Tag: Albert Mohler

Book Excerpt: Albert Mohler on “Wee Little Preaching”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He is known as a preacher and enjoys his role of cultivating preachers. Mohler has a new book out on preaching from Moody Publishers this year with the title He is Not Silent: Preaching in a Postmodern World. One of his chapters focuses on “preaching the Bible’s big story.” In it he stresses the need for preachers to situate the text they are focusing on within the bigger picture of God’s redemption story. He uses a particularly poignant example playing off of the children’s Sunday School song that starts with the line, “Zaccheus was a wee little man, and a wee little man was he.”

…One of the great problems with much evangelical preaching today, and one of the reasons so many saints are not growing to completeness in Jesus Christ, is that so many of our pulpits are filled with what you might call “Zaccheus sermons” — or to put it more bluntly, wee little preaching.

Every Sunday, far too many preachers read a wee little text, apply it in wee little ways to their people’s lives, and then tell everyone to come back next week for another wee little story.

That tendency to isolate our sermons to one tiny piece of biblical text is a major problem, and it also explains why so much evangelical preaching is moralistic. It is easy to pick out a familiar story, make a few points from it about what people should and should not do, and then be done with it. But that kind of preaching will leave a church weak and starving, because the Christians who sit under it never find themselves in the big story of God’s work in the world. If we as preachers want to see our people growing to maturity in Christ, we must give them more than a diet of wee little morality sermons. We must place every text we preach firmly within the grand, sweeping story of the Bible. (p. 89-90, emphasis added)

…Our people can know so much, and yet know nothing, all at the same time. They can have a deep repository of biblical facts and stories, and yet know absolutely nothing about how any of it fits together, or why any of it matters beyond the wee little “moral of the story.” (p. 95)

…We want our people to leave the preaching event asking the right questions. If our preaching is too small, their questions will be equally small. If we neglect the big story — the gospel metanarrative — they will be satisfied with small questions and will live on small insights. They may take home an insight, a story, a principle, or perhaps an anecdote. We should not be satisfied with that. They should not be satisfied with that. Our ambition — our obsession as preachers — should be nothing less than to preach so that the congregation sees the big story of the gospel, the grand narrative of the gospel, through every text we preach. (p. 102-103)

I say “amen” to Mohler’s assessment on this. I’ve heard too many “wee little” sermons in my day. May God grant the rising generation of preachers the wisdom to unpack God’s Word for us in such a way as to highlight the Gospel story and the grand narrative of Scripture!

You can pick up a copy of this new book by Mohler from Amazon.com, Christianbook.com, or direct from Moody Publishers.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher. I was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

Together for the Gospel: Northland & Southern

~ Bob Hayton ~ 19 Comments

I was excited to hear recently that Northland International University (formerly Northland Baptist Bible College) was formally accepted by The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and will become Boyce College at Northland. Northland’s president, Daniel Patz and Southern’s president, Albert Mohler announced the news. See this link for a fuller story. The video below provides additional details.

For many independent Baptists, this step is unthinkable – and it marks the end of faithfulness. Another college has capitulated. But have they really? What is the point of breaking off of groups like the Southern Baptist Conference? Wasn’t it to preserve doctrine or take a stand for truth? The SBC turned around, and under Mohler’s leadership among others, the SBC is now a bastion for theological conservatism. Sure Southern has an emphasis on Reformed theology that many Baptists are leery of. But the majority of Southern Baptists do not embrace Reformed theology wholeheartedly. In many respects, the SBC is a mirror image of many groups of independent Baptists. There is a lot of autonomy in the SBC structure. And that Baptist autonomy is part of the problem when it comes to assessing the SBC. The SBC is not completely pure in every respect, because it is not an entity that can cause direct change in a top-down sort of way. The very independence and autonomy that independent fundamental Baptists prize is the reason that many of them view the SBC with suspicion.

Looking at Northland, by joining with Boyce College, Northland continues its overall mission. And in difficult financial times (for all private colleges everywhere) this decision makes sense. Both the SBC and the IFBs who have supported Northland over the years, are driven by a Great Commission calling. Both of them long to stand for truth and equip students to live courageously for Christ in today’s world. Strategic partnerships and inter-dependence among churches and missionaries — that is what we see as we read the book of Acts and study the early years of Church history.

Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the status of the IFB movement. Are churches staying independent just to be different? Are they insular and isolationist or is independence a means to a healthy end? Why must there be three, four or even five IFB churches that have virtually nothing to do with each other in the same town? Why can’t we overlook minor differences and truly stand together for the Gospel? We can respect differences and appreciate distinctives even as we work together around bigger realities and shared Gospel truths. That is what is driving Northland’s actions.

May we see more Christ-honoring inter-dependence in the future. “Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity!” (Ps. 133:1).

Are We Guilty of Homophobia?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, recently was quoted as saying the following in an interview about homosexuality.

“We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophobia… We’ve used the “˜choice’ language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.”

He was then asked to defend this statement in the recent SBC Annual Convention. The video of the exchange with SBC pastor and blogger, Peter Lumpkins is here.

I happen to agree with Mohler, especially as he clarified his statements. The Associated Baptist Press summarized Mohler’s response to the question by Lumpkins:

Mohler said at the convention “there is no way anyone in fair mindedness can be confused about what I believe about homosexuality,” because he has written more than 200 articles about it, but that “the reality is that we as Christian churches have not done well on this issue.”

“Evangelicals, thankfully, have failed to take the liberal trajectory of lying about homosexuality and its sinfulness,” Mohler said. “We know that the Bible clearly declares — not only in isolated verses but in the totality of its comprehensive presentation — the fact that homosexuality not only is not God’s best for us, as some try to say, but it is sin.”

“But we as evangelicals have a very sad history in dealing with this issue,” he continued. “We have told not the truth, but we have told about half the truth. We’ve told the biblical truth, and that’s important, but we haven’t applied it in the biblical way.”

“We have said to people that homosexuality is just a choice,” Mohler said. “It’s clear that it’s more than a choice. That doesn’t mean it’s any less sinful, but it does mean it’s not something people can just turn on and turn off. We are not a gospel people unless we understand that only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.”

Mohler said churches have not done their job until “there are those who have been trapped in that sin sitting among us.”

Now the use of “homophobia” is a sticky subject, for sure. But I do agree that Mohler is right. And in this, I echo the sentiments of blogger Elijah Friedeman, and want to quote him at some length (HT: The Aquila Report).

I realize that much of what Mohler said flies in the face of conservative Christianity. No one likes to be called homophobic. And religious people especially don’t like to be called to repentance. But Albert Mohler is absolutely right.

What did Albert Mohler say that was so outrageous? Was it the part about Jesus being the only Savior from sin? Was it the claim that our sinful nature goes beyond a simple choice?Any orthodox Christian should affirm salvation from our sin through Jesus and that we can’t simply decide to turn off our sinful nature.

I know that many conservative Christians want to turn homosexuality into an easy choice. But it doesn’t work like that. Don’t get me wrong. Everyone has a choice about whether or not to engage in sexual acts outside of marriage. But not everyone has a say about whom they’re sexually attracted to.

There are a lot of people in the world with addictive personalities – they’re addicted easily – these people don’t have to give in to their addictive temptations, but they have a problem that can’t be solved with a choice – a problem that only Jesus can fix.

Homosexuality is much the same. Homosexuals have deep-rooted attraction to the same gender that they can’t solve with a choice. Mohler stated that homosexuality, like any other sin, requires a Savior. When did that become a radical sentiment? Last I checked, it’s a biblical concept.

But I have a feeling that most people disagreed with Mohler, because he labeled Southern Baptists as homophobic.

I can’t speak to homophobia in Southern Baptist churches. I’ll have to trust Mohler on that front (apparently he explained exactly how Southern Baptists are homophobic, but I can’t find the transcript). But I know from what I’ve seen, read, and heard, a form of homophobia is very present in many conservative churches.

For some reason there is an irrational fear of and extreme aversion to homosexuals in a lot of churches. We may not come right out and say that we think homosexuals are nasty creatures, but if you read between the lines, it’s pretty easy to pick up on. This is homophobia.

We should not elevate homosexuality above other sins. If we condemn homosexuality as sin, we must also condemn other forms of sexual immorality as sin.

I’ve seen many religious people castigate homosexuals, but turn a blind eye to the other, more pervasive, forms of sins in the church. I’m more concerned about the prevalence of divorce in churches than I am about a few cases of homosexuals trying to silence their critics.

What do you think? Is Mohler totally off base? As for me, I’m standing with him on this one.

For more on this question, see other articles on homosexuality I’ve posted here on my blog. You’ll find reviews of two helpful books I’ve read on this topic.