I’ve been a regular attender of an SBC church since 9 months before I was born. It’s all I’ve known. I attended a Baptist-affiliated college, then after a brief and blessed stay at a conservative but non-denominational seminary, I graduated from SWBTS. I’m SBC born, SBC bred, and when I die I’ll be SBC dead. In fact, one of the strongest moments of divine call I had in my life was when I sense God’s leading to return to the SBC fold and move from Dallas to Southwestern, to invest my life in the SBC. My dad was lobbying for me to find another place to serve – his frustration with the SBC of the late 70s and early 80s was strong. But God called me to this flawed convention and my life’s work has been within its borders.
But I also realize that God has a lot of other good neighborhoods in his kingdom. I explored E-Free Village once, and the Bible Church Acres had some appeal. Never was tempted by Presbyterian Oaks but I’ve had some good times visiting in the Charismatic Heights area. Even Pentecostal Pines can make for some good times. You don’t have to be Southern Baptist to be a good Christian. You can serve God in other venues, other denominations, other churches. We are not the only community in Christ’s kingdom.
But I think a lot of people forget that. When I say what I am about to say, I can almost anticipate the reactions, as if I am casting people out of the kingdom, questioning the validity of their faith, or suggesting they be excommunicated from the church of Jesus Christ. No. My only point is that there are people who seem a bad fit for the SBC, who reject the way we do things – not so much our fundamental doctrines, but our polity, practices and procedures. (Nicely alliterated, Dave!)
Too few Southern Baptists understand who we are and how we work. People want things from us we cannot give and bring demands to which we cannot accede.
This is one of those posts that has been brewing in my brain for a long time, but a couple of things I’ve read in the last couple of days have moved me to put these thoughts on electronic paper. I hope my intended tone comes through – I’m trying to be direct without being offensive. But I will be dealing with some of the most controversial and difficult episodes in our recent history. As I mentioned, two blogposts I’ve read in the last couple of days have inspired (provoked me?) to put these words on internet-paper.
- One was from an aggressive “traditionalist” – well known for his antipathy toward Calvinists in the SBC. He published a diatribe threatening to withhold funding from the IMB if they hired a president not to his liking.
- The other post was from an ardent, passionate, Calvinist, who is part of a movement seeking to “reform” the SBC – along Calvinist lines, of course. He and his friends are sometimes harsh in their criticisms of the SBC (with some of those criticisms I agree and with some I disagree) and he’d been queried why he remains within the fold instead of heading out to some Reformed Baptist fellowship. He said it is his desire to remain within the SBC and to seek reform until we band together to kick him out.
Here’s the thing. These men are both well within their rights to advocate these positions within the SBC. We are a convention of free churches, and anyone affiliated with the SBC can lodge disagreements, seek reform, levy demands, as they wish. The only limitation is the Lordship of Christ and the teaching of God’s Word. If one man wants to threaten to withhold funds if a Calvinist is given a position, he is within his rights as a Southern Baptist. If another wants to reform the SBC to become more Calvinist, he too is within his rights as a Southern Baptist to pursue that aim.
My quarrel is not with those who articulate and advocate a position, but with those who seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the SBC is all about. We have a system of belief and of practice that we have believed is based on Scripture, though I’m sure tradition invades more than we’d like to admit. Not everyone who is a faithful Christian agrees with our autonomy, free church, baptistic and congregational beliefs. That’s fine. But it’s who we are. If these core beliefs rankle, rile, offend or annoy you, you can still be a faithful, Christ-loving, Word-honoring, Spirit-filled, blood-bought, heaven-bound Christian. Maybe, though, you should consider your involvement in the SBC. I’m not trying to add to the statistical decline of my beloved convention but I think we’d all be happier if those who do not appreciate or accept the basic beliefs and practices of our brand of Baptist life would find a fellowship that reflects their beliefs. At the very least, learn who we are and why we are what we are. If that just isn’t you, God bless you! It doesn’t mean you are a bad person or a bad Christian, but maybe the SBC just isn’t for you.
Please hear me. I’m not trying to tell anyone to leave the SBC. But if it’s not for you, it’s not for you. Why force it? Here’s a few thoughts about who we are.
1) The Southern Baptist Convention consists of free, self-governing churches (and conventions) without a denominational hierarchy.
Why didn’t Frank Page step in and do something about the mess at Louisiana College a couple of years ago? C’mon, Frank. Descend from your ivory tower and take charge! Right? WRONG! Had Frank Page interfered at LC, he would have been violating Baptist polity and overstepping the boundaries of his authority. The Louisiana Convention is an autonomous entity that governs itself through whatever process it has determined. It is NOT under the authority of Frank Page or the EC. Had Frank Page flown into Louisiana and tried to start setting things right, he would have been acting outside the boundaries of his authority. The same would be true if he tried to interfere in anything that might be happening in colleges in other unnamed Southern states.
The SBC cannot come into my church and tell me what to preach or how to act. It can vote (in business session) to refuse to seat messengers from my church and can perhaps declare us not to be in friendly cooperation. Acts 29 recently kicked Mark Driscoll and his church out of their fellowship. They can do that. But that is not Baptist polity. We do not function like hierarchical or authoritarian denominations or networks.
If you want the SBC to swoop in and set things right in this situation or that situation, one of two things is true. Either you don’t understand Baptist polity or you perhaps ought not to be a Southern Baptist. That’s just not who we are. It’s not just cowardice, it’s conviction. If you do not ascribe to the free church concept, to local church and entity autonomy, God bless you. Many denominations don’t. But we do. It’s who we are.
2) Southern Baptists partner on the big picture while disagreeing on MANY other things.
We are meant to be a big tent of believers, but not one of unlimited size! We have some fixed walls on the sides of our tent and are not willing to expand beyond certain points. But inside the tent there is a lot of room for a lot of people with a lot of different beliefs on a lot of different things.
The Baptist Faith and Message spells out Southern Baptists’ common core of belief, forged through the years, our way of interpreting the Bible and seeing the world. But it is not exhaustive. The BFM tells us that Jesus is coming again, but takes no position among the options. From partial preterism to dispensational fundamentalism; all of these beliefs are acceptable within the basics of our statement. As I understand it, the soteriological sections of the BFM were written specifically so that Calvinists and non-Calvinists could each see their own views in it. That is true on so many things. We spell out certain beliefs – this is who we are. But within those core beliefs we leave room for a wide range of views.
We agree that the Bible is God’s inerrant Word, that God is the sovereign who exists in Trinity, that Jesus is the God-man who died a substitutionary death to redeem us from our sins, that the Spirit indwells believers, that there is no hope of salvation outside of Christ, and that Jesus is coming again. We also believe in immersion of believers, in baptism and the Lord’s supper as the ordinances, in congregational government, local church autonomy, soul competency, and other Baptist distinctives. In recent years, we’ve nailed down positions on several family and gender issues.
But for a denomination as big as ours, our doctrinal statement is pretty general. Fundamental Christian doctrine. Basic Baptist beliefs. Biblically-defined family standards. Within the walls of this large tent, there’s room for the rowdy near-Charismatic types and stodgy liturgy-lovers, for Calvinists and non-Calvinists, for hipsters and white-shirt-and-tie guys, for cessationists and continuationists, for (yes, I said it) Republicans and Democrats (and even some Libertarians – as long as they stay in a corner and don’t bother folks!).
Here’s the thing: if you are going to be Southern Baptist, you have to learn to play nice with others, even those with whom you disagree. I absolutely cannot understand how anyone can read a Bible and become an amillennialist. But my missions money helps to support people who are professors, church-planters and missionaries who hold that viewpoint I reject. That’s life in the SBC. You cooperate with Baptist believers from a wide range of backgrounds, beliefs and convictions.
If you are Southern Baptist, you are willing to unite in our big, but limited, tent with people who have different views than you do on important issues. If you are unwilling to partner except with those who share your views exactly, that is your right, but maybe the SBC isn’t for you.
3) Specifically, the SBC has ALWAYS had Calvinists and Non-Calvinists.
In the early days of the SBC, many of the leaders of our denomination were strong Calvinists. That influence has ebbed and flowed over the life of the denomination, but neither side has ever been absent. In my college and seminary days (ie. the days when Calvinism was a big deal to me) Calvinism was more rare than a pro-life Democrat today. Soon thereafter, the teaching began to make a resurgence within the SBC. Today, the percentage of Calvinist vs. Non-Calvinist is hard to figure, since defining Calvinism is about as hard as determining what the meaning of is is. At this point, I’m not really sure whether I’m a Calvinist or not – depends on how you define it and who makes the judgment.
The SBC tent has always had people from various sides of the soteriology divide under its canopy.
Dr. David Dockery produced an excellent history of Calvinism in the SBC, and showed how the two streams of Calvinism and non-Calvinism have flowed together throughout our history. Here is a link to a BP article that has links to the videos of his teachings. If you’ve not watched these, you should. That’s who we are – a missions organization in which Calvinists and non-Calvinists cooperate to obey the Great Commission together.
If your goal is to impose Calvinism, “Traditionalism”, or some other form of non-Calvinism into the SBC, it is your right. However, it is also evidence that you may not understand the nature and history of the SBC. We’ve always been both and probably always will be. If you will only be satisfied if the SBC (or its leadership) only reflects one soteriological view, maybe the SBC isn’t for you.
4) We are a Great Commission People.
No, this is not an excuse for folks to declaim on the evils of the GCR or the SBC’s nickname. Let’s give that a rest today, okay? But we are a Great Commission people – or at least we are supposed to be. We are determined to make the command of Christ to make disciples in all the world through evangelism and discipleship the center and focus of all we do. We sometimes forget that and get embroiled in distracting and unproductive internecine battles but it is who we are nonetheless.
What that means is that our missions agencies are our primary raison d’etre. It is not an accident that more than half of our national CP dollars go to the IMB. And NAMB gets another quarter of those dollars.
We are not primarily a denominational structure, a hierarchy or an institution. We are a missions organization. The CP is our lifeblood.
The CP is voluntary. You do not have to give. But let’s be honest, if you are only willing to give to that which you govern, if you are unwilling to support ministries that reflect a wide range of views, you are within your rights, but the SBC might not be a good fit for you.
5) “We can do more together than we can do separately” is not just a motto for Southern Baptists.
My church gives in the neighborhood of 50,000 bucks to missions through the CP. We gave a little over 30,000 to Lottie and 5 or 6 grand to Annie this year. Put that all together, that’s around $85,000. With that money, we could probably support two missionary families full-time. We could provide partial support to quite a few. Or, we could be part of a missions strategy and organization that supports around 10,000 people worldwide (NAMB and IMB), not to mention helps fund 6 pretty decent seminaries.
For Southern Hills Baptist, I am fully convinced that we make our best missions investment by partnering through the CP with Southern Baptists around the country. Am I ever frustrated with the IMB? From time to time. Am I ever frustrated with NAMB? I should probably plead the 5th on this, but for Iowa Baptists, NAMB is a generous partner in ministry, but often confusing, even infuriating. Maybe someday I’ll get angry at Frank Page about something. Dr. Mohler and Dr. Patterson have both irritated me a time or two. The seminary closest to me, MBTS, has had a long history of dysfunction, though that seems to be settling down under the capable leadership of its current president, Dr. Allen. My big quarrel with them is that they cannot seem to understand that their acronym should be MWBTS! Whatever. I wish LifeWay did not sell the Shack and their decision, in league with NAMB, to pull World Changers out of the non-Southern states was not one I supported.
I’m often frustrated, even angry with the SBC, its leaders and its entities.
But I still believe that I can do more Great Commission work by investing in a worldwide missions program through the SBC than I can by myself.
If you believe you can do more and better by yourself (as a church) than you can do in cooperation with the SBC, God bless you. Go for it. But maybe the SBC isn’t for you.
There is much more to say on this, but I’m nearing 2700 words and I should probably tie a bow on this and be done with it. Again, I’m not for forcing anyone to leave the SBC except in the most egregious circumstances. But I think we should make it clear who we are with the understanding that there are lots of other ways to be faithful to Christ and his kingdom. If the SBC isn’t your cup of tea, don’t drink it.
I won’t be around much on Friday, so you can talk about what an idiot I am freely and without rebuke, until I get back to it and drop the hammer on any miscreants.
The CP is the best thing the SBC has to offer. When focus is lost on other things, the SBC is not so cooperative. Narrowing the elements of focus attributable to CP will be how the SBC survives and thrives in the future IMHO. It is certainly not about the 5 Point Bucks vs. the 4 Point (or less) Bucks, or even the policies of the Lifeway stores.
Chris Johnson,
You do realize that the difference between a 5 Point Buck and a 4 Point Buck is that the 5 Point Buck has a Non-Typical Rack and the 4 Point Buck has a Typical Rack.
Chris Johnson,
Surely you also realize that a LifeWay Book Store has many Racks.
Yes, Yes, and Yes…. thus the rack theory. Theology and rack spacing go hand and hand!
if the CP is the best thing the SBC has to offer why is it the most notable measure of SBC decline?
I don’t necessarily disagree with your assertion but observe that the CP is not recognized as such among churches and ministers.
William, … I believe that the initial push of the CP was successful “because” the campaign and exposure to the local churches, at the time, was focused and precise. Since that time many years ago, the broadening of scope and political interactions have deluded the message of CP and has created a reason for the people in the pew to question the focus, or even lose sight of the focus. A good recipe may be for reduction, more focus, and a return to the concepts that made the cooperation a success in those early days. I have always found that… Read more »
Interesting. No doubt the CP funds many more things but state convention work, seminaries, and mission boards account for 90+% now as it did generations ago.
I’m not sure how the CP could be more narrowly focused.
I think the messaging on the less funded parts have deluded the main message, which creates much confusion at the personal giving level. From where I sit in the pew, the noise and clutter of the 10% is out pacing what could be a more cohesive message about what is the meat of the program.
How the 90% is utilized could be refocused as well.
What “less funded parts” do you mean, Chris? I’m curious about what perceptions are among us, not criticizing anyone’s choices or preferences.
Chris This sounds good in theory but I believe we have crossed too many rivers to return to those days. At the time of conception there was great unity in the midst of diversity. Hence money came to the CP while there was some diversity in other matters. The evolution from those days I feel prohibit us from returning to that concept. We today demand more conformity (for good or bad) than we did at the time of conception. I do not foresee a time we will not insist on conformity to certain areas of belief and practice.
Chris
I certainly agree re the CP. I would like to add however that cooperation must extend beyond money. If we are not cooperative in other matters the money is going to dry up.
I find agreement in several areas, but not in all areas in a manner that is stated; but such is not the focus of this note. What I find in this post is a common condition for many religious organizations undergoing challenges in changing and turbulent environments, and something that is endemic to nearly all organizations over time: reification of the past, thus its over-emphasis on current expressions of being and doing. Knowing where we are going and how to get there is more uncertain than knowing where we have been (even given we are still uncertain about many experiences… Read more »
All I have to say in response to this is “AMEN!”
The following comment “threatening to withhold funding from the IMB if they hired a president not to his liking” is an interesting interpretation of my remarks. The point I clearly made was in reference to the trustees going to the Louisville connection yet one more time in their appointment, which by the way, they have been advised not to do from a number of individuals. So it is not as simple as a “candidate not of MY liking.” That is a pitifully poor evaluation of one saying “Maybe the SBC isn’t for you.” If one looks at the SBC entity… Read more »
Bob, your church gives $1 to Annie Armstrong?
In addition, the statement was penned “The SBC has always been calvinist and non-calvinist.”
Historically, has the SBC always been 50% “reformed” or “neo-reformed” in it’s constituency, both at denominational leadership and pew-member levels?
Looked like the historical trajectory (until recent years) of the SBC trended away from calvinism of the “reform” stripe.
Scott, I’m not an expert in SBC History, but here’s my understanding. In the days of the founding of the SBC, the leaders of the SBC were Calvinist by a strong majority. The people in the pews were a lot less Calvinist than the leadership.
By the post war 20th Century, the SBC was largely non-Calvinist. If you read the post (never know if people do) you might have noticed this line, “In my college and seminary days (ie. the days when Calvinism was a big deal to me) Calvinism was more rare than a pro-life Democrat today.”
It is interesting how cultural changes over time and generations can sway ones views on God’s sovereignty.
The difference between the Calvinist and the Arminian (and the spectrum between the two positions) doesn’t necessarily reflect how much or how little one believes in God’s sovereignty. Many a classical Arminian (and there are plenty of Arminians whose beliefs don’t actually reflect classical Arminian belief) believes in God’s Sovereignty just as much as a Calvinist. The difference in belief is in regards to what, in His Sovereignty, God has chosen to *do*.
Just going to throw this out there…But it is interesting to note that the period in which there were very few Calvinists within the SBC, was also the period in which there were large numbers of moderates and liberals within the convention. And that when the moderates and liberals left the convention during/after the Conservative Resurgance, that is when we see Calvinists begin to rise in numbers back within the SBC. Coincidence? Yes very likely. But it does want to make you think. Now on to topic. I know of very few Calvinists who openly call for the piecemeal funding… Read more »
SVM
Definitely a coincidence. the framers of the CR were nearly to the man non calvinists. Some of those men today are vocal in their displeasure of Calvinism. It happened that during those days there was a rise in popularity of men like John MacArthur who capture the minds of young theologues and led them into Calvinism. MacArthur came along during the charismatic controversies with some sound anti charismatic exegesis that resonated well with SB. Hence a built in audience.
The Traditionalist Period of Southern Baptist life was our zenith as a denomination–the time when we grew the fastest, reached the most people, developed the largest missionary sending body in world history, built the most extensive religious publishing house and seminary system in the world, etc. All of the greatest achievements in Southern Baptist life were experienced between 1950-2000. Southern Baptists are Billy Graham, Herschel Hobbs and Adrian Rogers. Our modern problems are not due to our embrace of Traditionalism, but to our increasing rejection of it. And as for the Calvinists who redirect their funding away from CP and… Read more »
Tremendously self-serving historical interp, Rick, and I think it confuses correlation and causation, makes conclusions unjustified by facts, and ignores many other sociological and cultural factors. Here’s a post I wrote about that, based on research figures that showed that our statistical decline actually BEGAN in the 50s. https://sbcvoices.com/the-sbcs-60-year-decline-beyond-the-blame-game/ it’s the same kind of logic used by liberals and moderates who say that the CR ruined the SBC, using pretty much the same logic you used here. But this is not another Traditionalist/Calvinist post. I used those posts as a springboard, but I’d rather keep the Calvinism foodfights on other… Read more »
I’m glad you can at least say that in certain respects my comments were tremendous. I feel the same way about yours.
Rick,
“Personally, I am not among this group”
Which I suspect has more to do with your church than with you.
The snarkiness of your comment leads me to believe mine offended you. You offered an interpretation of Baptist history which I believe to be flawed, and which represents flawed logic.
I was direct and straightforward in my response to it.
I’m sorry if that offends you, but one would think that someone who is as prone to confrontation as you are would not be easily offended by your statements being questioned.
I used tremendous in the secondary sense of large, huge, massive. Your comments interpreted SBC history in such a way as to buttress your viewpoint – I think erroneously.
Chris,
Wrong. My church was at 7% CP giving. My first year, we raised to 8%. Next year our proposed budget goes to 9%. These are my own initiatives. I may think the SBC is moving too far in the Calvinistic direction, but my goal is not to reduce cooperation, but rather, to seek to reform the reformers from within.
Dave, I am really not “prone to confrontation.” I’m just outnumbered when I engage this Calvinist-majority board. I state my point of view in a “direct and straightforward” manner, as you put it, and you charge me (but not Smusch) as being *tremendously self-serving* and using the *logic of the liberals.* Whatever. At least you apologized “if” you offended me, “but” added some other justifying words. Whatever again. Revisionist history can only work in one direction on this blog. Smusch’s. My remarks were actually directed to counterbalance Smusch’s view of history that: (a) the decline of Calvinism in the 20th… Read more »
Rick, suppose the best man for the IMB is not a Calvinist but has Mohler/SBTS connections. Is this an issue for you?
Perhaps you can post your chart again, Rick. Maybe we would all get it then.
William,
This statement from the Connect 316 website addresses your question: “The concept of balanced representation among our leadership deserves attention. Increasingly, entity leaders possess strong ties to one specific state, seminary and soteriological wing. We believe Southern Baptists should install leaders from a cross section of the convention.”
http://connect316.net/LeadershipPrinciples11920911192091
So, yes, I am concerned that we are becoming not only Calvinist-centric, but Mohler-centric, Southern Seminary-centric and perhaps even Kentucky-centric.
Adam,
Since you like it so much, here is the chart showing Dr. Mohler’s influence. I am not the only Southern Baptist wondering why we are not distributing leadership positions among a larger geographical area and among persons representing different schools of thought with connections to other outstanding Southern Baptist leaders.
https://twitter.com/HarwoodAdam/status/316999332899467265
Rick, “So, yes, I am concerned that we are becoming not only Calvinist-centric, but Mohler-centric, Southern Seminary-centric and perhaps even Kentucky-centric.” Let’s get this straight. Your gonna be upset if the candidate for IMB president (or any other post) is; From Kentucky Knows Mohler Is a Calvinist Went to southern What if the nominee has really never met Mohler, went to Liberty and SEBTS, is not from Kentucky …. but is to some degree a Calvinist ? 3 outta 4 ain’t bad, dude. 😉 .750 is an excellent batting average! If such a person would meet your self imposed denominational… Read more »
Ahhh…..there’s my most favoritest chart evaaahhhh!
Thanks Adam for drawing it out! My day is now complete.
If I wouldn’t have Rick Patrick’s support and wouldn’t receive LMCO money from Bob Hadley’s church, I don’t want the job.
Rick, two serious questions.
1) Have you heard any of the names that are being considered? I am not an insider by any stretch of the imagination, and have no idea who may be considered.
2) Have you written the trustees of the IMB expressing your concerns? Did you write the trustees of other entities when they were in the search process?
I understand, Adam. That’s a real deal breaker for most candidates I would think.
Back to the drawing board.
Have to keep looking for those who meet the standard of the Patrick/Hadley denominational litmus test
Adam, (1) The names I am hearing are Greear and Chitwood. I hope they surprise me. Maybe they could even choose a real missionary. (2) I’ve communicated with other trustees in the past, but not these. Actually, I think part of the reason we are susceptible to this is the very nature of our autonomous boards. Five different trustee boards can individually pick people representing the same exact area because there is no general oversight board looking at all the entity choices simultaneously. There is no one to say, “Uh, you know, maybe we should not pick ALL of our… Read more »
Rick,
So you don’t believe in autonomous boards?
Who should “oversee” them and how wound that play out?
*would not wound.
Tarheel,
I definitely believe in autonomous boards. I’m just trying to explain or describe how our otherwise excellent polity unfortunately contributes to our present imbalance. With each individual board looking only at the trees and not the forest, there is no one to give a general, broad overview of our total entity leadership and declare, “We are overloaded with a certain type of leader and need to pick someone from other walks of Southern Baptist life in order to balance our SBC leadership generally.”
But aren’t the boards actually made up of representatives from each state?
I had not heard Greear’s name, but I had heard Chitwood. Surely you know that Greear’s connections are more to Paige Patterson and now Danny Akin than to Mohler.
You wrote below about raising awareness. You should have contacted the IMB trustees. How can you get angry that they did not represent your view when you did not even communicate your view to them? You should have sent them our favorite little chart so they could see all the connections to Mohler.
Adam,
In answer to your earlier question, there is a *lot* of chatter right now about another Calvinist being installed as an entity leader–this time at the IMB. If chosen, it will only fuel continued speculation of an intentional Calvinist Platt.
The SBC is simply *not* this reformed. However, our leaders are. This really cannot continue forever without a backlash from powerless little Main Street Baptist Church.
Thanks, Rick. I am seeing some of the Twitter chatter. I like David Platt, but will have to be convinced that he is the right man for the IMB job. His SBC connections were initially to NOBTS by the way.
Bart Barber makes some really good points on his blog about the possibility of a Platt nomination. Personally, I don’t like it for several reasons, not the least of which is the first point Bart makes–a lack of Platt’s clear commitment to the Cooperative Program. What does it say when the pastor of a tiny country church with a budget of around $60k per year (myself) can make a stronger statement about his church’s giving commitments and SBC cooperation than can the pastor of an SBC mega-church that brings in millions of dollars a year?
I am not wise enough to determine who is qualified to be our next IMB president. I can answer Tarheel’s question, “But aren’t the boards actually made up of representatives from each state?”
No, each state does not have representation on all the SBC boards.
But the IMB does, no?
I have to say I’m glad Bob shares my view of missions – less money given to it is for the best. Bob, finally we have some common ground.
Who is this Chitwood fellow? I know Jimmy Chitwood from Hoosiers and while a ine shooter, I do not see him as IMB material. He is a very quiet dude after all.
Bob, So you’d be okay with someone who is not in anyway connected to “Louisville”….. But is a Calvinist hitting the IMB? Or is your “Louisville” comment really directed at a theological strand? Just so we understand .. are you saying that anyone who attended Southern seminary or anyone who knows, worked with, or even likes Al Mohler much less anyone who is a friend …. would be automatically disqualify them? Or cause you to withhold? How many degrees of separation will be required? Must he be a person that is on record disagreeing with Al Mohler about certain issues… Read more »