Can Al Mohler have his cake and eat it too, Part 2

2 views

January 18, 2020

Rapp Report 107 Andrew and Bud evaluate Al Mohler’s comments on The Briefing podcast from November 11, 2019, about having your cake and eating it to actually applies to him. This is part 2 of a 2 part series, listen to part 1. In this episode, they look at how Mohler answered (or really not...

What is the Church, Part 3

00:00: There could be cash waiting for you at FindMassMoney .gov. You might have checked before, but they're always updating names.
00:06: So check again. The Mass State Treasury has over $3 billion in unclaimed property.
00:12: Maybe it's a long lost bank account, forgotten shares of a stock, or an old paycheck you somehow forgot to pick up.
00:18: Some of it might be yours. There's a lot of money that could be yours, but you'll never know until you go.
00:24: So go to FindMassMoney .gov. That's FindMassMoney .gov.
00:32: There could be cash waiting for you at FindMassMoney .gov. You might have checked before, but they're always updating names.
00:38: So check again. The Mass State Treasury has over $3 billion in unclaimed property.
00:43: Maybe it's a long lost bank account, forgotten shares of a stock, or an old paycheck you somehow forgot to pick up.
00:49: It's unclaimed property and some of it might be yours. You'll never know until you go. So visit
00:54: FindMassMoney .gov. That's FindMassMoney .gov. Christians understand the responsibility to be clear, to be always ready to give an answer.
01:08: And to give that answer directly, with clarity, not with confusion. And we understand that even as confusion is to be avoided and clarity is to be demonstrated, we understand that the worst form of confusion is an intentional confusion, an intentional ambiguity.
01:30: Welcome to The Wrap Report with Andrew Rappaport, where we provide biblical interpretations and applications.
01:37: This is the Ministry of Striving for Eternity and the Christian Podcast Community. For more content or to request a speaker for your church, go to strivingforeternity .org.
01:49: Okay, we are back. I am Andrew Rappaport, your host of The Wrap Report, and we're back from G3.
01:55: We had a great time, I'm sure, because we're recording this before G3, but I'm sure we had a great time.
02:04: I'm sure that we enjoyed all the sweet fellowship with all of you, and I'm sure that we'll have some podcasts afterwards with many of you that we got a chance to hopefully interview while we were there.
02:17: We're going to continue on this discussion that we started last week with Dr. Mohler, and again
02:22: I'm going to say what I said last time. This is something that we're doing as a teaching, not discernment, but we are being discerning as well.
02:30: But we're not a discernment ministry, we are a teaching ministry, and there are areas and times where, yes, we do have to call people out, and that's what we're looking to do.
02:42: You heard in the opening that Dr. Mohler says that we cannot intentionally have ambiguous language.
02:48: I agree with him. But this is something he said at the Shepherds Conference. I'm going to play this, and this is what we're looking to deal with.
02:57: He said this. But I hope to do so absolutely consistently and absolutely biblically with fidelity, and I invite you and all others to interrogate every aspect of my life and show me where I may come short.
03:09: Okay, so that's what we're seeking to do. If you haven't listened to Part 1 of Can Al Mohler Have His Cake and Eat It 2, go back and listen to Part 1.
03:21: You can listen to these independently, but Part 1 we dealt with the issue of Dr.
03:26: Mohler calling out a foreign country, foreign vocation, foreign religion, meaning he was calling out a politician in Canada who's
03:36: Roman Catholic for not answering the question clearly about homosexuality and whether it's a sin or not.
03:43: We are calling him out because Beth Moore was asked a very direct question about homosexuality being a sin, same -sex attraction being a sin.
03:53: That's not a foreign country. That's the same country. That's not a foreign vocation. That's the same vocation as Dr.
03:58: Mohler, and it's not a foreign religion. It's actually the same denomination. We're challenged,
04:04: Dr. Mohler and anyone who knows Dr. Mohler, to reach out to him to say, listen, as a leader in the
04:10: SBC, he needs to get Beth Moore to answer these questions.
04:17: But now we're going to get to things that are more hitting home for Dr. Mohler himself. I'm going to say what
04:24: I said last episode. I don't know Dr. Mohler personally. If he would like to reach out to me, he can email me, anyone can, info at strivingforeternity .org.
04:36: Let me know where you think I'm wrong. But I do see an area here that many have,
04:43: I think, tried to reach out to Dr. Mohler and address where there is some ambiguity.
04:51: I think it may even be purposeful, and we're going to play that clip again later that he mentions we shouldn't be doing that.
04:58: Because when it comes to the area of social justice, I do not believe
05:04: Dr. Mohler has been clear. Now I'm going to play some clips to a
05:10: Q &A that was had at the Shepherds Conference in 2019. I will give the link to the full
05:17: Q &A so you can watch the whole thing. We will play some longer clips here so we get some context.
05:25: But there were some challenging questions that were asked. And I do believe that Dr.
05:33: Mohler needs to answer these things, in my opinion. And so I think that as we evaluate this, this episode is one asking the question that Dr.
05:45: Mohler had said when he said this on the Briefing podcast from November 11th.
05:52: When I was a little boy, I was often befuddled by some of my mother's expressions, several of them, as a matter of fact, which often falls to children.
05:59: But one of them in particular, she would sometimes speak of someone trying to have his cake and eat it too.
06:05: I couldn't understand the difference between having and eating, because when she offered me a piece of cake, she would say, would you like to have a piece of cake?
06:12: Only later did I figure out that what she actually meant was someone having the cake as in keeping it or saving it and eating it at the same time.
06:21: That's the contradiction. Trying to have your cake and eat it, too, is thus a metaphor for trying to have it both ways.
06:28: It is impossible. And we are agreeing that it is impossible.
06:33: But I do believe, in my personal opinion, based on what I'm going to present here today, that Dr.
06:40: Mohler is trying to have his cake and eat it, too, in the area of social justice. He has spoken out against social justice on the briefing countless times.
06:55: He's been very clear against it, but it seems like he is not against it when it is within the
07:03: Southern Baptist Convention, just like he hasn't held Beth Moore's feet to the fire when it comes to homosexuality.
07:11: It seems he's not keeping the Southern Baptist Convention's feet to the fire when it comes to issues of critical race theory, intersectionality and social justice.
07:21: What do I mean by these terms? Maybe they're new to you. Critical race theory is this idea that we can evaluate people's races and basically try to make up for wrongs that were done to other races in the past.
07:40: And this is something we dealt with on previous episodes here. And you could go back to previous
07:46: RAP reports and see that we've dealt with this issue where people want to try to use language and try to apply it in such a way as saying,
07:57: OK, well, we're responsible for what others do. OK, that's the issue of social justice.
08:05: And what you end up seeing with this is that they will argue that we need to rethink how we do ministry.
08:14: And intersectionality is basically where everyone looks for victim status. Everybody is a victim. The more of a victim you are, the more right you have to speak on subjects.
08:23: And if you have no victim status, in other words, if you're a white male, you have no right to speak on things.
08:30: You have privilege and therefore you shouldn't speak. And this is being used as a means of trying to be a ruler of some kind, a way of measuring within the
08:41: Southern Baptist Convention now. And this is something that if you go to the statement of social justice and the gospel, you'll see as many of us who sign that, many of us who helped write that, we're going to get into discussing that.
08:56: But, you know, with that statement, there is, you know, there was a lot of people who had input on that.
09:07: And Dr. Mohler, we're going to play clips of him on that issue.
09:13: He did not sign it. There was question about why he didn't sign it. And I think some of the answers he gives,
09:20: I'm going to say, are not very good answers. Now, you could go to statement on social justice dot com.
09:28: You can sign it. You can read the statement and sign it. You could see all 12 ,000 people who have signed it.
09:35: You will see that I'm listed in on the front page as one of the initial. I was one of the initial 75 who were part of the group that reviewed this and had say in this and were able to offer some things to to look at as ways to improve this statement.
09:53: So we're going to talk about that later. But Dr. Mohler didn't sign this.
09:59: It became an issue of contention at the Shepherds Conference. And what I want to do is I'm going to play a clip, a four minute clip from the conference so that we can get the context.
10:11: And I want to break these down then with Bud and go through each of these.
10:17: So let me play this longer clip first so you get the context. All right. So let me ask some more difficult questions.
10:23: You all have been friends for longer than two decades and there haven't in those years been very many things that you've disagreed on publicly.
10:32: But now there is with the social justice issue. And so I wanted to ask some questions about that.
10:38: And let me start with you, Al, because you've said something that I've thought of often.
10:44: I think it's it's a really good insight. And that is that sort of the leftward drift, the liberalizing drift that affects not only politics, but theology happens incrementally.
10:58: But any reformation towards the right happens exponentially.
11:03: Are you not concerned at all about the liberalizing drift of the social justice movement and all the rhetoric that goes along with that?
11:12: I'm sure you are. Yeah, the only offense I take at that is that I talk about this five times a week for 25 minutes.
11:20: Well, so let me let me give you my perspective on that, because you do you don't take offense, but you
11:32: I do listen to you every morning. You have opinions on everything in the news. But when it comes to the evangelical movement and the social justice issue particularly,
11:43: I'm not talking about, you know, what happens in the world of politics, but I'm talking about what happens among our constituents and the rhetoric that's going on in places like T4G and the gospel coalition.
11:57: You have been remarkably silent. It's one of those issues where I've only heard you speak on it in the ask anything sections when people ask you questions like I'm doing right now.
12:10: And yeah, I think the pushback is I think that's what my whole life is speaking about. I mean,
12:15: I began I mean, all my public ministry began dealing with these questions.
12:21: So I do take a bit of offense, not personally, but I mean, I just I am not going to be forced into a
12:28: Twitter conversation and 140 characters about these issues. I have been trying to lay out for 30 plus years an understanding of how evangelicals should engage the culture.
12:42: And I mean, I cut my teeth apologetically confronting cultural Marxism and I mean, the entire network of issues of the left.
12:51: You look at who I invite to my campus. You look at who I cite. You look at who
12:57: I platform. I feel pretty good about the message that I'm sending there.
13:04: When it comes to concerns about the evangelical left, absolutely.
13:10: I mean, I have been quite vocal and anyone who knows the conversations amongst evangelical leadership knows exactly where I am on these issues.
13:20: How best to articulate that concern in this particular moment?
13:26: That's not easy. That's not easy. And I have tried to help to interpret these issues as clearly and biblically and charitably as I can.
13:39: I'm afraid we're going to lose an enormous number of evangelicals to various kinds of social gospel because that's a lot easier to find satisfaction in than evangelism.
13:56: And so, again, I look at what I do on my campus, look at who I platform, look at the issues
14:02: I write about. Knowing exactly how to help younger evangelicals figure these things out, which is actually my job as a seminary president, that's not real easy.
14:19: And I will confess that. But I'm trying to be as clear as I can be on this.
14:24: I mean, for years, I mean, this has been the great concern. T4G was largely created out of the concern that there was confusion over what the gospel is.
14:33: OK, so you heard him say he's trying to be as clear as possible. The reason that Phil Johnson is asking the question is because there is not clarity.
14:44: Now, you heard him, a four minute answer. Did you hear the clarity?
14:50: Did he give you the answer? Now, why do I bring this up? If you listen to the last episode, we played some clips from his
14:59: November 11th briefing, and I'm going to play some of them here and give them to you, because what
15:05: I believe he's doing is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. He talks about the fact that there is a need for clear language when it comes to issues of sexuality, gender, using these different words.
15:20: And he's is critical, very critical of Roman Catholics that will try to play it both ways.
15:30: Here's a clip from his his briefing where he talks about having his cake and eating it, too.
15:36: When I was a little boy, I was often befuddled by some of my mother's expressions, several of them, as a matter of fact, which often falls to children.
15:43: But one of them in particular, she would sometimes speak of someone trying to have his cake and eat it, too.
15:49: I couldn't understand the difference between having and eating, because when she offered me a piece of cake, she would say, would you like to have a piece of cake?
15:57: Only later did I figure out that what she actually meant was someone having the cake, as in keeping it or saving it and eating it at the same time.
16:05: That's the contradiction. Trying to have your cake and eat it, too, is thus a metaphor for trying to have it both ways.
16:12: It is impossible. And we can see on so many of these issues where there are denominations and Christian institutions and schools and even school districts that are effectively on this moral challenge, trying to have their cake and eat it, too, or they're trying to avoid at all cost having to make a decision that will cost them one way or the other.
16:33: But the lesson for us all is that that cost is going to come inevitably. It is very clear when you look at Andrew Scheer or you look at the school policy or you look at other instances all over the place these days, it is very, very clear that there is no refuge in ambiguity.
16:48: It is very clear that the moral revolutionaries will not accept no answer as an answer.
16:55: And at the end of the day, even as you might try to say, I'm going to accept the language, but I'm going to define the terms myself.
17:01: That's not going to work because the people who are determining the words that are mandated eventually will also determine the mandated meaning of those words.
17:12: And that last part is very key. But you've been a Southern Baptist.
17:17: I haven't. But there was a big issue with at the Southern Baptist Convention with Article nine.
17:24: And I'm going to link for folks the movie by what standard that Founders .org
17:31: put out. And I encourage you to watch that so you understand these issues and how serious they are and why we're addressing this with Dr.
17:40: Moeller. But could you bring people up to speed who may not be Southern Baptists or followed this with what went on with Article nine?
17:48: Well, yeah, it's Resolution Resolution nine. Sorry. Yeah. Resolution nine. And it was adopted last summer at the
17:54: Southern Baptist Convention when they gathered in Birmingham. I believe that it was. And it really got railroaded through.
18:03: It's my impression that most of the messengers that were sitting there had no clue what this truly represented.
18:11: A couple of men, Tom Askell with Founders and Ministry, Tom Buck is another one that that spoke out on the convention floor about this.
18:19: But what Resolution nine essentially did is to adopt as an analytical tool the theory of critical race and the usage of intersectionality.
18:34: And those were not to be elevated above Scripture, but subservient to Scripture.
18:41: The problem with that is that inherently those two things, critical race theory or critical theory itself and intersectionality, come from a completely unbiblical, atheistic worldview.
18:56: So what we're doing is we're taking philosophy from the world, worldly wisdom, which I think Scripture says is foolishness to God.
19:03: And we want to employ that now as a mechanism analytically to evaluate culture, to evaluate ethnic and racial issues, gender issues, sexuality issues alongside
19:20: Scripture. This is an additional tool that can be used. And the issue that we would have with this is the fact that, you know, this is basically a situation where they're using it as a tool.
19:37: People have warned against this. There's been clear warning on this. And Dr.
19:44: Moeller has made it very clear that you cannot have the language where you're going to allow a tool and yet you define the language.
19:55: On the episode on November 11th of the briefing, if you listen to that and they'll be linked in the show notes, you can listen.
20:01: He makes it very clear that when a Catholic school tried to change language so they could fit with the culture, but they wanted to redefine the culture's language so that it can fit their standard.
20:15: So they could say to the culture, yes, we're accepting this, but we're going to use a different meaning of this.
20:22: And he says you can't do that. I mean, he said that the Catholics couldn't do that. So why can the
20:27: Southern Baptists listen to what he said? In worldview analysis, the biggest problem here is the assumption that you can accept language without accepting the new moral reality that the language brings, especially this kind of language.
20:41: And that's true. And that's exactly what they're doing at the Southern Baptists. They want to say that they can accept the language, critical race theory and intersectionality, but they want to give it a different meaning.
20:53: Yeah, you can't do that. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
20:59: No. And what compounds this for Dr. Moeller, at least the impression that that you and I are evaluating here is that Dr.
21:09: Moeller knows and has spoken elsewhere, even on his briefing, not the one that you've linked to and excerpted from.
21:20: But he's spoken on the briefing about the danger of some of these things. I mean, he said, for instance, we don't have a clip for this, and it's a brief quote
21:29: I can give you. Al Moeller says this ideas, as we know, do have consequences.
21:36: The main consequence of critical race theory is identity politics, and identity politics can only rightly be described as antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
21:47: We have to see identity politics as nothing less than devastating to the
21:53: Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, he's saying that of critical race theory. That's a right assessment.
22:00: That's a correct assessment with which we could agree. However, what is compounded, and which he alluded to with Phil Johnson at Shepherd's Conference in that Q &A, is to analyze who he platforms.
22:13: Well, the man that introduced Resolution 9 to the Southern Baptists last summer is
22:18: Curtis Woods, a professor under Moeller at Southern Seminary who teaches
22:23: New Testament, I think, in the MDiv program. So you've got these two contradictory things coming at us from Dr.
22:32: Moeller, and that's where the concern is, just like we had with him where we want to see him force
22:40: Beth Moore to give us an answer on the issue of homosexuality. Well, we're looking at who you've platformed just in this one little case, and it doesn't match the rhetoric that you rightly are giving.
22:52: Well, you're exactly right. Let me play some of the clips, because there are some clips here. I'll play the clip that you just referenced with the platforming.
23:00: You look at who I invite to my campus. You look at who I cite. You look at who
23:05: I platform. I feel pretty good about the message that I'm sending there.
23:11: Well, see, I would tell you why I have a concern with the message he's sending there. And this has nothing to do if you just play me that clip.
23:20: I'll tell you why I would have a concern. As someone who debates, as someone who is trained to look at how people are answering questions to see if they're giving non answers.
23:32: That's exactly what that is. That is a style of tactic to try to avoid answering a question and basically saying that because of who
23:42: I associate with, I'm in the clear. I got news for you. That's intersectionality right there.
23:50: That is intersectionality. Exactly. That is intersectionality. It's to say, well, you can't criticize me because of who
23:58: I associate with or who the color of my skin or whatever, whatever victim status I'm claiming. That right there is the intersectionality issue.
24:07: Well, it truly is. My point is, if you see that point to him, OK, let's look at who you platform.
24:15: The very example that is the critical issue right now in the Southern Baptist Convention was put forth by a man that he platformed.
24:25: Yeah. And and the thing, though, is, is that when someone is is saying instead of answering a question clearly without ambiguity, he's saying, look at look at who
24:37: I'm with, look at the people I'm with. Well, guess what? The fact that you associate with good people doesn't mean that we could trust everything, because as you're pointing out, if you look at if you're if his he's going to say you can trust me because of who
24:50: I platform with. Well, OK, but you've just mentioned who he platforms with and that's the problem.
24:59: Right. Yeah, exactly. I can hang around with a lot of really smart people, but it doesn't put me in the membership of Mensa.
25:07: Yeah, well, you know, I passed the test for Mensa. So how does that do for you? I've just proven my point.
25:17: So but, you know, the thing is, is that what you end up seeing with this is,
25:22: I think, the way he is arguing. OK, so we mentioned the platforming. This is a way of not answering.
25:29: He said, I'm going to play this clip again because he said you cannot be ambiguous.
25:34: Christians understand the responsibility to be clear, to be always ready to give an answer and to give that answer directly with clarity, not with conviction.
25:44: And we understand that even as confusion is to be avoided and clarity is to be demonstrated, we understand that the worst form of confusion is an intentional confusion, an intentional ambiguity.
25:57: Now, I'm not accusing Dr. Mueller of being intentionally ambiguous here, but it does seem like it because he's an intelligent guy.
26:06: Oh, yeah. Yeah. So why is he not answering? Part of his his non -answer is to say, look at who
26:13: I platform with. But let me deal with some of the other ways he answered
26:19: Phil's question. Phil asked him a direct question. OK, it was a direct question.
26:27: What is it that Al Mueller says on the briefing on the 11th? He said this. Christians must be ready to give a direct and honest answer when we are asked a question about sin that might come.
26:39: Indeed, it will come with a considerable political cost. But failing to answer the question comes with an even deeper cost to both theology and doctrine and to personal ethics.
26:49: OK, so he's being asked a direct question, not not in this case about sin, but it is it is about theology and it is about being clear what it is still not really clear where Al Mueller stands with the issue of social justice within the
27:06: Southern Baptist Convention. See, he's made it clear where he stands on social justice outside of the
27:12: Southern Baptist Convention. But the question is within the convention. And when Phil asked the question,
27:18: Dr. Mueller said this. So I do take a bit of offense, not personally, but I mean, I just I am not going to be forced into a
27:27: Twitter conversation, 140 characters about these issues. OK, here's the reality.
27:33: He's answering that on stage at the Shepherds Conference where it's not a
27:38: Twitter. Yeah, right. If he wanted to give a thorough answer,
27:44: I am certain that Phil would have given him the platform for an hour to explain this.
27:51: You know, we dealt with last episode with the whole issue of Al Mueller, you know, saying that people have to answer the question of homosexuality, whether it's a sin and the fact that Beth Moore won't.
28:03: We mentioned that and we pointed out that within 10 seconds, Al Mueller in 10 seconds answered three of the five questions asked of Beth Moore publicly about homosexuality.
28:15: But they were the ones that addressed the sin issue. And he answered them all in just 10 seconds. He knows very well how to answer things clearly, articulately, so that they're very quick and provide a very good, thorough answer.
28:31: He can do that. He can be that concise. We know that about him. Absolutely.
28:38: So why is this a different animal in? Correct. And the only thing I see similar to last week is the fact that it's within the
28:48: Southern Baptist Convention. He's very clear outside of the Southern Baptist Convention. But the issues within the convention are where I think
28:55: Dr. Mueller cannot have his cake and eat it, too. I mean, have you ever if you're listening in this, have you been where you've had conversations with people and you ask them a question and they start saying, well,
29:09: I'm not I'm not going to be forced into a, you know, a short answer, Twitter answer. No one was asking you for that.
29:17: That's the issue. Phil wasn't asking him, Dr. Mullen, can you give me in one word or just a few words?
29:27: What what do you think when I say Beth Moore go home? No, I'm not go home.
29:34: We're not looking for a go home answer here. Correct. Right. There's there's a difference here between the question that John MacArthur was asked with.
29:41: Give me just a few words what you think of Beth Moore. Right. Totally different here.
29:47: And the difference is he had the opportunity, if he so wanted, to give a more thorough answer.
29:55: In fact, Dr. Mullen is going to take up most of the time. He took four minutes there that we played and most of it was avoiding to answer.
30:04: Yeah, it was a lack of clarity with a lot of confusion. And like I said, was he trying to intentionally be ambiguous?
30:15: No, but he made it effective nonetheless. And so, you know, he said this about being articulate when it comes to concerns about the evangelical left.
30:26: Absolutely. I mean, I have been quite vocal and anyone who knows the conversations amongst evangelical leadership knows exactly where I am on these issues.
30:38: How best to articulate that concern in this particular moment?
30:44: That's not easy. But that's the question being asked of him. You see, this is the this is where the problem is.
30:52: That was the very thing that was being asked of him was to answer that.
30:58: And he didn't do it. And that was the whole reason that Phil asked in this
31:05: Q &A about this. And he didn't answer. What's his answer?
31:10: Well, everybody knows where I stand. Nobody seems to know where you stand within the SBC. You see, we have to be clear and articulate and not ambiguous.
31:20: I'm trying not to. I'm being very clear on what I think the issue is. I think Dr. Moeller is trying to have his cake and eat it, too, in the issue of intersectionality, critical race theory and social justice within the
31:32: Southern Baptist Convention. He is very clear outside. It's within the convention.
31:39: It's easy to look over the fence at the evangelical left if and there is such a thing out there.
31:45: I mean, but say we're going to look at the mainline denominations and we're going to criticize them for their lack of allegiance to scripture, for their infidelity to authority and their infidelity to sufficiency of scripture.
31:57: It's easy to look over the fence and and see that you don't have to be very astute doctrinally to analyze that, see it and recognize the problem.
32:08: The issue, the ambiguity that comes up is we're not doing this in our own backyard.
32:15: Correct. And he's being asked this. And let me be clear, because some people may not know some of the backstory.
32:23: OK, if you watch that full that that full Q &A, you're going to see
32:30: Dr. Moeller. I mean, he could say, I'm not I'm not taking offense personally. Yeah, I think he is.
32:37: You not take offense personally. Well, I think I think I do know that he was he was taken off guard.
32:45: I will put that out there. I do know that. Yeah, I agree. But there's a reason he was taken off guard that some others weren't.
32:52: OK, and that would be the Dr. Moeller was not in the green room at the time when
32:59: Phil was talking to all the guys and discussing some of the things that they were going to be discussing.
33:06: And so you're going to if you listen to the full thing, you'll hear where Mark Dever is going to make reference to the fact that they just spoke about it in the room.
33:17: So basically, Phil sat down and said, hey, listen, these are some things I want to ask you guys. You guys OK with this?
33:23: And so most of them knew the questions were coming, except for Dr. Moeller. He wasn't in the green room.
33:30: OK, so this was something he didn't know was coming. I don't know how he didn't know. I'll be honest.
33:35: I don't know how he didn't know. Because, you know, building up to the
33:40: Shepherds Conference, there was all these questions of would Dr. or would
33:46: Phil ask the questions? Would Dr. Moeller answer? Would Mark Dever answer? That was building up to it.
33:53: So I don't know how he could not know it was going to come. I mean, the pre -published notice for that Q &A,
33:59: I mean, it's titled Thinking Biblically About Social Justice. This is the topic of the Q &A.
34:07: I doubt that he didn't. Well, Dr. Moeller was unaware of. Dr. Moeller may not have read that.
34:13: OK, I mean, he came in to speak. And I could tell you that, you know, as a speaker,
34:19: I do try to always read the bulletins and everything that they that everyone that's attending is reading.
34:25: Even when I go to a church and I'm preaching, I will read through that church as even it's the only time I've ever going to be in that church.
34:30: I will read through what that church has got going on in the, you know, in the, you know, events and announcements and things like that.
34:42: You know, I'll do that just for the sake of knowing the church. And he may not have done that.
34:50: I mean, he was pretty busy. So I'll give him I will give him the benefit of the doubt with that.
34:55: But. The thing is, is that here he's being asked and he's he's saying, well, everyone knows where I stand, but it's hard to articulate this what you're saying at different times, we we have to answer.
35:12: We can't have ambiguity. And yet you also will say it's hard to articulate it.
35:18: But everyone knows where you stand. Well, if you're being asked the question, then it's clear that people don't know where you stand and how do they answer?
35:25: People know where he stands outside of the Southern Baptists, not within.
35:31: So let me let me this this whole thing at the Shepcon, let me play this quote from him responding specifically to the statement of social justice and the gospel.
35:45: Phil, you asked. I want to be very honest. You've known me for a long time, so you know of my concerns.
35:51: I am having before God to try to address those concerns the way
35:56: I think best consistent with 35 years of public ministry. So I was not particularly appreciative of being handed a statement.
36:10: So the first question was about pride. I don't want this to be pride, but I had no opportunity to offer any particular consultation or suggestion.
36:23: It's not pride of authorship, but I am just reluctant to sign on to anything that's not creedal and confessional that that doesn't express exactly how
36:36: I would want to say something not signing should not be interpreted as a rejection of common concern.
36:44: I don't think that's fair. I don't think I think you understand that. Of course. Okay. And I'll agree with that tail end, right?
36:51: It's just because he didn't sign it. There's I know people who didn't sign it. I know people who worked on the writing of it and didn't sign it.
36:58: And people have their reasons. So it doesn't mean that he's in disagreement, but I have issue with something he said.
37:03: Let me play part of what he said again. I was not particularly appreciative of being handed a statement.
37:14: So the first question was about pride. I don't want this to be pride, but I had no opportunity to offer any particular consultation or suggestion.
37:26: It's not pride of authorship, but I am just reluctant to sign on to anything that's not creedal and confessional.
37:35: Okay. Here's why I have an issue with that. He's saying he didn't doesn't like being handed a statement where he has no input.
37:43: Okay. So let me give you some backdrop. Okay. Okay. He had he had plenty of opportunity for input.
37:52: I had input. If I had input, I can tell you that he could have had input.
37:59: He was given the statement and even Mark Dever in that Q &A will refer to the fact that they were given the statement.
38:06: They did have some Mark Dever mentions things he didn't quite agree with. He doesn't remember what they were at the time of the
38:12: Q &A, but he did have things that he said he didn't agree with. But I know that before that statement ever came out,
38:21: I had read the version. I had provided some feedback on things
38:27: I disagreed. And the fact that they took one of the things that I didn't like the particular wording and the next revision, it was the way that I suggested.
38:38: Now, maybe I wasn't the only one, but if someone like me, who's a nobody, had input, are you telling me,
38:45: Dr. Muller, they wouldn't have listened to you. I mean, if if if the guys who were on the initial team reached out to someone like me to say, you know, hey, and now granted,
38:57: I was one of the original 75 people who did, you know, try to get the try to get this started and see that to get some of the people that did get behind it to get them involved.
39:09: But the thing is, is that I cannot fathom how they would not take what you say into consideration.
39:23: Yeah, yeah, exactly. I'll tell you, though, the opening sentence or so that that Dr.
39:33: Muller mentioned, I really had a, you know, that just caught me wrong,
39:38: I guess, where he talks about he wants his response to be consistent with his thirty five years of public ministry.
39:45: I think what Phil Nobly was motivated to find out was not an answer, a response that was consistent with Dr.
39:52: Muller's thirty five years of ministry. What's the answer that's consistent with biblical fidelity?
40:01: What do you see that is in contrast to that? I'm far less concerned about Dr.
40:07: Muller's consistency with his public ministry than I am to see him step forward and be consistent with biblical fidelity.
40:16: He does that in a lot of places. And and here he's just not clear. And that's the reason he's being asked about this.
40:24: That's the whole thing, because there is a lack of clarity on this issue.
40:30: And within the Southern Baptist Convention, I'll keep being clear about that. OK, so that it is clear the issue that I have again, he's making statements that are defensive.
40:43: He's making statements to avoid answering. And that is where I kind of have some issue with this.
40:50: OK, let me I mean, let me play from his from the
40:57: November the November 11th briefing where he talks about the fact that you can't change language, you can't play games with language, because this is what the
41:06: Southern Baptists are doing with this issue. All right. So let me play some of the clips from that, from what
41:13: Dr. Muller has said about using language and giving it dual meanings, one for the culture and one for the church.
41:20: But as we're thinking about the necessity of clarity and the danger of confusion, evangelical
41:25: Christians need to keep very much in mind that language is never neutral. And that's the whole point here.
41:31: Now, what we need to note here is that the acceptance of that language is actually quite incompatible with the official teaching of the
41:39: Roman Catholic Church. But this is not a predicament by any means limited to Roman Catholic schools and institutions, because we see some evangelical schools and certainly many other schools with different religious heritage and identity trying to find the same way out.
41:55: In worldview analysis, the biggest problem here is the assumption that you can accept language without accepting the new moral reality that the language brings, especially this kind of language.
42:05: OK, so you heard there in those three clips, he's really clear. You can't play the games with the language.
42:13: It's just it's not acceptable. And and yet this is what is going on with social justice.
42:20: Let me play a three minute clip of Dr. Muller again at the Q &A. So if you if you take the whole social justice issue and realize the poisoned well that comes from, which is basically the reduction of everything to structural issues, it's a more traditionally
42:39: Marxist argument that with variant forms that aren't so explicitly Marxist, but are based upon the fact that morality is not the central issue, but structural issues are the are the central issue.
42:52: If you take that out and biblically, let's let's critique social justice, then we've got justice.
43:01: And and that's where there are going to be ongoing discussions that are unavoidable about what biblical justice requires of us.
43:12: And so I when you say, where is this going? I don't think there's any way to avoid a lot of these questions.
43:20: And I don't think any of the people who think they're avoiding them are going to avoid them for long. One way or another,
43:27: I mean, our answer to social confusion cannot be we're not going to talk about this.
43:33: And especially on an issue like racism. I mean, I'm confronted with the reality that takes social justice out of it.
43:41: I've got simple justice issues, biblical justice issues that are very close to home.
43:47: I've got to deal with. Sometimes we don't deal with them until they're brought to our attention. So that kind of public kind of public airing on various issues is going to continue.
43:59: I think if we are not biblical and honest about the reality of simple, straightforward, biblical justice issues, then then we're going to be seen as incredibly hypocritical when we do stand for a biblical understanding of sexuality and gender and marriage.
44:16: And frankly, the exclusivity of the gospel and the ontological trinity and the inerrancy of scripture.
44:24: I don't think there's any way to avoid these. And that's where, again, I'm going to say this is what I've tried to talk about and do in public, thinking out loud in public for 35 years.
44:36: And I'll stand on that body. I'm thankful there are very few things I've had to go back and revise in 35 years.
44:44: It's a consistent argument. And by the way, you're talking about the briefing. It's not just about politics. I deal deeply in the life of denominations, including my own, with theological issues, with the with the entire spectrum of the culture.
44:58: So I intend to keep on doing that, but I hope to do so absolutely consistently and absolutely biblically with fidelity.
45:09: And I invite you and all others to interrogate every aspect of my life and show me where I may come short.
45:16: OK, so again, that was three minutes of non -answer. I mean, yeah, yeah.
45:24: But look at it. Look at it. Look at what I've done. Look at what I've done. Look at what I've done. I don't care what you've done.
45:30: You know why? We are you seriously think about this.
45:36: Will Dr. Mohler accept that argument? Look at what I've done. Look at my years of ministry.
45:42: Will he accept that from Francis Chan? A good point.
45:49: I mean, he did some great things in the past, but the issue is the trajectory he's on now.
45:56: Yeah. And that's the question being asked, the trajectory that he's on now.
46:04: Yeah. And he's not answering now. He's the issue.
46:10: He talks about clarity. Right. But what is the roots of social justice?
46:16: This is the whole reason we have an issue with this. He understands that you can't play games with the language.
46:23: Let me play. I'm going to go back to that episode. Here's what he says about language being neutral.
46:28: But as we're thinking about the necessity of clarity and the danger of confusion, evangelical
46:34: Christians need to keep very much in mind that language is never neutral. And that's the whole point here.
46:39: OK, language is not neutral. So can you can you go with having it both ways and use language and control the meaning?
46:46: In worldview analysis, the biggest problem here is the assumption that you can accept language without accepting the new moral reality that the language brings, especially this kind of language.
46:57: OK, so he says that. So the whole issue that many of us have, and if you watch the founders documentary, by what standard?
47:05: You'll see that this is the whole thing. What is the root of social justice?
47:12: Well, Dr. Mueller provides it. So if you if you take the whole social justice issue and realize the poisoned well that comes from, which is basically the reduction of everything to structural issues, it's a more traditionally
47:27: Marxist argument with variant forms that aren't so explicitly Marxist, but are based upon the fact that morality is not the central issue, but structural issues are the are the central issue.
47:41: If you take that out and biblically let's let's critique social justice, then we've got justice.
47:49: And and that's where there are going to be ongoing discussions. OK, so he recognizes, as we've been addressing what the the foundation, the roots of social justice is, it's
48:03: Marxism. Right. That's the reason so many people have an issue with it, because it's
48:09: Marxism. That's the that right there is the issue that people have been having.
48:16: So when he's bringing this up and he's saying this. The issue is, is that when the
48:22: Southern Baptist Convention accept this Resolution 9. People are saying, yes, but you're you cannot.
48:32: Exactly as he says, you cannot say that we can have this
48:37: Marxism without the Marxism. No, you can't. And and the critical point that that you don't hear a lot of talk about.
48:47: And, you know, I'm not maybe I'm not capable, but this is part of critical race theory and intersectionality in the cultural context.
48:57: It has to do with power. It has to do with redistribution, not only of of wealth, but but primarily of power.
49:08: Well, we see what happens with that in culture. We have historical evidence from societies that have tried that, from governments that have tried that.
49:18: We've seen the failure that that produces. But it is still in the context of Christianity, in the evangelical church, when you introduce these concepts, it is fundamentally an issue of power.
49:33: Now, who has the power? Well, we defer to the word of God and the
49:39: Lord Jesus Christ, who is the one who is building his church. And these things are outside of the boundaries of what
49:47: Scripture compels us to. But you don't hear a lot of talk about power, and he's sort of referencing it there with the issue of Marxism, with the poisoned well, with the atheistic worldview that that comes from, the systemic and institutional issues that this victimhood and racism and all those things produce.
50:09: Well, that's cultural. But what's the answer in the church? Where is the clarity on how this affects the church?
50:15: What's the church's biblical response to be? Because he knows that you can't avoid social justice.
50:21: He says that. Listen, I don't think there's any way to avoid a lot of these questions. And I don't think any of the people who think they're avoiding them are going to avoid them for long, one way or another.
50:31: I mean, our answer to social confusion cannot be we're not going to talk about this.
50:37: But that's exactly what he's doing when it comes to the Southern Baptist Convention. Well, exactly.
50:42: And our response to the culture is not primarily the way I understand
50:48: Scripture. I'm not to go to them with issues and answers for their social justice concerns, because those are just placebo effects that you might produce by some sort of philosophy.
51:02: What I'm told by our Lord to go to the culture with is his gospel. That's where I need to address culture.
51:09: That's the solution to the problems. Yeah, that's exactly right.
51:16: Because the look, let me let me play him on this, because he ends up saying it's hypocritical if we don't address the justice, the social justice.
51:25: Right. The whole argument is he's not addressing it within the Southern Baptist Convention within the church.
51:32: Well, more specifically within the Southern Baptist Convention. This is where I think, well, trying to have your cake and eat it, too, is thus a metaphor for trying to have it both ways.
51:45: It is impossible. I agree. Yeah, this is so this is what he said about being hypocritical.
51:52: I think if we are not biblical and honest about the reality of simple, straightforward, biblical justice issues, then then we're going to be seen as incredibly hypocritical when we do stand for a biblical understanding of sexuality and gender and marriage and frankly, the exclusivity of the gospel and the ontological trinity and the inerrancy of Scripture.
52:16: And he's 100 percent correct. And that's why people have been calling him out because he has been and I don't mean to sound like I am bashing on a godly man.
52:33: But no, that's not the point. Yeah. It seems hypocritical when he's being asked direct questions and he's spending all this time giving non answers.
52:47: Look at who I platform. Look, look at what I've done for all these years. Listen to what I do on the on the podcast. Look at all this stuff.
52:54: Then just answer the question. The question is not about the issues outside of the church.
53:03: The question was within the church specifically, but more specifically, the
53:10: Southern Baptist Convention for him. He's not answering it. And this is why he's seen as hypocritical.
53:18: And you know, if you listen two weeks ago to the podcast I did with Virgil, we play
53:24: Ben Shapiro with Gloria Allred. And what ends up happening when her arguments fall apart?
53:31: She she was making arguments. He starts making emotional arguments when she started getting challenged and couldn't support him.
53:38: She starts saying, well, Sonny, you're you're not old enough. You know, she starts getting kind of in his face and being like, you know, you're not old enough to remember what it was like before abortion was legal.
53:47: You know, that's chronological Gnosticism. Ridiculous. And so, you know, you end up seeing a little bit of this.
53:58: Um, when when he was saying, like, look who I'm platforming with, look at, you know, I'm not gonna be forced into a
54:04: Twitter conversation. I don't like being handed a statement. I don't believe he was handed a statement and said, here, sign this.
54:12: I mean, I I know that many people that are have a much bigger platform than the one
54:19: I have saw that statement. I know some of them who had it and their names are not on that list.
54:25: They didn't sign, but I know they had input. Yeah, there's no doubt that if if Dr.
54:31: Moeller, a man of his standing, probably, I mean, one of the most astute and savvy intellectuals in what we'd call our camp, if he wanted input, he could have had input.
54:47: Well, let me let me make it even stronger. You know what a lot of us were trying to do when we were working on this and the person who was kind of spearheading it, you know, we we signed a letter asking
55:00: Dr. John MacArthur to to get behind this and join us with this. Well, Dr.
55:05: MacArthur and Dr. Moeller are friends, or at least they were friends before that Shepherds conference. Yeah.
55:11: And as was mentioned for 20 years. But maybe that ended. But do you really think that Dr.
55:20: MacArthur didn't go to Dr. Moeller or that if Dr. Moeller saw that statement and he said to, hey,
55:26: John, let's talk about it. I don't like the way this is worded. I'm not sure about this. Can we change that?
55:31: You really think that he wouldn't have listened? Yeah. Are we to expect that it was just, hey,
55:38: Al, it's on the Internet. Sign it. Yeah, really. You think that's how it went down? If that's not the way it went down for someone like me,
55:45: I'm sorry. That's not the way it went down for Dr. Moeller. But but listen to go ahead. No, I was going to say, that's what you,
55:51: I think, told me to go do. Yeah, I signed it. I said, go sign it now. But listen, listen to this clip.
55:58: 30 seconds. Listen, I won't be forced to answer. But let me play two clips, actually.
56:04: I'm going to play a clip we opened with about ambiguity. And then I want to play a clip where he's saying I'm not going to be forced to answer.
56:10: Listen to these two now as we put these two together. Christians understand the responsibility to be clear, to be always ready to give an answer and to give that answer directly with clarity, not with confusion.
56:24: And we understand that even as confusion is to be avoided and clarity is to be demonstrated, we understand that the worst form of confusion is an intentional confusion, an intentional ambiguity.
56:37: OK, that's from the briefing. November 11th. Here's from the Shepherds conference before that briefing.
56:42: Do you not see that that the evangelical movement, even the even our constituency, the most conservative end of the evangelical movement, is becoming a little more susceptible to that?
56:56: But, Phil, you've known me for a long time. You know, the answer to the question is yes, but I'm not going to be forced into a situation before thousands of people in which
57:04: I have to say I'm going to do it your way. Sorry. OK, I'm just not. And if that's a fellowship amongst us, this would be a good time to find out.
57:13: Now, that clip was very telling. Because he's saying, look, you should just know that the answer is yes.
57:21: Well, the fact that he's asking, it says that he doesn't know the answer is yes. Within our conservative
57:26: Christian fellowship. Right. OK, he's he Phil was being articulate with that.
57:33: And I'm sorry, but Dr. Moeller got snippy there. I mean, he's even saying that this is an issue of, you know, fellowship.
57:41: We should know right now. Yeah. Yeah. You know, by virtue of the fact that the question is being asked respectfully.
57:52: There's a need for clarity. The question would not have been asked if we all knew, like Dr.
58:01: Moeller suggested, filled it in snippy.
58:07: Yeah, I would probably agree with that. Yeah, I mean, and that's that's the thing we're saying there should be clarity.
58:14: Dr. Moeller said you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Well, just as with last episode,
58:22: I think at this episode, what we see is that Dr. Moeller is trying to have his cake and eat it, too.
58:29: And we wish he would have clarity within the convention that we believe he wants to lead.
58:37: If Dr. Moeller wants to be president of the Southern Baptist Convention, even if he doesn't, he's still a leader.
58:42: He's still a president of a Southern Baptist seminary. He's still a major force within the Southern Baptist movement.
58:49: What what he says carries a lot of weight with them. And I'm sorry if if he will not answer for the specific, clear question being asked about the social justice movement within the
59:07: Southern Baptist or within those that would be the conservative Christians. That is, as he says right here,
59:15: I think if we are not biblical and honest about the reality of simple, straightforward biblical justice issues, then then we're going to be seen as incredibly hypocritical when we do stand for a biblical understanding of sexuality and gender and marriage and frankly, the exclusivity of the gospel and the ontological trinity and the inerrancy of Scripture.
59:40: All right. So there you go. I basically am saying I believe he's being hypocritical because he's trying to have his cake and eat it, too.
59:52: I wish I wish I didn't have to say that, but I think he's refusing to answer and not answering.
01:00:01: And he said it. We've played these clips for you guys so you can hear him in his own words. He clearly understands it when it comes to the social justice outside of our conservative circles.
01:00:12: But we're not asking about that. The question is, within the circles, the
01:00:18: Southern Baptist Convention has now accepted the language of cultural
01:00:23: Marxism, but they say they can do it without the identity and the history and the meaning of the culture when they use critical race theory and intersectionality.
01:00:35: And Dr. Moeller on his briefing on the November 11th said, you cannot do that. You cannot take the words and change the meaning.
01:00:44: It fails. Well, but that's what the Southern Baptists are doing.
01:00:50: And that's why we bring this up, because this is something where Dr. Moeller, if anybody has some say to pull into here,
01:00:58: Dr. Moeller can can carry a lot of weight with the Southern Baptist Convention to change this.
01:01:05: You're absolutely right. And we can't forget the influence of the
01:01:10: Southern Baptist Convention. There were what, 15 million members, their footprint in our wing of conservative evangelicalism is huge.
01:01:21: And and what they affirm, what they disaffirm, these things have trickle down effects throughout the rest of what we'd consider our constituency, fellow believers who think theologically and biblically like we do.
01:01:36: That's why it's so important for Dr. Moeller to make clear in the
01:01:42: Southern Baptist Convention where it stands, what he stands for, what he would define as social justice biblically.
01:01:51: He needs the clarity without the ambiguity, without the confusion and to give a direct answer.
01:01:59: I mean, he says we must always be prepared to give an honest answer. And if he doesn't do it within the
01:02:05: SBC, that has enormous negative implications for the future of conservative
01:02:13: Christianity, conservative evangelical Christianity. You know what I'm looking forward to, Bud? Sir.
01:02:20: Next week, when we have plenty of interviews from people from G3 and we get into some more enjoyable topics.
01:02:30: But I may stay home. I don't know. Yeah, I mean, there are times where doing episodes like this is necessary.
01:02:40: We do not do it here just to get clicks. Clearly, I say clearly, because if we were doing that, we would title this something, you know,
01:02:50: Al Moeller and his sin, you know, and be really accusatory and stuff like that. This isn't for clickbait.
01:02:57: This is because we have a concern. Absolutely. No, we pray for Dr. Moeller.
01:03:03: We love Dr. Moeller. We want to see him. Uh, exert the influence that he has biblically with the truth that he knows and that he's expressed in multiple different places.
01:03:14: We want to see him do that within the context of the SBC, because it carries such weight throughout the rest of evangelical
01:03:22: Christianity. Yeah. And this is why we do it.
01:03:27: We do it because we do want people to be aware of what the issue is, because, you know, if just like Dr.
01:03:35: Moeller does on his briefing, he warns people of the issues he sees that the
01:03:41: Christian community needs to be aware of. And we're doing the same thing here. This is a little bit less of a teaching time than we usually do.
01:03:49: But we do. There is some things you can see here. I mean, we were trying to show you as Dr.
01:03:55: Moeller's not answering things, how to identify that so that you could recognize things like that.
01:04:01: But we do hope and pray that the Southern Baptist Convention will stop straying from biblical truth into cultural
01:04:10: Marxism, because it will be the destruction of the Southern Baptist Convention. I mean, those that took it from liberalism and turned it conservative are the very ones that are not standing up for the truth now that are going to bring about the liberalization again of the
01:04:27: Southern Baptist Convention. Who's going to stand up for the conservative voice now? That's that's the question.
01:04:33: Silence is consent. Silence is consent. But I would I wish that Dr.
01:04:39: Moeller would stand up and not try to have his cake and eat it, too. So, Bud, we're going to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.
01:04:50: But you know what? What's that? That's a wrap. This podcast is part of the
01:04:55: Striving for Eternity ministry. For more content or to request a speaker or seminar to your church, go to strivingforeternity .org.
01:05:02: Every day you can find us whether we're out in the trucks, up on the lines or working the phones through the seasons and around the clock at National Grid.
01:05:15: We never stop the work of making our systems smarter, stronger, cleaner to keep energy reliable and affordable, because after all, we're customers, too.
01:05:28: Visit ngrid .com and see how we can help you right now. Do you know how old your water heater is?
01:05:35: If it's 10 to 15 years old, it may be time to switch to the savings, comfort and reliability of a new high efficiency model.
01:05:43: Nobody wants to experience a breakdown. So if your equipment is getting near the end of its lifespan, now is a great time to make the switch.
01:05:51: Take advantage of National Grid's incentives and save up to $550 on select natural gas water heaters.