As indicated in my original post, my reason for raising the subject was in connection to discussions about fundamentalism and conservative evangelicals. It was not “to carp” at Al Mohler (or Mark Dever, for that matter). This decision potentially reveals a clear distinction between the two perspectives, especially as it relates to the question of how theological conservatives respond to theological liberals (and those who have aided and abetted them). That some defended the move in terms of “healing old wounds” or as a matter of Christian graciousness seems, from my perspective, to prove my point, not refute it. IOW, what biblical justification is there for attempting to heal old wounds that came from a theological battle between conservatives and liberals? Doesn’t that very language fit more with McCall’s call to “stand together in one common commitment in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord” than with what the Scriptures say about having no fellowship with unbelief and not participating in the evil of false teachers? Since when did Christian graciousness necessarily extend to naming monuments after men (leaving aside, for the moment, the whole issue of man-monuments)? Can anybody seriously envision the Apostle Paul erecting a monument at Ephesus for any elder of that assembly who opened the door for savage wolves and turned his eyes away from the men who rose up speaking perverse things? I don’t think so. As for Mark Rogers raising the subject of racism and Bob Jones University, that should be seen for what it is, a red herring. For starters, suppose I agree with Mark’s point, what does it prove? Must I write about every wrong decision to name a building (or school) before I can write about any such wrong decision? All raising the BJU thing did was distract from the point at hand. Even more importantly, in my mind, is whether it is legitimate to equate the two in the first place. Is Mark really suggesting that direct denial of fundamental doctrines is the equal of an indirect denial that springs from a (horribly) wrong biblical interpretation? IOW, is it really true that forbidding interracial dating is the equivalent of denying the inspiration of the Scriptures? I first voiced my opposition to the BJU policy 30 years ago and spoke directly to the administration back in 2000 just before it changed, so please don’t read my point as being sympathetic to it at all. I just can’t see the equivalency here.
Let me say one more thing about my intent. It was not to rain on SBTS’s parade—had I known that my post would get forwarded to a bunch of SBTS grads, I may have considered waiting until a less awkward time. I was not writing for SBCers or SBTS grads, but for the people that I figured read my somewhat obscure blog—fundamentalists. Guys studying in fundamentalist colleges and seminaries, serving as pastors in fundamentalist churches, etc. There is a lot of talk among us about what is happening across the ecclesiastical landscape. I can’t speak for anybody but myself, but part of that process means seeing the differences that may still exist between the various groups. It matters to folks like me when a John MacArthur, for instance, expresses his concerns about a Mark Driscoll. In the same way, it matters when conservatives honor men who aided the liberalization of evangelicalism.
I can recognize that from a perspective within the SBC and mainstream evangelicalism, my concerns may seem like nitpicking. I am not an insider, though. I am an outside observer looking at things, I hope, with a broader perspective than the last 16 or 30 years. Perhaps an illustration from a little farther back can help explain my concern. Fuller Seminary started as the flagship of the New Evangelicalism in the late 1940s. Too often, I think, people make the mistake of thinking that Fuller now is what Fuller then was like. But Marsden, in Reforming Fundamentalism, is very clear about how conservative Fuller was at its start. For example, it was staunchly anti-Catholic and deeply committed to biblical inerrancy. So how did Fuller Seminary become what it is today? Probably many tributaries, but none more important than its desire to “heal the old wounds” of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy and its “gracious” stance toward heterodoxy. Consider the names of the men who were there at the start—all of them were theological conservatives and most of them took many good stands in defense of the Gospel. But they muffled their objection to false teachers and pursued a path of peaceful coexistence and respectful relationships within the academic guild. There is a warning there for all of us.
Al Mohler deserves, and has, my genuine respect for what God has used him to do in bringing SBTS back from its apostasy-riddled condition. My post wasn’t about Al Mohler; it was about two different approaches to the matter of response to apostasy and compromise with it. This isn’t about who wears what label. I disagree with the decision that was made, and I wonder if this kind of decision is simply an anomaly or truly representative of a very different approach. I hope it is the former, but I am concerned that it may be the latter.
