Thoughts of a Pastor-Historian

In light of the controversy regarding a recent profile of Dr. Albert Mohler in the newest issue of Christianity Today (not yet online), I thought I would rework and release a brief bio which I did on Dr. Mohler a few years ago for a website of Tennessee Baptist conservatives.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. became the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary of Louisville, Kentucky in 1993 at the remarkably young age of 33. He is a graduate of Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama (B.A.) and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (M.Div. and Ph.D.). Before becoming the president of Southern Seminary, Mohler served as editor of The Christian Index (the newspaper of the Georgia Baptist Convention).

Mohler, who was born on October 19, 1959 in Lakeland, Florida, was raised by Southern Baptist parents and has been active in church life from an early age. After he and his family moved to Pompano Beach, he became acquainted with the writings of Francis Schaefer through the ministry of D. James Kennedy. Schaefer’s writings were to become formative in the development of a Christian worldview in a young Mohler. This discipline of thinking biblically about all areas of life remains a prominent characteristic of this theologian today. While a student at Southern Seminary, Mohler became heavily influenced by the writings of the conservative evangelical scholar Carl F. H. Henry. The writings of Henry were a personal discovery, not something promoted by the seminary itself. In fact, Henry once spoke at a student event with which Mohler was involved and was snubbed by the administration. This became a lesson to Mohler of the moderates’ lack of tolerance toward conservatives and made a lasting impression on him.

When Mohler became president of Southern Seminary in 1993, he entered a volatile situation. Established in 1859, Southern Seminary is the oldest of the six Southern Baptist seminaries. Although historically and confessionally committed to doctrinal orthodoxy, decades of control by moderates had produced an environment in which conservatives were ridiculed as “fundamentalists”. Most of the faculty members were holdovers from the days before the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. A few of the faculty were more recent additions from Northern Evangelicalism who were generally conservative in their theology, but were moderate on their views of women in pastoral ministry.  As a student at Southern, Mohler himself had once held the view that women could serve as pastors.  The aforementioned encounter with Carl F. H. Henry became the catalyst for reevaluation of this interpretation of Scripture (For a description of this event in Mohler’s own words, please see here.).  Now that he had become convinced from Scripture of a different perspective on this issue, it was Mohler’s turn to experience the moderates’ lack of tolerance toward conservatives.

Mohler’s assumption of the presidency at Southern in August of 1993 was greeted by protests from students and faculty alike. Undaunted by the opposition, President Mohler asserted his commitment to hold the faculty accountable to the expectations of the doctrinal positions of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, the seminary’s trustees, and the seminary’s own Confession of Faith (the Abstract of Principles). Mohler made it clear that teaching contrary to the school’s Abstract of Principles was not an option. Each professor in the seminary’s history has signed the historic document, but many in recent years had done so insincerely. Mohler understood the seminary’s doctrinal statement to be a matter of accountability to Southern Baptists who must be able to expect the seminaries which their Cooperative Program dollars fund to be biblically faithful. Any professors who taught contrary to the Abstract of Principles would not only be violating their covenant with the seminary, but also would cause the seminary to violate its covenant with the churches which support her.

Initially, Southern Seminary experienced great turmoil as those professors who had no intention of abiding to the school’s Confession of Faith began to leave in droves. They did not want to face the process of removal for their unorthodox teaching. Student enrollment also dropped in those early years of Mohler’s presidency. Today, however, Southern Seminary stands as one of the largest evangelical seminary in the world, with a record enrollment which has more than doubled since 1995. Dr. Mohler himself is established as one of the greatest theologians and observers of culture in the world today, with Time magazine calling Mohler the “reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the U.S”. With his daily podcast applying a Christian worldview to daily news events, his popular blog providing analysis of contemporary cultural issues, and his regular contributions to discussions of the moral and religious issues of our day in the secular media, Mohler continues to have a positive influence on both the evangelical world and society as a whole. The world-class faculty of conservative evangelical scholars which Mohler has assembled has Southern poised to be a bastion of healthy theological education for generations to come.

Quick Facts:

• Born on October 19, 1959.
• Married to the former Mary Kahler.
• Two children: Katie and Christopher.
• 9^th President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
• Host of the nationally syndicated Albert Mohler Program from 2004 – 2010.
• Writes for his personal blog and regular commentary on moral, cultural and theological issues
• Regularly appears on national media to discuss religious and moral issues.
• Served on the Program and Study Committee (SBC) whose recommendations for restructuring were adopted by the 1995 Southern Baptist Convention.
• Served on the Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee which resulted in the production of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
• Served as the chairman of the SBC’s Council of Seminary Presidents.
• Served on the 2008-2009 Great Commission Task Force which made recommendations for restructuring the SBC for greater missional effectiveness.

Publications:

• The Disappearance of God: Dangerous Beliefs in the New Spiritual Openness (Multnomah) Forthcoming
• Desire & Deceit: The Real Cost of the New Sexual Tolerance (Multnomah)
• Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists (Crossway)
• He Is Not Silent: Preaching in a Postmodern World (Moody)
• Culture Shift: Engaging Current Issues with Timeless Truths (Multnomah)
• “The Pastor as Theologian.” In A Theology for the Church, 927-934. Edited by Daniel L. Akin. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007.
• “Modern Theology: The Disappearance of Hell.” In Hell Under Fire, 15-41. Edited by Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004
• “Expository Preaching: Center of Christian Worship.” In Give Praise to God: A Vision for Reforming Worship, 107-121. Edited by Philip Graham Ryken, Derek W. H. Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan III. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003.
• “Being Baptist Means Conviction.” In Why I Am a Baptist, 58-64. Edited by Tom J. Nettles and Russell D. Moore. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001.
• “Discipline: The Missing Mark.” In Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life, 43-56. Washington, D.C.: 9 Marks Ministries, 2001.
• “Reformist Evangelicalism: A Center Without a Circumference.” In A Confessing Theology for Postmodern Times, 131-150. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000.
• “Contending for Truth in an Age of Anti-Truth.” In Here We Stand: A Call from Confessing Evangelicals, 59-76. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996.

Sources:

• Hankins, Barry. Uneasy in Babylon: Southern Baptist Conservatives and American Culture (Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 2002), 25-29; 42-52; 74-106.
• Nettles, Tom. The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming a Baptist Identity, Volume Three: The Modern Era (Scotland: Mentor, 2007), 285-297.
• Wills, Greg.  Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859-2009 (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2009), 511-547.
• “Albert Mohler’s Bio” at http://www.albertmohler.com/about

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

As my notes on the relationship between baptism and the Lord’s Supper have created some small measure of discussion (both publicly and privately), I thought I would add these thoughts which were occasioned by a few questions from a dear friend.  Keep in mind that the notes posted previously were a rough sketch from a message preached at the church I pastor which is a Southern Baptist church that affirms the Baptist Faith and Message (2000).  I agree with article VII of the BFM which states that baptism “is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper,”  but I am not making policy for anyone else.  Each local church must decide what they do about this issue.   If, however, your church has adopted the Baptist Faith and Message (either 1925, 1963, or 2000), you should conform your practice accordingly or amend your Statement of Faith to reflect your beliefs through the process given in your church’s constitution.  Now, for my clarifications:

Baptism, like everything else, is an interpretation issue.  Granted some things are clearer in Scripture than others.  The difference between the issue of baptism and other areas (either more or less clear) is that local churches must decide what they believe about baptism.  They are either going to sprinkle babies or immerse believers (of course a combination is possible too, but rare among Baptist churches both historically and presently).  If we believe that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and as a church we have stated a belief that baptism is the immersion of a believer and is commanded by Christ, then we have already made a decision on this issue in my opinion.

Every church believes that only baptized people can partake of communion (Catholics, Presbyterians, etc.), Baptist’s only differ in their understanding of the nature of baptism (by immersion of a believer).  Baptists believe that believer’s baptism by immersion is the only real baptism because of the meaning of term baptizo, the New Testament examples of believers being immersed, and the absence of any biblical examples of or commands to baptize infants or use the modes of sprinkling or affusion).  Since as a local church we’ve had to make an interpretative decision about the nature of baptism and the qualified recipients, we cannot have the church ordinance of the Lord’s Supper with unbaptized (or unbiblically baptized) persons.

This, however, does not (for me, though it does for some) preclude me from being able to have gospel fellowship with a paedo-baptist.  They can’t join my church or take the Lord’s Supper, but I don’t think they’re going to hell.  We have a different interpretation of baptism, just like we might on eschatology or any number of issues.  The difference is that we don’t have to make decisions on every interpretive issue in the constitution of a church.  We do on the definition of baptism.  Thus, the necessity of limiting the Lord’s Supper and church membership to believers who have been baptized as we believe is biblical (like every other church).

I don’t think a church is in unrepentant sin if it allows evangelical paedo-baptists to come to the Lord’s Table.  I think it is inconsistent if the church says that it believes that baptism of a believer by immersion is biblical, and if it doesn’t allow paedo-baptists as members.  Nevertheless, a local church has the right to constitute and govern itself as it believes best.

Again, please keep in mind, that my message was not aimed at Presbyterians (though there are obvious implications).  I was preaching in the context of a local church where someone had just been baptized that day and was receiving the Lord’s Supper for the first time and at which others may have been present who had not been baptized in any manner or at any time.  It was my attempt at an explanation of the biblical rational for saying that the Lord’s Supper is only for those who have been baptized as believers.  You may disagree with the reasons, but it is not out of mere tradition or legalism that Baptists have historically held to this position.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

The following are some brief notes for a sermon that I recently preached on the relationship between Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  This is not meant to be an exhaustive approach to either of the ordinances.  I believe more about each of them.  This is a Baptist perspective.  Non-Baptists, don’t be surprised. Audio here.

Similarities:

Filed under: Uncategorized | 9 Comments »