upcoming ETS conference geared toward nervous protection of theological boundaries

I stumbled upon a flyer advertising the upcoming Northeast Region meeting in March of the Evangelical Theological Society. The conference title is “The Liberal Seepage into the Evangelical Culture (What Is an Evangelical?).” The first page of the flyer is copied below and all of it is available for viewing here.

This does not represent the best face of ETS.

Where do I begin?

How about with the wonderful choice of an image that, apparently, captures the heart of the conference.

“Wolf in sheep’s clothing” is an common criticism against those who hold “dangerous” opinions for theological conservatives. But the metaphor is intentionally demonizing. It connotes a clandestine, sinister, and therefore slanderous strategy on the part of those deemed “wolves.”

The truth is, those they likely have in their sights are quite open and upfront about what they believe. They write books and stuff –which is precisely why they are noticed.

The choice of image tells us more about the conference organizers than anything else, namely they are operating in a culture of fear and driven by fear.

Along with the image, every word of the conference title is wrong.

“Liberal” is a scare word that does not remotely describe evangelical insiders and others who find it honorable and necessary to criticize the evangelical system. But, apparently, to disagree is to be “liberal”–being labeled a warlock would get you more slack.

“Seepage” is what sewers do.

“The Evangelical Culture”–there’s only one and we’re it.

“The Evangelical culture” is under threat, and the propriety and necessity of defending that culture’s continued existence is simply a given. Whether said culture is true or the most faithful expression of the Gospel is not up for discussion and requires no deliberation. Ever. It would be like questioning air. This is tribal thinking, and if criticism is blocked like this, the only by-product is insular thinking and intellectual inbreeding.

Still all this would be fine, since we are free in this country to express our thoughts, whatever they may be. But what makes this whole facade crumble is the ETS purpose statement on the second page of the flyer (click link above), which begins, “ETS is a professional, academic society of Biblical scholars, teachers, pastors, student….”

Academic? No. What this flyer, and this conference, represents is anything but an academic gathering for the simple reason that it sees contrary views as liberal seepage and cleverly disguised wolves waiting for the chance to rip the flesh from the bones of the unsuspecting masses.

This flyer was written by an apologetics organization, not an academic one.

And I’m fine with that, but take the word “academic” out of the blurb.

Let me make one thing crystal clear: I know members in good standing at ETS, and good academics, that would be eager to distance themselves from this sort of rhetoric. I make no sweeping anti-ETS criticism here. But this flyer is appalling, bordering on self-parody.

What is needed in an academic conference–including an Evangelical one–is an engagement of ideas, not sheltering. What this particular conference is projecting is, ironically, no different from what any ideologically liberal organization does on secular college campuses or research universities when cloaking propaganda in academic rhetoric.

Oh that the day would come when ETS would explore, debate, and celebrate its beliefs without resorting to such liberal worldly tactics.

What organizations that espouse such tactics do not understand is the high price they pay in the long run for presenting their cause in this way: poeople see through it and leave.

A faith like this, that needs such nervous protection, is not worth giving your life to. That message comes through loud and clear.

 

  • John W. Morehead

    Unfortunately, I’ve had some conservative Evangelicals label me “liberal” or “postmodern” when articulating perspectives outside the box. It is often accompanied by the boundary maintenance question, “Do you believe in inerrancy?” In my consideration of Evangelicalism, we often draw upon various metaphors for viewing others, and the fraud/expose and warfare/enemy lenses are prominent, but usually toward outsiders. It appears that the boundaries are closing in as these metaphors are applied to “would be” insiders.

    • sanctusivo

      When the culture warriors turn their weapons inside the circle of fellowship/affiliation, one knows that their weapons are no longer effective against outsiders. Whatever it is that they’re doing, it isn’t koinonia.

      • Andrew Dowling

        “When the culture warriors turn their weapons inside the circle of
        fellowship/affiliation, one knows that their weapons are no longer
        effective against outsiders.”

        Exactly. Watch for more internal witch trials as the rest of the United States increasingly shrugs its shoulders and changes the channel . . .

      • super scared Christian

        and the Jerusalem council? acts 15:2 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

  • Eric Simpson

    I think you mean “bordering” on self-parody.

    • peteenns

      I probably do :-) Fixed.

  • DonaldByronJohnson

    My take is Mohler is actually scared … of losing power.

  • http://jesuswithoutbaggage.wordpress.com/ jesuswithoutbaggage

    I continue to call myself a theologically progressive evangelical. Fellow progressive bloggers are puzzled as to why I continue in the evangelical camp, but it is because if all progressives leave evangelicalism there is little chance for evangelicalism to change for the better.

    I’m staying!

    • WonkishGuy

      I wish I were that optimistic about the potential to change evangelicalism. I believe that individual evangelicals can shift their views so that they align better with the academic and scientific consensus. This is the shift that I have been undergoing in the past few years. However, once you’ve realized what needs to be changed in evangelicalism, you’re also ipso facto someone whose voice will carry next to no weight, unless you happen to already be a very prominent evangelical leader.

      Because, sooner or later, you will run into the fact that what needs to be changed are not just random beliefs but things that are connected to deeply held convictions about the Bible, inspiration, proper hermeneutics, etc.

      Let me give you two examples from your own website: let’s say that I wanted to convince my conservative church that we should be more accepting of gay people and that hell is not about eternal punishment. The first question that I would be asked is whether I truly believe that the Bible is inerrant. And, since I don’t, my voice would immediately carry no weight whatsoever because people are only convinced if you can show them chapter and verse interpreted in a way that is familiar to them. They would also point out to me that I’m not in agreement with the statement of faith anymore and that I therefore do not have a right to try to change the church.

      My point of view is that “progressive evangelical” is a perfectly fine label. However, it is much easier to wear it in a non-evangelical church than in the average evangelical church, which will typically have a statement of faith that excludes most progressive evangelical views. I for one have given up on the “evangelical” label and am happy to just call myself a Christian. And, in fact, this makes for a much better witness, as people don’t automatically assume that you’re a uber-conservative who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old.

      • http://jesuswithoutbaggage.wordpress.com/ jesuswithoutbaggage

        Damien I agree with your reasons for leaving evangelicalism and I honor your decision. I did something similar when I left fundamentalism for evangelicalism in 1970. At that time, there was less overlap than there is today.

        There may be a time when I do the same with evangelicalism, but for now I want to make what impact I can on the progressive momentum within the movement. Those brave leaders moving a segment of evangelicals and evangelical institutions in a less fundamentalist direction deserve my support, as tiny as my influence is.

        I think evangelicalism will come to a severe divide at some point; the conservatives will become indistinguishable from fundamentalists, while the progressives become separated entirely. I would like to see as many in the progressive camp as possible.

        In my opinion, you are right that the root problem is one issue–inerrancy. Nearly every additional misguided evangelical commitment is based on that, so our main argument must be about inerrancy.

        But we can address inerrancy even as we pursue doctrines that make many evangelicals uncomfortable–angry God, hell, Young Earth Creationism, homophobia, and so forth.

        I may have to jump ship from evangelicalism–but not today!

  • Jeremy S. Crenshaw

    This is sad indeed, if it is going in the direction that people like Mohler would take it. Still, I do not agree with everything the article says either. I don’t believe that to be academic means that everything is on the table for discussion. I also recognize in todays Evangelicalism that there are many wolves in sheep’s clothing. We need not ignore what has been happening within groups like the Episcopals in the US, the Methodists, some Baptists, the Anglicans in the UK, etc. I see the same issues starting to grip Pentecostalism – many already argue for the same things. Whether one wants to believe it or not, there is a very subversive movement today that is pushing an agenda that is very foreign to Scripture and historic Christian belief and practice. An eye opening book to read on this subject is Never Silent by Thad Barnum. Never Silent documents the story of the apostasy within the Episcopal Church USA and the resulting missionary movement instigated by the global South to reach the West. I am now a part of that movement. Here is a quote given in the book from Rwandan bishop John Rucyahana: “It’s not merely about the gay issue. It’s about the gospel, and who Christ is. You need to hear this story. You may not be Episcopalian, but what happened to them is already happening to you.” http://www.amazon.com/Never…/dp/0615206948/ref=sr_1_1…

    • Andrew Dowling

      “Whether one wants to believe it or not, there is a very subversive movement today that is pushing an agenda that”

      And what evil agenda is being pushed?

  • Brian P.

    Alas. Seepage. Sounds like something requiring Depends. What I found interesting about this is “boundaries.” There are a couple principle ways of defining what something is. One is based upon boundaries–what’s in, what’s out. The other is perhaps an idealized center, such as what’s often comfortable with adjectives that end in ~able. LIke my neighbor’s dog is quite likable. Personally, I prefer to think about Christianity in the latter category–where Christ is the center, where we are called to be like Him and to be Christ-like. In this style of thinking “boundaries” are something that are supposed to be fuzzy, unclear, ambiguous. Personally, I think this is as much as anything a loss of a style of Modernistic Platonic thought, where things are placed into discrete little categories. Whatever. But if the Light shines into the darkness there can’t help but be a penumbra with the eclipse. Personally I’m glad to have the freedom to think in different styles–and in the gray areas in between the different styles. It’s much less uncomfortable than, say, an accidental shart during a hallway conversation during an Evangelical Philosophy Society event. Um, excuse me. I got to go now.

    • peteenns

      I also think of Christ as a “tethering center” that keeps bringing us back rather than an electrified fence that keeps us in.

      • Luke Breuer

        Best analogy so far!

      • AHH

        Good image, but running with it a crucial question would seem to be what sort of a tether.
        If it is a rope that doesn’t stretch, like a dog chained to a post, then it is not much different from the electrified fence.
        If it is infinitely stretchy, then it doesn’t keep us close to Christ at all.
        So I suppose the via media is a somewhat stretchy cord, that keeps us from getting TOO far from the center. To go geek for a moment, much argument is then about how stiff the spring constant should be.

        Maybe a better image for the tether would be the bungee cord. Not just about keeping us from straying too far, but actively pulling us toward Christ the center.

        • peteenns

          Absolutely, AHH. I was, as Pete Rose would say, 110% thinking bungee cord.

  • WBC

    You write:

    “Wolf in sheep’s clothing” is an common criticism against those who hold
    “dangerous” opinions for theological conservatives. But the metaphor is
    intentionally demonizing. It connotes a clandestine, sinister, and
    therefore slanderous strategy on the part of those deemed “wolves.”

    Thanks for the background. Were you aware that the offending metaphor comes from Jesus?

    It’s found in Matt 7:15

    • Simon Hall

      Wow. What do you think WBC? You think Peter doesn’t know his Bible. But it’s a great reference, helping us to understand what a false prophet is – someone who has an outer covering of religiosity but seethes inside with the need to judge, divide, dominate and control…

      • WBC

        Yes

        • Guest

          WBC…Westboro Baptist Church?

          • WBC

            No

          • Rick

            On a side note, who in the world would give someone (WBC in this instance) a “down arrow” for simply answering a question “no”? You may disagree with his earlier comment, but a down arrow for this? Really?

      • afraid conservative person

        funny that you would comment like that, with complete lack of reference to Jesus’ actual meaning. Of course the fruits of unrighteousness are exactly what Jesus is talking about and why the conference is advertised as such “Evangelicals” who deny the hell that Jesus preached, promote fornication and sexual deviancy, and hate the Bible that Jesus loved.” People who claim to be sheep(and shepherds), but are not. Jesus even tells us to judge in that very passage(once we have judged ourselves)… first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

        • Luke Breuer

          fruits

          Hmm, fruits and not mere beliefs? I’m reminded of the parable of the wheat & the tares, and that the final judgment in Mt 25 has no reference to theological beliefs whatsoever. Clearly what we believe matters, but it’s almost as if we think we’re way too confident in how precisely those beliefs influence actions. Rom 14 wasn’t written frivolously. Now, let’s take a look at antichrists:

          Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. (1 John 2:18-19)

          And then this verse:

          Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. (Mt 12:30)

          When is refusing admittance to others who claim to be believers ‘scattering’?

        • Andrew Dowling

          “Jesus even tells us to judge in that very passage(once we have judged
          ourselves)… first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will
          see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

          LOL. If one needs proof that people can distort the Bible to mean whatever they essentially want it to mean, I give you exhibit A. Thanks for the laugh.

  • sanctusivo

    Well, one can’t expect anything irenic when Albert Mohler is the keynote speaker. I’m looking for the next iteration(s) in abuse: “divergent” and/or “change agent.” Then my dance, or bingo, card will nearly be filled.

  • Paul Adams

    “Oh how we love to hate one another”
    Cardinal Newman, I believe.

  • John Hawthorne

    Pete: As you know, I’ve been playing around a lot with the idea of theological boundaries (short version: they don’t exist). Efforts to construct and then defend them are doomed to fail over the long run. I agree with the need for a serious academic discussion of these things that would involve players from a variety of perspectives.

    My initial thought for all this was that “nervous protection of theological boundaries” is multiply redundant. Constructing boundaries walls is hard work and prone to error, so they must always be watched. But somewhere the wall is weak and can’t stand up to influence from outside, so there is a constant state of paranoia that somewhere “they” are breaching the wall.

    • peteenns

      Good point, John, about multiple redundancy. I’m with you, but I can see a follow up by someone: “So, are there ANY boundaries at all? Can there be a boundary-less faith of any sort?”

      • John Hawthorne

        I hope to have something up this week on the topic. I’ve been playing with boundary issues for some time. This post from November begins to address your question from a sociological perspective: http://johnwhawthorne.com/2013/11/25/there-is-no-spoon-christian-boundary-maintenance/. But I think there’s much more to unpack theologically, sociologically, and practically.

        • Richard Goulette

          Hi John, “The Empathic Civilization” comes to mind when you go beyond theology to social(and other) aspects.

  • Leo O’Bannon

    Al Mohler and Ken Ham are at least two reasons why people would rather identify themselves as “spiritual” rather than evangelical or with any denomination.

  • Bev Mitchell

    In “Science, Politics and Gnosticism: Two Essays” (1968) Eric Voegelin summarizes the problem like this when discussing “the prohibition of questioning” that always emerges in gnostic-like systems. “….we are confronted here with persons who know that, and why, their opinions cannot stand up under critical analysis and who therefore make the prohibition of the examination of their premises part of their dogma.”

    Voegelin also makes the interesting claim that this “prohibition of questioning” has emerged as “a phenomenon unknown to antiquity that permeates our modern societies so completely that its ubiquity scarcely leaves us any room to see it at all.”

    • Tim

      Yes, absolutely. Some are slightly more subtle about it though. They say, “it’s ok to question”, but…it’s apparently not ok to actually challenge “core” doctrines such as the “traditional” view of hell. Sigh. Same difference, really.

      • peteenns

        It’s also “OK to question” but it’s not as OK to give answers.

        • Frank

          Its ok to give answers but they must be compelling. I have seen no compelling answers from liberal Christianity. Just man made opinions.

    • Daniel Merriman

      Bev, I can’t help but be impressed that you know Voegelin and seem to like Kugel, too. Now I don’t feel so weird.

      • Bev Mitchell

        Daniel,

        Don’t be too impressed. I just picked up that little book of two essays a while back and recently found it hiding in the “reading in progress” folder on my Kindle. Don’t have any idea of what led me to buy it, but sure am glad I did. Really quite a gem. So many things we try to say in all of these discussions have already been said elsewhere, usually better, often long ago. More time for reading needed ………….

        • Daniel Merriman

          Don’t want to hijack the thread, but Voegelin has had a lasting impact on my thinking since I first studied him back in the early 70′s. We had a political science prof who got his PhD at LSU when Voegelin was there. But he warned us that if you really understood Voegelin, you were dangerously close to becoming a gnostic.

          • Bev Mitchell

            From these two essays, I can’t understand why he would say that. It certainly seems that Voegelin could clearly identify and describe gnosticism and gnostic-like systems, but in the sense of knowing the enemy. Nothing pro-gnostic in this little book. The second essay does develop the interesting idea that the complete reliance on faith at the heart of Christianity can lead to the temptation to go for something apparently more certain (a system for example, or rules) – an unease with ‘simple’ confidence (trust) in Christ leading to a desperate search for a human certainty. Hence wall building and defensive behaviour. It all fits with the theme of the post. Still can’t get over that liberal wolf!

          • Daniel Merriman

            Bev, some of Voegelin’s followers are absolutely certain that they have been to the mountaintop. And, kind of like Straussians, they love their intramural cat fights.

            You lucked into one of his more accessible books. In much of his work, he presumes a tremendous amount of background knowledge, particularly of continental philosophy, on the part of the reader, thus the feeling of superiority on the part of some of his acolytes when they thank they have mastered him. I make no pretense of being anywhere close to that kind of understanding of him.

            That said, what you have picked up seems to be spot on. I think we would all be a lot better off as Christians if we used words like hope and trust more and words like certainty and assurance less.

          • Bev Mitchell

            Thanks for this Daniel. When biologists go wandering into philosophy we sometimes get lucky. I’ll leave that five volume temptation of his in the bookstore :-)

          • peteenns

            Now you two are making me put more books on my reading list….

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship Censored

            Christian busybodies, both FOX evangelical (e.g., ETS) and CNN progressive, are trying to Immanentize the Eschaton, (Voegelin, 1952) in an effort to control their neighbor’s behavior.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist

    Man, that is one scary and disturbing picture on the front of the flier! The wolf one ain’t so bad, though…

  • David Westfall

    “What is an evangelical?” The answer: someone who incessantly asks that question.

  • rvs

    LOL. That’s an amusing advertisement.

    “How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerors have been: how gloriously different are the saints.” –C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

    Lewis does a very good job of frustrating the incessant evangelical push for everybody to be on the same page, which is one of many subtexts afoot (ahoof?) in this oddball advertisement. I speak as neither a liberal nor a conservative.

  • ctrace

    You’re the one who comes across as fearful and nervous of apostolic biblical doctrine. “Hey, why don’t we go with the currents of the world? It’s much more comfortable to our fallen natures, isn’t it?” That seems like a good description of ‘academic’ these days as well.

    • Aceofspades25

      > fearful and nervous of apostolic biblical

      If you’re going to make claims like this, you’re going to need to back them up. I’ve been reading this blog for years and I think you’re spouting rubbish.

  • Brad J

    You sure this wasn’t put out there by the Onion?

  • Guest

    It is always interesting to me the ways in which the anti-intellectual and anti-artistic posture of fundamentalism shows up in graphics and texts. Refusal to engage rigorously with the arts means that when it comes time to choose a visual element, invariably it is clumsy and self-parodying. Likewise, the cumbersome and unwieldy title shows a disregard for the finer points of writing. But hey. If God is going to torch this stupid planet at any moment and we are going to live in disembodied spiritual perfection forever, what is the point of learning to draw or write?

    • ctrace

      You were expecting Rembrandt and Shakespeare on a conference poster?

      And the left has visual art and literature in it’s corner? Really?

      • B

        No, the left has visual art and literature in *its* corner. No apostrophe. Which you’d learn if you spent much time in literature.

        • ctrace

          I’m actually impressed you could spot a typo. Congratulations.

  • Andrew Dowling

    So much of hard conservatism is based on fear; just look at that graphic! lol. Reminds me of those right wing book titles “Bankrupt: How Obama and his Czars are Looking to Steal Your Retirement Savings . . . and your Children.”

    • ctrace

      Conservatives know business and markets. For survival in those spheres you have to be the ultimate in truly progressive and willing to change.

      You’re projecting.

      • Beau Quilter

        Right … because poor liberals, like George Soros, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Paul Allen, Robert Rubin, Sergey Brin, and Larry Page know nothing about business and markets.

        • ctrace

          People who take advantage of free market enterprise and preach dead end, soul-killing leftist policies are called parasites.

          • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist

            I’m not sure you could convince many people that Jobs and Gates – whom we have to thank for most of our modern conveniences – are parasites.

          • ctrace

            I didn’t make his list and didn’t feel like correcting it.

          • Beau Quilter

            Right … because when you’re proven wrong, the best argument you can make is to stick out your tongue and call people names.

          • Tim

            Heh. This reminds me of a great quote from “Shakespeare retold; A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. Titania to Oberon: “Tradition is the place we like to go and hide when we have lost the argument.”

    • Rick

      At least liberalism does not engage in fear tactics ;^)

      • Andrew Dowling

        I know your comment was meant to be a light jibe, but just to respond, yes liberalism by its very nature does not project nearly as much fear, because the very heart of liberalism going back to the Enlightenment is a belief in constant progress/optimism for the future and the inherent belief in the good of human beings (and this can clearly be taken to foolish extremes) Conservatism, as it seeks to “conserve” the existing institutions and paradigms, works out of fear of change and that people are naturally prone to evil and corruption, thus the relative lack of optimism about the future/faith in the ability for progress to arise from change..

        • Rick

          Yes, I know what liberalism is. I didn’t say there was equal projection (although I would disagree with “not project nearly as much…”). I just wanted to make sure it is recognized that both camps do it. That is all. Thanks.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship Censored
    • http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/ Lotharson

      In other words, the human condition we all have to cope with :-)

  • John McNassor

    That flyer is baaaaaad. Sorry.

  • http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/ Lotharson

    Hello Peter.

    I think that your expression “tribal thinking” sums up pretty well Conservative Evangelicalism and its anti-theistic opponents (who are most often former fundies ).

    I once gave the difference between a liberal and a progressive Christian, which amounts to a denial of the supernatural in the former case.

    I also defined the different types of Evangelicals elsewhere.

    Like Arminian theologian Roger Olson, I take the view that there are extremely few (if any) true liberals within the Evangelical Church.

    I am not an Evangelical but feel pretty edified by the writings of progressive Evangelicals such as you or Randal Rauser and it is always an euphoric experience to discover your new posts and articles.

    Lovely greetings in Christ.

  • Agni Ashwin

    I wonder if evolutionary theory is part of the “liberal seepage”?

    • AHH

      Given that Al Mohler is the chief speaker, and that Mohler has said loudly that evolution is incompatible with Christianity (which comes close to calling many of us heretics), you can bet that’s considered part of the “seepage”.

    • ctrace

      Unthinking genuflecting to science as a new authoritative priesthood and Magisterium is.

      • Agni Ashwin

        How about a thoughtful, measured, and considered acceptance of scientific theories, understood within a theistic, and specifically Christian, framework? Would that be liberal seepage?

  • Denis O. Lamoureux

    Hi Pete,
    Terrific post. I suppose since I presented a “No Historical Adam” paper at the Evangelical Theological Society in November, I am probably considered to be part of the “seepage” . . . a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    What is sad, and I believe what is not Christian, is the lack of respect. Isn’t interesting that the “true” evangelicals can use rhetoric like this? If I did it I would be blasted mercilessly as being a child of Satan.

    Denis

    • Ross

      Luckily for me, I am not a professional Evangelical Theologian, however I have felt bruised by the line of argument espoused in the flyer above and I sympathise with those of you whose heads are above the parapet.

      May the God who does exist strengthen and encourage you through any difficult times in a conflict which really should not exist.

      • Denis O. Lamoureux

        Thanks Ross. The Lord has blessed me with position in a university rather than in a Bible school.
        Denis

  • accelerator

    Lousy flyer, agreed. But fear is not always wrong. Should we be afraid of wrong ideas? Can they lead people astray? Will truth always triumph? The Episcopal Church USA, for example… would you think this flyer would be unfair if it were its target? Can’t we all just dialogue? Mean-spirited caricatures are wrong, but fear for the direction of theological trends and ideas…. not if you think truth maters.

    • ctrace

      Why is anybody conceding the image is bad? It’s rather well-done, graphically, and the idea itself is standard fare. Plus, that it stings liberal theological types is further evidence that it’s not some kind of inept effort.

  • Charlieford

    If I may riff off Bonhoeffer for a minute: There’s Christ. Then there’s other things. One of those other things is something called “Evangelical Culture.” Never confuse any of the other things for Christ.

  • Steve Ranney

    I learned quite a bit listening to Al Mohler crow about how they took over the Southern Baptist Convention, and how he became the president of some Southern Baptist seminary and fired everyone. It was eye opening, at a time I didn’t know much. It was at one of John MacArthur’s events about 10 years ago.

    • RCM

      That seminary is here in Louisville, KY. The sad thing is that it was once a broadly respected institution, but is now ignored by anyone that is not a fundamentalist Southern Baptist.

      • Steve Ranney

        He was fighting the seepage in his way, ha


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X