On On August 19th, 2009 at the SBTS President’s Forum, Dr. Mohler delivered a message on the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention. Below the video are the 10 points Dr. Mohler said Southern Baptists will face in the future.
Dr. Mohler presents these questions as dichotomies. He suggests that Southern Baptists are going to chose one position or the other.
- Missiological or bureaucratic.
- Tribal or theological.
- Convictional or confused in theological positions.
- Logic more secular or sectarian.
- Become younger or dead.
- Be more diverse or be diminished.
- Become missional or more methodological.
- More strategic or more anemic.
- More bold or more boring.
- Happy or bitter.
He ends by saying that the SBC is at a crossroads and that structure (and re-structuring) is not the primary issue. The “ethos, mission and purpose of the denomination” is the primary issue. The SBC needs to risk the structural and institutional questions being permanently open seeking to be biblically faithful in every aspect.
To get a full picture of the above points please listen to Dr. Mohler’s presentation. He offers an interesting perspective to consider as the annual convention approaches.
Grace and peace,
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 6 comments }
There is a classic rhetorical fallacy known as a “false dichotomy” that is more popularly referred to as the “either/or” fallacy. Dr. Mohler’s list makes use of this logical fallacy ten times by presenting only two options each time and setting the two against one another when in fact there exists a much wider variety of possibilities for our Southern Baptist future.
Because of his stature, deserved in many respects I might add, one might also consider the existence of an “Ad Verecundiam” or “appeal to authority” fallacy. Just because Al Mohler says it doesn’t make it true.
Is it really true, for example, that out of the full range of hundreds of emotions, Southern Baptists will either feel “happy” or “bitter?” Could we not rather feel “burdened” or “saddened” or “resolved” or “excited” or any number of other possible emotions?
While I respect his analysis of most social and moral concerns, I generally disagree with much of his soteriology and most of his futurology.
Rick:
I actually think that #1, 3, and 5 are spot on and don’t create a false dichotomy. The rest of them, though, do perplex me. Each of the other comparisons… don’t really compare. It’s apples and oranges. More strategic-the opposite of that would be aimless or purposeless not anemic. More bold- the opposite is not boring, it’s something else like cowardly.
So in a way, I do agree with you. But, pointing out that the “appeal to authority” fallacy is a little low. ANYONE can pull that card when it comes social/theological issues. Just because Billy Graham/John Calvin/D.L. Moody/Joel Osteen/Rick Warren/John Piper said it doesn’t make it true either. Unfortunately, preachers build their entire careers on that particular fallacy. The truth is, Mohler thinks, writes, reads, and talks about these issues for hours every day. Of course people are going to listen his opinion and think his projections are true.
Also, why do you respect his analysis of moral and social concerns if you disagree with his soteriology and futurology.
Nathan,
I agree with you that several of these dichotomies are imprecise at the very least since they are not really opposing concepts. You make an excellent point that I never really considered before.
Regarding the authority appeal, please know that my heart is not for this to sound like a low blow in the least. I simply think that sometimes revered leaders can get away with making statements about which no one really thinks critically simply because of their stature. It’s not unlike the way NBA stars always seem to get the favorable calls. I could not agree with you more that many other leaders such as the ones you listed often get a free pass as well.
Your closing question deserves a reply. Generally, we can agree with a leader in one area without yielding to them in another. I greatly respect Mohler’s perspective on matters like the Sanctity of Human Life, for example, since he is an eloquent theologian and ethicist. I happen to disagree with him on some of his reformed doctrines. I am not, for example, a five-point Calvinist.
Consider another example: I think Joel Osteen has a terrific personality and a photogenic smile, but I disagreed with his remarks on Larry King some time ago which frankly supported universalism. I remember reading Dr. Mohler’s gracious remarks after that exchange, and I certainly agreed with Mohler over Osteen.
In other words, I think we should approach each issue individually and think critically about the matters being discussed without allowing the celebrity status of an authority figure to intimidate us into accepting ideas that would be challenged if someone else espoused them. Put simply, I think Dr. Mohler is a better ethicist and (for the most part) theologian than he is a futurologist.
I was going to point out the “false dichotomy” fallacy but Rick saw it quickly. You will notice the most dangerous false dichotomy that these talking head types have insidiously sown in SBC: we must be younger or dead.
This terrible dichotomy first took hold in the Purpose Driven philosophy which drove thousands of seniors from the churches they had built and left hundreds of church carcasses strewn about the landscape while the “young” bucks went back into secular work.
I think we should follow what the Bible says about seniors instead of the popular movie, “Throw Momma from the Train.”
PS–I am a senior pastor but not a senior citizen. My church would collapse if I depended upon the “younger” crowd alone.
good call, rick.
also, i’m pondering numbers 7 and 8 quite a bit:
7) become missional or methodological
more strategic or more anemic
unless i’m wrong, number 7 seems to suggest that we’ll have to choose between using methods to reach people or just being missional and reaching them (false dichotomy, by the way). then number 8, the very next one, suggests that if we’re not strategic (which I think is equivalent to “methodological”), we’ll end up being anemic (i.e. weak, think, and impotent).
sometimes fellow Baptists remind me of Daniel Parker, the preacher from the early 1900s who got up on stumps and preached about just doing things biblically instead of having associations and all that new-fangled education and stuff. i suppose the difference here, though, is that mohler might want it both ways. let’s be missional, not methodological (cue the amens). also, let’s be strategic, not anemic (cue the amens). wait . . . what? but you just said . . .
sorry, i did 8 plus ) and got
Comments on this entry are closed.