In a Q&A at a chapel service at Southern Seminary, Dr. Mohler took questions from students. One, not surprisingly, was about social justice. The question comes at about the 24 minute mark and his answer runs nearly 40 minutes.
However, it is biblically, theologically, and historically sound. It is collegial but direct. He details two main reasons why he did not sign and was uncomfortable with the Social Justice statement coming from the MacArthur camp.
He gives a detailed explanation of the difference between liberal “critical theory” social justice and biblical social justice, explains what “gospel issue” means and the danger of using the term.
I believe that, from now on, those who ask for questions and specifics will simply be referred to this clip. It is well worth about 37 minutes of your time.
One more observation. SBTS needs a dress code. The next question after the social justice question was one about the ReVoice conference and that guy’s shirt – well, c’mon man! That ain’t right.
Are you seriously mocking my style of dress? I thought we were friends. You are now anathema to me!
You wear that shirt, I will mock.
Yeah, that shirt was turrible (Said in my Best Charles Barkley voice)
I saw that clip early this morning… It was very good indeed.
Especially appreciated how he did not use any pejoratives or attack anyone‘s character or motives… I think we all can learn from that.
I know that Dr. Mohler was not the person you had in mind to moderate the forum that you mentioned in your other post… But after this… He just might be the right man.
Toward the end of the clip he hit on what I think is perhaps the crux of the debate… when he talked about a conversional view of the gospel and a Transformational view of the gospel…I thought his example of MacArthur on one “pole” and Keller on the other was really good…affirming both as faithful gospel preachers (he did note that he is personally closer to the JMac pole).
He certainly spoke of the reasons that he did not sign the document – while I disagree that the document actually conveys what he suggested it conveys – a denial of the existence of victims of injustice – (in fact it says just the opposite) – I can see where his objection comes with regard to the substance of the article and I’m pleased that his objection is beyond that of personality driven opposition…
I also appreciated that he called the document helpful and affirmed those who wrote and signed it as faithful Christians deserving to be in this needed conversation.
“Where gospel people are there will be a passion for justice.” Agreed indeed.
I thought all of this was about right. I think it’s no coincidence that the two poles he picked are an Independent Baptist and a Presbyterian.
I think Article XV is the Baptist Faith & Message response to the MacArthur pole.
I would like to see the “Pro SJ” SBC side wrestle with Article XVII a bit, which is the Baptist response to the “Christian transformation of society” pole. “The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.”
MacArthur isn’t a Presbyterian
Listen to the Q&A.
MacArthur is non-denominational and Keller is Presbyterian.
JM is freechurch, credobaptist, reformed, incorporates some Spurgeon,, etc. He’s nondenominational evangelical, but “baptistic” for this purpose.
Note, Dave, that Mohler rejected the idea that you can affirm a document on the words in the document alone but must also consider the background and commentary surrounding the document. I think that was an important point and one of the reasons that many of the Voices team reject the document while agreeing with much of its content if considering the words alone. You cannot separate the document from the personalities and stated positions of those who were its authors and initial signatories.
Todd,
I did note that. I disagree with him. I assert It is possible to affirm a document’s text without affirming everything a signatory (initial or not) has ever said or done.
Surely there have been those Who rightly taught and affirmed sexual purity… And even signed documents regarding such… And did not live up to it… Should we reject those documents because some of the writers/signatories didn’t live up to it… Or because we disagree with something they may have said, wrote or taught? Or should we let the documents rise or fall on thier own merit or lack thereof?
I also noted what I believe to be the main reason Mohler didn’t sign – because he wasn’t involved in crafting it. That’s fine – I respect that – but it seems that was his main reasoning. “I’d rather affirm documents that are written like I would write them.” (That’s a paraphrase from memory)
I still think the objection he gave as to the document suggesting there are not real and legit victims of injustice is without merit given that it’s been stated numerous times that such was not the intent of the document.
It seems many people… And even one author on this forum recently … Are finding and announcing objection to the document in its crafting stages as opposed to the final (and published) stage.
Also, since you bring it up, I know for certain that some of the editorial team has expressed a distaste for/objection to JMac and other initial signatories LONG before this statement or his blog ever entered the picture.
Shall we judge the entire document by some of its most personally objectionable signatories?
Wasn’t an article written here, on voices, that we ought not do that – judge a “movement” by its most objectionable adherents?
Not everyone holds reflexive animosity (but instead tremendous respect) toward many of the initial signatories – and therefore are more willing to grant deference to them and the works they are
involved in than are others.
I agree with what you said about Mohler (…what I believe to be the main reason Mohler didn’t sign – because he wasn’t involved in crafting it. ). My question though, is, why wasn’t he involved in it? He stated that MacArthur was one of his best friends, and that he has been concerned with critical theory for forty years. It seems like he is connected, and eminently qualified to take part in this statement.
No idea. To make a guess without his or the crafters comment might be irresponsible.
You’re absolutely right! It would be irresponsible. I think that both he and the crafters are going to duck this question for that very reason. I hope I’m wrong.
Isn’t there always a number of persons who might be qualified but are left out of crafting documents?
Were there persons who weren’t included in the BFM2000 revision task force who would have been good to have had involved? Was the team formed “more” qualified – or are those not on the task force “less” so?
Can’t always involve everyone.
I’m not speculating as to why he wasn’t involved – simply saying there’s always gonna be people “left out” ( for lack of a better term at the moment).
It may not “mean” anything that Ole Al wasn’t a party to the crafting or it might – like I said – speculative.
Thanks.
I look forward to listening to this.
I suspect in advance that Dr. Mohler will speak clearly.
The question will be whether SJWs in the SBC will follow Mohler’s lead, or something else.
I confess that where I am right now and what I am doing, my experience is with, what Mohler calls, “liberal ‘critical theory’ social justice. Thus, when I hear or see the term “social justice” this is the meaning I attribute to the term. This meaning is behind every comment I have made on this issue. The issue of social justice and its effects in the classroom is integral to my dissertation. My living room is buried in research articles dealing with this topic. I consider Mohler to be one of the smartest people in the convention. His opinion is worth serious reflection.
John Sneed:
That is an important point.
Most preachers who have been using that term have no background in the issue. If they or the people they look up to use the term, they are going to hang on to it. That’s especially true if it’s trendy.
I think ditching the term is an opportunity to clearly contrast the difference between what true justice is vs. the social justice they hear about in the culture.
Yep
I second CB’s yep.
And once again, all of you heard what you wanted to hear,skipping entirely the parts you don’t want to hear.
And Louis comments before even listening and it shows.
Dr. Mohler sketched the historical, theological, and soteriological parameters of the SJ issue from a well-informed perspective.
And he said this is a conversation we need to have.
So let’s dispense with the idea that those of us who are concerned are daft war-mongers.
Let’s have the conversation.
Dave:
This was an excellent summary by Dr. Mohler.
Your summary is good. I think his warnings about using “Gospel Issue” will go a long way to restraining that term, but without making enemies.
The same is true with his discussion of “ Social Justice”. Most of the people using that term probably had no background in it, but they’ve heard it being used in the culture and picked it up.
He also has a good understanding of SBC and Southern history, but has no interest in removing Joseph Brown’s name from the chair he holds or the names and portraits of the founders.
I liked that he read from the BFM, which is an excellent statement and doesn’t contain confusing terms like “Social Justice.”
I understand his decision not to sign the statement. I share the concern of signing documents I didn’t draft in this context.
Like someone said above, I didn’t think the statement denies the existence of victims, but people claiming victim status illegitimately. But he even deals with this well.
His reference to sexually abused persons sincerely had me wondering if he was referring to the Catholic Church or CJ Mahaney. The description would apply to both. I am sure Mohler’s detractors will use this like a club. Mahaney and SFM were protected by the guys at T4G for years, and the victims and their families.
I am left with 4 thoughts.
First, this Q&A was obviously planned, as evidenced by the prepared text from which he read.
Second, he is right to note that the discussion is not over.
Third, the number of corrections he issues to the SJWs and Gospel Issue folks is likely to work as a further slowing of the issues.
Fourth, he left unanswered the application issues.
The debate is over language a little bit, but application a lot.
The real difference between justice and social justice is seen in the remedies.
For example, I listened to a speech today by another Southern Baptist who used the passage in James about paying an employee as support for a “just” wage. That is not what the passage says. The passage is talking about not paying wages due an employee. Not setting a “just wage.”
This is one example.
So watching the advocacy will show whether a speaker is advocating biblical justice or addressing disparities, which is a project of Critical Theory.
Right.
Was the Master in Jesus’ parable where the employees were paid as promised and agreed upon by both the master and the servant (but not equally) unjust? (Matthew 20:1-16)
One of the things I found very refreshing about this article was Dr. Mohler’s concern for victims of oppression. In our more right wing form of theology we tend to dismiss the idea that in 2018 that there are oppressed peoples in our nation. Our answer to almost any social dilemma is to simply deny it, or to blame the victim themselves. We would all do well to purposefully befriend and listen to folks who have a different perspective and a different experience than we do.
Let me give you an example, predatory lending systematically oppresses poor people in our nation. But, because we who are on the right have blended our political, economic, and theological beliefs together, we tend to simply blame the poor for their situation, or we deny that such a problem exists. And because we have blended our economic view with our theological view we tend to regard capitalism as so sacred that we don’t believe in regulating it at all. Of course, our theology ought to inform every other belief we hold to, but it’s almost as if our political and economic beliefs are informing our theology on these social issues.
John, thanks for mentioning this. I can’t tell you how many people my church has helped in dealing with check cashing, payday loans, etc over the years. It’s an equal opportunity destroyer and is a practice that needs to end.
Thank you, brother. I know that our world will always be fallen and imperfect until Jesus returns, but Christianity ought to make the world a little better place everywhere it goes.
I agree. Payday lending is oppressive and manipulative and disgusting. It preys on those who are in vulnerable position. Besides that It’s not capitalism – it’s theft.
I feel the same about the lottery, btw. I’m not “against” the lottery because it’s gambling – I’ve voted and spoken against it because it predominately thrives off those who are most vulnerable and desperate.
I have no problem with lotteries. It’s a matter of freedom. If people want to play, let them play. They said in our state that if a lottery were adopted, it would lead to more poor people etc. That hasn’t happened. At all.
Opposing lotteries is just a redo of opposition to alcohol. We should stay out of it IMO.
I do have an economic objection, however. In our state, the money raised is for a “Hope Scholarship”, which is like a $4,000 contribution toward college tuition.
But of course , we know what this means. This is a subsidy to higher ed. This doesn’t reduce the cost of college by $4,000. Over time, it increases the tuition by $4,000.
This is why healthcare and higher ed have the highest inflation rates. They are awash in government subsidies. Meanwhile, with all this money, the price of tuition goes up, and kids graduate with mountains of debt.
Then, the irony – the kids are demanding that the debt be forgiven.
This is not injustice. This is just stupid.
But I think that Bible is as anti-stupid as it is pro-justice.
I am agnostic on the payday lending thing, probably because I just don’t know about it.
I am pretty much reflexively against anything Christian groups try to do when it comes to economic regulation. Mainly because Christian groups know very little about economics or the importance of economic freedom. It’s pretty easy to envision big piles of cash held by someone, and to envision poverty and need, and to think “Gee, wouldn’t it be great if we could take this cash do lots of good, as we see it, with this cash?”
This impulse has been around the Christian faith since the industrial revolution. It was first practiced by William Jennings Bryan, well known Christian, 3 time Democrat candidate for President (I think it was 3), and special lawyer for Rhea County in the Scopes trial.
He was a demagogue if there ever was one. The US is very fortunate he was never elected. The country could probably have been thrown back to the economic stone age.
Anyway, I always hear his ghost when I see my sincere and biblically sensitive brethren talking about financial regulation.
Generally, the extension of credit by free individuals, i.e., private banks (not the government) is a really necessary thing in free society. That’s why we Christians in the US have church buildings, seminary buildings, missionary facilities at the IMB, LifeWay, etc., and houses to live in.
If the government ever becomes the source of credit, don’t look for many churches or church related projects to be built, and look for Christians to be on the short end of the credit extension list.
How much can be loaned, the interest rate, the term of repayment, are all a function of the market. Credit, like anything, can be misused.
So there may be some reasonable reforms to put in place. Just haven’t looked at it that carefully. But let’s be careful when we tread in this area.
Simple thinking can have disastrous consequences.
Thank you, Clarence Darrow. 😉 Well stated.
What I appreciated about Mohler’s discussion here was that on almost every issue he admitted gray areas and interpretational difficulties. We are too often told that things are black and white (perhaps a poor choice of words on a social justice topic!) when there are shades of gray. This was true on the SJ topic and on the other topics he addressed.
The idea that something can only be seen ONE way is not often true when you are dealing with tertiary topics.
I appreciate you sharing this clip of Mohler addressing the social justice and racial reconciliation issues. He spoke very eloquently about the issues and gave a lot of historical background that is really helpful. It was a very balanced talk.
Having said that, in your post you said that he spoke about specifics pertaining to questions about systemic racism and black oppression. I watched the entire video once and went back and watched several parts several more times and I just can’t figure out where he spoke specifically about where we see systemic racism today and how we address the issue. At the 47 min mark he talks about basic structures of racism that have been “embedded in every part of every culture and community that he has been a part of throughout his life.” But like many on Voices, he throws that claim out there to hang in the air but then does not give any specifics so that we can actually do something about it. Why are there so many who are more than willing to talk about this issue in vague terms but then go silent when pressed for specifics?
Since you claim the he spoke specifically to the questions that have been asked recently on Voices, would you mind pointing me to the minute mark on the video so that I can go back and listen to those specifics?
Good thoughts Dave Miller.
I agree with Debbie. Dave, these are good thoughts
Tertiary issue for sure.
Yes. Tertiary. Even I have to remember that.
I appreciated Dr Mohler’s comments. Two things he said brought me to these conclusions:
1. Biblical justice ALWAYS has social implications, but mainstream “social justice” is a movement of radical Marxism NOT compatible with a Christian understanding of justice.
2. Biblical justice is NOT a gospel issue, but rather a sanctification issue where the fruit of the gospel is produced.