit to you that as a result of the laying down of this epistemological position concerning homosexuality, same-sex marriage will be the norm within the next 10 years. Dr. Mohler is a leading conservative voice in the culture battle and his statement “we have lied concerning the nature of homosexuality” is a huge step.
Posted by Tim Rogers on June 24, 2011
Posted in Baptist Press • Dr. Al Mohler • Homosexuality | 6 Comments
It appears that Dr. Al Mohler has now clarified his comments made at the convention. Due to an upcoming short-term mission trip to Honduras and pastoral duties at the church, I am not able to dissect and report on his new comments. After a brief glance it appears that Dr. Mohler and Dr. Phil Johnson are not using the same definitions for homophobia.
However, with that said, I am thankful that Dr. Mohler has clarified what he means. It still does not give me the warm fuzzies. Honestly, I do not remember the last time I got the warm fuzzies reading an academic explain something.
This is my last article concerning the question asked of Dr. Al Mohler by Peter Lumpkins. Unless there are future developments I will, after this article, stop speaking of this matter. I have presented, what I believe to be, a well reasoned approach that neither takes unfair shots at Dr. Mohler nor allows his statements to go unquestioned. I do pray that Dr. Mohler will respond to clarify how he sees Southern Baptists practicing a form of homophobia, and to give evidence of past lies concerning the nature of homosexuality.
With all of that said a sad by-line of this matter lies in the coverage, or lack thereof, of our denominational news organization. When one views the article concerning the seminary reports one will notice something conspicuously missing. Read more
It seems that many are coming to the defense of Dr. Al Mohler after he affirmed, at the recent annual gathering of Southern Baptists in Phoenix, a statement where he called Southern Baptists liars and homophobic. Dr. Mohler has always been clear about the biblical position concerning homosexuality. His articles and thoughts have been the ones that Southern Baptists, in particular, and Evangelicals, as a whole, have turned for research to position themselves on the side of scripture. Thus, a quote in a secular article was the catalyst for the question from Peter Lumpkins. The article attributes a quote to Dr. Mohler that seems to be in disagreement with Dr. Mohler’s position on homosexuality. How did Dr. Mohler respond to this article? He wrote an article expressing, not that he was positioned in agreement with Jay Bakker, but that Jay Bakker was using “clobber scriptures” out of context. How did Dr. Mohler respond to the question? He adamantly affirmed the words were his and then proceeded to re-establish his position that homosexual behavior is a sin, but was more than a choice by the homosexual.
How others Defend Dr. Mohler
In an article on American Family Association Blog Roll by Elijah Friedman writing from the The Millennial Perspective, Friedman states:
Posted by Tim Rogers on June 16, 2011
Posted in Dr. Al Mohler • Dr. Richard Land • ERLC • Homosexuality | 34 Comments
“We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophobia,” Mohler says. “We’ve used the ‘choice’ language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice”
When I first read those words I was taken aback. Surely Dr. Mohler would not suggest that Southern Baptists have lied about homosexuals being born with a homosexual gene and as a result could not change. You see, it is Dr. Mohler that has clearly articulated the Biblical position we are all born with a sin nature and as such there is no sin found within our marred DNA design that the application of the Blood of Jesus doesn’t change. All Southern Baptist I have ever come into contact with would affirm that position. Certainly Dr. Mohler, a strong advocate concerning the stand the Bible takes on homosexuality, would not attribute a dishonest perspective to Southern Baptist for standing on God’s word when articulating our position. A position Dr. Mohler has helped shape over the past 20 years. Certainly Dr. Mohler would not have said something in an article where the author attributes Dr. Mohler’s position as the same position of Jay Bakker. Dr. Mohler just recently came out deriding Jay Bakker and his take on homosexuality.
Posted by Tim Rogers on April 8, 2011
Posted in Dr. Al Mohler • Islam • Qur'an | 7 Comments
As I was preparing for ministry, my pastor told me not to worry about the size of the church because I was God’s man. God would place the one in the church He decided was the qualified candidate and it was my job to follow God’s leading. He also taught me that it takes time to grow a church and if the church did not embark upon a fast growth that I just needed to stay faithful to preaching the Word. I have practiced this and followed what I believed was the hand of God leading me. I first started as a single pastor in a rural church that had an average attendance of thirty-five from birth to adult. That was a sweet ministry and I was able, by God’s grace, to see God use me in that ministry. Did we go from 35 to 350? No. But we did see God grow people in beautiful ways and saw people give their hearts to Jesus. Thus that church was very instrumental in my life and as God opened doors for me to move to other churches it has been a wonderful time. However, I have never been pastor of a church that has run over 250 in Worship services.
It is from that background that I, along with 80% of SBC pastors, understand that we are just as important to the SBC as a pastor that serves in a church that averages 500, 750, 1000, 1500, or 2000 and above. Do not get me wrong, I do understand that the pastors serving in those churches have different skills and gifts but as for filling the role of pastor church size does not diminish or establish their importance. If we ever begin distinguishing pastors based on the size of churches they serve we have violated James 2:9. It is this type of violation that I want to point out in a recent article.
In his recent blog article, which was picked up by Baptist Press, Dr. Al Mohler took on Pastor Terry Jones for burning the Qur’an. Read more
Various times in the past we have debated the usefulness of Dr. Mohler’s Theological Triage system. We have also debated, ad nauseum, Baptism and how it relates to the triage system. But, we have not addressed the Abstract of Principles that closely and it is this document that I desire to bring into the fray. Why? We have two schools that require their Professors to teach “in accordance with and not contrary to the Abstract of Principles and the Baptist Faith and Message”. With that statement one needs to understand that the Abstract of Principles is not a document that the entire SBC has affirmed as doctrinal standards as we have the Baptist Faith and Message, 1925, 1963, and 2000. We have two autonomous entities that have chosen to require her faculty to adhere to the standard of theological teaching that is outlined in the Abstract. While that is an entity’s prerogative, it does not mean that the entire convention has affirmed the document. With this in mind let’s first look at the Theological Triage System.
Dr. Albert Mohler, when expressing his Theological Triage system states:
The truthfulness and authority of the Holy Scriptures must also rank as a first-order doctrine, for without an affirmation of the Bible as the very Word of God, we are left without any adequate authority for distinguishing truth from error.