Yesterday Al Mohler praised the Lord of the Rings stories as shining examples of Christian fiction, and I was thinking all the while: “If Tolkein’s theology were laid out before Mohler, he’d likely decide that Tolkein was a satanic influence, not because I think there’s any sign of such, but becuase for Mohler, if there is anything thatstrays from the “system” of “checks and balances” Mohler rigidly follows, then he’s gonna be on the black list.”
Well, today, Mohler tears into Howard Dean. Now let me say this: I am not enthralled with Dean’s statements about his faith. I don’t see any great depth. But I also know that Mohler is certainly the epitome of someone I would absolutely mistrust in public office, such is his certainty that he has all the right slants on everything, and such is the very judgmental tone of nearly everything he writes.
“In reality, Gov. Dean’s religious convictions are so private, even he doesn’t seem to know what they are.”
Mohler would say this about anyone who didn’t use the “key evangelical words”.
Mohler goes on:
Newsweek’s Howard Fineman asked Dean, “Do you see Jesus Christ as the son of God and believe in him as the route to salvation and eternal life?” Dean answered: “I certainly see him as the son of God. I think whether I’m saved or not is not gonna be up to me.”
That’s not going to fly on the campaign trail. The American electorate may not be a constituency of Bible scholars and theologians, but voters know confusion when they see it.
This is where Mohler becomes absolutely disgusting to me, and displays his utter cluelessness when it comes to pious language. The difference between what he identifies as “confusion” about faith and “resistnce to a pet evangelical/fundy theological phrase such as “saved” is obvious to all who don’t legalistically require everyone to use freely and fluently is the utmost in theological bigotry. I DON’T like the term myslef, not because I don’t think I’m “SAVED”, but because I think that the term is widely MISUSED, a nd apparently most of all by Mohler. He is totally clueless on the idea of process in the use of “saved” in the new testament. Paul exhorts us in Philippians 2:12 to “work out your salvation in fear and trembling”. Was Paul “confused”?
He told the Boston reporter that “Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised, people who were left behind.” He went on to say, “He fought against self-righteousness of people who had everything…He was a person who set an extraordinary example that has lasted 2000 years, which is pretty inspiring when you think about it.” Pretty inspiring when you think about it? That statement is more remarkable for what it doesn’t say–when you think about it.
OK, so what is he “left out” here Mr Mohler? That statement “too social” for ya? It is no surprise to me that Mohler would find the idea of Christ talking about the importance of ministering to the disenfranchised. To MOhler, these are his “liberal flag words” which signal heresy, and worse, Democrat. For me, the oppostite holds true. I resonate more with the Democratic party BECAUSE they talk more about justice, the poor, the disenfranchised. They stress government programs becuase the root of that emphasis is on actually wanting to DO something. Mohler focuses on whatpeople SAY, and what HE THINKS they’re REALLY SAYING.
On the other hand, to mention the Pilgrims and Governor Dean in one sentence is to point to more dissimilarity than anything else. The Pilgrims were driven by deep Christian conviction and they sought above all things to establish a society that would live out the comprehensive truth of Christianity–what we would now call a Christian worldview.
This is where Mohler is at his “scariest”. When he says “Christian worldview”, he is at his most militant fundamentalist, “empire of God” mode. The theocratic , theological police state he is prone to push can be described no better than to observe how he has become one of the “head witchhunters” of the campaign by the fundamentalists to “cleanse” the Southern Baptist Convention.
Indeed, Wallis argues that Howard Dean’s approach will allow conservative Christians to define the terms of the debate.
(By the way, Mohler is comfortable drawing on the observations of people when their arguments support or are used to support his own, asin the case of Tolkein in Mohler’s article yesterday, but in all other cases, Wallis and his theology would be grounds for getting onto the dreaded Mohler blacklist. )
I would agree with Wallis that Dean’s statements are not good news for all the Christians who are not of the “Christian Right” ilk. On the other hand, the Bush administration is exactly one I would oppose , on many of the same grounds. To “talk the talk” is not enough. For someone who was so quick to rush to war, and to either cooperate in the mass deception of the American public as he did (or to be “duped” by those in his administration into believing it —as the former CIA agent, Ray McGovern I wrote about in a previous post observed in this article, ” I don’t know which is worse”), I am inclined to stick with the people who don’t blaspheme the name of God by identifying the U.S.’s actions with the acts of God. This is doing enormous harm to the reputation of Christianity. Mohler would not think so, because apparently for him, war is an acceptable form , entirely reconcilable with the gospel he touts. In fact, Mohler and numeous SBC leaders are often quoted in the press as the sole denominational leaders who supported the U.S.’s Iraq offensive. But hey, all those OTHER denominations are liberal, and therefore theologically dismissable, and all those Europeans too, and the U.N. too. It ifits the pattern of the SBC’s move toward rejecting any hint of “assimilation” and “asociation with diverse groups with whom they have to expand their minds and their understanding of faith in other cultures. To them, saying “God is the smae yesterday , today, a nd forever” means that God can’t be God unless he is conceived and spoken of in just the right terms, with just the right interpretation.