|
 I remember the good old days in the Southern Baptist Convention. Although many of the moderate professors were rude and condescending toward fundamentalists, the tone of the SBC was a lot less negative in general. You can see that in the resolutions at the conventions prior to the Fundamentalist Takeover in 1979.
Foy Valentine, when asked if Southern Baptists considered themselves Evangelicals, said emphatically that “we don’t share their politics or their fussy fundamentalism.†He also condemned their “theological witch-hunts.†Ah, the good old days!
Recently, an Evangelical Manifesto was composed and signed by such Evangelical greats as, Mark Noll, Alvin Plantinga, Daniel L. Akin, Kay Arthur, Max Lucado, and Jim Wallace. There are many Southern Baptist pastors that also signed on.
However, Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was critical of the document. Surprise, surprise. Mohler is about the most negative commentator, other than me, that I’ve ever read. Here’s a brief summary of his concerns:
1. Al says it doesn’t condemn non-Christians enough!
“it leaves out the question of the exclusivity of salvation to those who have come to Christ by faith.†Al wants to make damn sure that any group he supports makes it very clear that certain folks (probably lots) are going to hell! This statement wasn’t clear enough for Al: “the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life ‘from above.’”
2. Al also isn’t satisfied that Evangelicals don’t condemn other Christians!
Al writes, “Another complication on this score comes from the fact that Evangelicals are identified as ‘one of the great traditions that have developed within the Christian Church over the centuries.’ There is a sense in which this is true, of course, but relegating the Evangelical understanding of the Gospel to just one among many Christian traditions undercuts our witness and sows seeds of confusion.â€
God forbid that someone might confuse an Evangelical with one of the pagan streams within Christianity!
3. Al says it’s not negative enough!
He writes, “Evangelicals sometimes have to make strong judgments, the authors assert, but only after clarifying that the “Good News” of the Gospel “is overwhelmingly positive, and is always positive before it is negative.” Further: “Evangelicals are for Someone and for something rather than against anyone or anything.”
This is a wonderful statement, and entirely true. Nevertheless, as a statement of public relations it will not get very far — not if any honest discussion or disclosure follows. As the authors recognize, to be for one principle is to oppose its opposite. Those holding to contrary principles will not be persuaded to cease stating that we are against their principles and aims.”
4. Al says civility is overrated!
Al asks, “Where does a commitment to civility meet its limits? Can one speak truthfully of the Gospel, and of the fact that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation, and be considered civil?”
Nope. Southern Baptists still aren’t Evangelicals. Unfortunately now that folks like Mohler are “in charge,” those fussy fundamentalists are too nice, civil, and liberal!
| 
