Oct
04
2010
Thoughts on Christianity Today's Profile of Albert Mohler
The cover story of this month’s Christianity Today is a lengthy profile of Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The story is written by Molly Worthen, a writer and journalist finishing her Ph.D. at Yale. The article covers the history of the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention as well as Mohler’s influence in the wider world of evangelicalism. After reading the story a few times, I wanted to weigh in with some thoughts.
First, I deplore the way that many evangelicals (particularly those in the conservative circles I run in) belittle Christianity Today. I’ve heard the jokes: Christianity Astray, Capitulation Today etc. Some dismiss CT as if the magazine never takes strong stands based on solid biblical reflection.
I have critiqued CT articles from time to time, but I don’t join the chorus of constant CT-critics. Generally speaking, the issues I sometimes have with CT’s coverage tend to be issues I have with the prevailing sentiments of evangelicalism. CT provides a snapshot of the para-church big-tent wing of evangelicalism, a tent that encompasses Christians with different views on a number of important issues. If I were to agree with everything I read in CT, I would no longer be reading the type of publication that CT seeks to be: an evangelical magazine that speaks from and to village-green evangelicalism.
Enough with that. Now, on to the cover story.
When I first heard about CT doing this profile, I thought, It’s about time! Albert Mohler is highly influential in a number of circles that are, in turn, highly influential for evangelicals. When you put these different circles together, you realize just how much influence Mohler exerts. Three circles stand out:
- The Southern Baptist Convention. (He is a denominational strategist who played an important role in the the Great Commission Resurgence, not to mention the fact that he casts the vision for the Convention’s mother seminary).
- The Religious Right. (Though he eschews the term “culture warrior” and is more nuanced than the typical voices in conservative politics, his cultural analysis is very popular. He has become a sort of spokesman for this wing of evangelical thought.)
- The Reformed Resurgence. (Through his leadership in Together for the Gospel, the Gospel Coalition, and his well-known Reformed theology, he has carved out a role as a guide to young Reformed types seeking church and cultural renewal.)
Looking at Mohler from the perspective of the Reformed Resurgence, the Religious Right, and the Southern Baptist Convention reiterates his status as a mover and shaker for evangelicals. In many ways, he resembles one of his mentors, Carl F.H. Henry. Speaking of Henry, the most ironic part of CT’s cover story is that it paints Mohler as being outside the mainstream of evangelicalism for his complementarian and inerrantist views when, in fact, it is Mohler (and not CT) who is carrying the mantle of former CT editor Carl Henry on these and other issues.
Worthen’s profile of Mohler is not condemnatory. She carefully presents his views on many issues. The best parts of the article are when Worthen is quoting Mohler or summarizing their conversations. She ably describes the building blocks of Mohler’s vision: for Southern Seminary, for the Southern Baptist Convention, for the conservative political movement, etc. Overall, Worthen’s article is neither a hack job nor a puff piece.
That said, Justin Taylor rightly described the article as “condescending.” The tone is negative at times, and Worthen’s condescension comes out in some of the offhanded remarks she makes in her reporting.
For example, when speaking of Southern Seminary’s current theological outlook, Worthen includes a parenthetical remark:
“As proof of the seminary’s current ‘diversity,’ some faculty protest that they are only four-point Calvinists.”
Her sarcasm aside, Worthen fails to understand the administration’s adherence to the Abstract of Principles, which ensures that all faculty fall in line as at least a moderate Calvinist. Her remark assumes that great theological diversity in a faculty is a virtue, whereas Mohler believes it is more virtuous for the faculty to be faithful to the confessional statement of the seminary founders.
Southern Seminary students aren’t portrayed nicely either. She describes the student visitors to Mohler’s personal library as “goggle-eyed” and gullible.
When it comes to Mohler, Worthen conveys respect for his accomplishments, but she wonders out loud if he is the intellectual everyone thinks he is. She writes of his personal library:
“A self-conscious air pervades the library, in the jumble of cultural artifacts intended to convey worldliness; in the shelves lined with a conspicuous number of Great Books, Harvard Classics, and other pre-packaged sets that seem the fruit of a single-minded mission to conquer a body of knowledge, or at least to give that impression.”
So the library may be part of Mohler’s attempt to come off as smart? As if the man, after all of his academic accomplishments, needs a big library to demonstrate his intellectual fortitude?
Later, she goes further, saying that Mohler is not so much an intellectual or theologian as he is an “articulate controversialist.” She trots out two of Mohler’s controversial positions (though it’s hard to imagine that his creationist views are that controversial for evangelicals, most of whom fall squarely into the Answers in Genesis camp and not Biologos). Because of the space she devotes to controversies, Worthen leaves out Mohler’s more important view of ”theological triage,” a concept that is very influential for conservative evangelicals seeking to uphold sophisticated theological distinctions and yet engage in partnerships with Christians who hold other views.
Worthen’s most perplexing comment is her charge of elitism. She writes:
“Mohler is just as elitist as the moderates of Old Southern: he is certain he has the truth, and those Baptists who protest simply are not initiated into the systematic splendor of Reformed thought.”
It appears that, for Worthen, elitism equals being certain one has the truth. Is that necessarily so? Cannot agnostics be elitist? What about postmodern theologians who revel in uncertainty and easily dismiss the “ultra-rationalistic” theological viewpoints of earlier evangelicals? What about journalists who are certain that certainty equals elitism? If Mohler comes across as an elitist in this article, a closer reading makes Worthen come across even more so.
In the end, Worthen gets a lot of facts and details right, but she puts them together in a way that makes her portrait of Mohler unflattering. Yes, the article could have been worse. But it could have been better too.
17 Comments
For me personally, the article captured why I have regarded Mohler as a disappointment for several years now:
“Mohler is not so much an intellectual or theologian as he is an articulate controversialist, a popularizer… His books… offer little in the way of original analysis….”
When Mohler first came along in the 1990s, I thought that he would be the seventh Southern Baptist “writing theologian” (theologians who write systematic theologies – the six previous ones were Dagg, Boyce, Mullins, Conner, Moody, and Garrett). I thought Mohler would follow in the footstoops of J. P. Boyce and E. Y Mullins (Presidents of Southern who wrote systematic theologies). Instead, Mohler fritters away his time and talent writing legalistic blogposts on topics like “Should Christians Practice Yoga?”, and his books are usually nothing more than compilations of these legalistic blogposts. All of Mohler’s books will be out-of-date and out-of-print in 30 years (unless he is secretly writing a big systematic theology).
So…when you say “moderate Calvinist,” are you using the phrase in the same way as Norman Geisler does? I’m not sure that a “moderate Calvinist” really exists except in straw men arguments, at least not with Geisler’s definition.
I’m not asking to start a war, by the way. If you’re using the term as Geisler would, then that’s cool; we’ll disagree on the validity. However, if you’re using it in another way, then I’d be interested in hearing how.
Great work on the blog, brother.
David,
I wasn’t referring to Geisler in particular, but to those with Reformed leanings (maybe they consider themselves 3 or 4 point Calvinists).
Trevin
Trevin,
Good thoughts. I just got a kick out of the way she called liberals “moderate” all the way through the article. The word “moderate” naturally warms you up to people, making them sound nice, warm, thoughtful and balanced (your description of 4-point Calvinists as “moderate” was a much more correct use of the term). But the people she describes as “moderate” staunchly deny that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It would have been more accurate to call them “stubborn unbelievers in inerrancy” or something like that. Instead, she pits “extreme” Bible-believing high-falutin’ Fundamentalist Mohler against these “moderates.” That, to me, was the worst distortion in the article – although I agree with you that it was respectful enough in tone, generally speaking.
Blessings,
Derek Ashton
Derek,
She did use the word “liberal” in reference to one Baptist pastor in Louisville. Apt description in his case at least.
I have a more positive view of Worthen’s writing than both you and Justin Taylor.
As you say, as a representative voice and observer from the perspective of “village green” evangelicalism, CT is certainly supposed to be “viewpoint neutral” when it comes to TULIP (aside from the “T” which is assumed for all orthodox Christians) and complementarianism… and possibly even skeptical when it comes to polemicism on either of these issues. Justin perhaps finds this “condescending” but I find it wisely exemplary of CT’s editorial standpoint.
As you acknowledge, Worthen’s piece is neither a hack job nor a puff piece. I applaud CT and Worthen for highlighting one of the most influential figures in American evangelicalism — both his contribution and his controversy.
This contrasts strongly from Collin Hansen’s poorly researched and misleading hack job of InterVarsity last year in CT.
I agree with your general analysis of the article. I also think what Worthen does is go beyond report and into interpretation. For example, can a person like Mohler ever possibly read, use, or refer to his 40,000 volume library? In other words, while it may be there for convenience, it probably does reflect his own subliminal venture to conquer knowledge. Then again, isn’t this the job of cultural critics, public intellectuals, popularizers, etc? As far as journalism goes, the article could have been more neutral. Hard to do with a figure like Mohler though.
Trevin, you are the second blogger I have noticed lately that implies that The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. is the “biggest” SBC seminary. I don’t know where you are getting your information from but according to enrollment figures Southern is second in head count(HC) and third in fulltime equivalent(FTE) and size of faculty. Southwestern is largest in all categories (HC, FTE and number of faculty). Just thought you ought to know. (info found on page 10 of http://www.ats.edu/Resources/Publications/Documents/AnnualDataTables/2009-10AnnualDataTables.pdf)
Richard,
Thanks for the heads up. I’ve changed it to “mother” seminary.
Calvin,
You really felt that was neutral?
I think both Trevin and Justin have pointed out several places where she was clearly editorializing beyond what the piece called her to do. The story was about Mohler and his views, not her views on his views. She inserted herself into the piece and it made the tenor of the article rather elitist and snarky. I think “condescending” well describes her tone at times. At other times she argued against his views by the way she defined (or mis-defined) issues (see her explanation of the GCR).
I felt the article was rather disappointing. It was hard to say it was well written when it contained so many little jabs at the subject. That is not the proper way to approach pieces like this. If she wants to insert her opinion into articles, just write an editorial…of course since she is neither involved in the actual issues she’s covering nor does she have any training in those fields, her editorial comments simply ring hollow. I expected at least a fair piece…I was let down by CT.
Richard,
Let me guess…SWBTS grad??
SWBTS inflates its totals by adding in all the college, part-time, and homemaking students and mingling them all together. I have heard that there are actually less than 1,000 full-time SEMINARY students.
I have the 2010 Book of Reports from the SBC Annual Convention. Granted, it isn’t the latest numbers, as it lists the most recent data as from 2008-2009 school year.
It has:
FTE
SWBTS – 1,981
SBTS – 1,836
NOBTS – 1,532
SEBTS – 1,364
Nonduplicating Head Count
SBTS – 4,168
NOBTS – 3,570
SWBTS – 3,535
SEBTS – 2,435
Not sure what it proves or doesn’t…but there it is.
Sorry to hijack the topic, Trevin.
The SBC seminaries are very confusing when they report their numbers. They often mix apples and oranges together. College students will be mixed in seminary students. Part-time will be considered as full-time. It is impossible to know who goes to the main campus, and who goes to extensions or does distance education. It is hard to compare one seminary to another or to compare the present enrollment at a seminary to past enrollment.
Did Mohler himself ever respond to this article?
Bradley
Hi Jason G
Sorry I forgot about this comment until now.
It seems you’re either not as familiar with feature writing, profiles, or the historic editorial stance of CT.
All features are editorialized to an extent, and magazines and newspapers know this and seek to make such writing quality journalism through rigorous fact-checking and very clear acknowledgment of its viewpoint. A feature is not a newswire article.
Intended as a flagship publication of “broad evangelicalism” as defined by the coalition forged by Billy Graham, Carl Henry, Harold Ockenga, JI Packer, John Stott, and others, CT has always viewed social issues from a more progressive standpoint and theological issues from the center of broad evangelicalism.
This coalition has always approached the culture wars and young earth creationism with skepticism and has been ambivalent or irenic on TULIP, premillennialism, and even inerrancy. Worthen’s piece reflected this stance while also highlighting Mohler’s contributions to American Christianity.
CT knows it’s writing from this editorial standpoint — and I prefer acknowledgment of bias to denial of it.
If CT writing from this editorial viewpoint bothers you, then you need to take up your issue with the editorial staff or start a rival publication that represents another viewpoint and is able to achieve the same journalistic quality — much in the way CT sought to supplant the Christian Century.
If broad evangelicalism representing these views bothers you, I suggest you take up your issue with Graham, Packer, et. al.
Calvin,
Amazing how Wurthen’s writing is just a puzzle piece that fits right into CTs prime directives. If such is the case, does she have any original thoughts or beliefs? I actually respected her a little in that she at least knows she’s not on the same page with Mohler. However, I didn’t know she was writing a piece from a flow chart.