Mohler reacts in typical fashion to the concerns voiced in the media about the religious right.

In, “Why the Religious Right is Wrong,” Fitzgerald aims a broadside attack on the political involvement of conservative Christians. Fitzgerald, we might note, does not mince words. He identifies all evangelicals as fundamentalists, and charges that “belief in the inerrancy of Scripture saps God of majesty and mystery.” Fitzgerald claims that his church takes the Bible “too seriously to read it literally,” and argues that though “the Christian story speaks God’s truth,” this story is not to be limited to the Holy Scriptures. As he argues, “the doctrine of Biblical infallibility wants to trap the Divine inside texts that God’s power ultimately transcends.” This misrepresentation of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is eccentric, to say the least. Doctrines do not have “wants” and are incapable of “trapping” the Divine.

What about the threat of divine judgment? “As people who believe that humanity has the answer to its own problems we no longer believe we’re doomed,” he explains.

Mohler must be estatic, finding such a straw dog liberal to hold up as a shining, demonic example of what happens to someone when they “stray” from the “Right” path (Right in the sense of “we’re the only ones who are truly orthodox, and Right in the sense of The Religious Right).

As for “Biblical infallibility wants to trap the Divine inside texts that God’s power ultimately transcends” that Mohler quotes, I see the real problem here that it is a text that the fundamentalists want to maintain control over. The Right wants to “trap” those “truths” inside conclusions and apriori assumptions that fit their agenda. What fundamantalists (and I’d be interested to know where Mohler thinks that he departs from “fundamentalism”, since he is one of the most fierce raving fundamentalists I know of, albeit in “respectable” clothing.

Mohler starts quoiting this “Nash” guy:

“Suddenly the shoe is on the other foot,” Nash observes. “Religious conservatives have discovered the social dimension of the Gospel–although some never really lost sight of it. Now the liberals like Rev. Fitzgerald wish conservatives would go back into their churches and forget the political arena. Well, perhaps that sentence is too simplistic. Rev. Fitzgerald, it appears, would also prefer that they stop preaching their Gospel.”

“discovered the social dimension of the Gospel” ???? ….Uh, no……they never did. If you call picking out the “personal morality legislation” issues “social issues”, then , as I would expect, he is simply falling prey to the problem Christian bookstores have in selecting books for their “social issues” section. You don’t see issues such as environmertalism (except to attack the idea of having environmental concerns) or war (except to glorigy it and promote leaders who do) in their social issues section. Instead, it is limited to abortion, prayer in schools, homosexuality, and cults.