How Discerning Are Evangelicals These Days?

Two recent items came to our attention illustrating our concern in asking this question. First, Joel Osteen has once again made news in asserting that Mormonism is simply another denomination within Christianity. “I believe that [Mormons] are Christians,” Osteen said. “I don’t know if it’s the purest form of Christianity, like I grew up with. But you know what, I know Mormons. I hear Mitt Romney — and I’ve never met him — but I hear him say, ‘I believe Jesus is the son of God,’ ‘I believe he’s my savior,’ and that’s one of the core issues. (www.washingtontimes.com, 10/24/11). Dr. Al Mohler has written at length to show the theological differences between evangelicalism and Mormonism and Osteen’s obvious betrayal of biblical truth (www.albertmohler.com, 10/26/11). While we applaud Mohler and others who point out the chasm that exists between biblical Christianity and false religious systems (Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, and a host of others), we cannot help but be more than a little skeptical of where evangelicalism is heading with leaders like Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, Tullian Tchividjian, and others. While these men all stem from different denominational backgrounds, all of them identify, in some way, with what is now known as “evangelicalism.” Relatively early in its history, what was once known as the new evangelicalism opened its arms to people who held aberrant teachings (Walter Martin’s acceptance of 7th Day Adventists, E.J. Carnell’s lauding of Karl Barth as examples). In recent years, the acceptance and accommodation of those who even deny the exclusivity of Christianity, namely the death of Christ for sins and His bodily resurrection from the grave as the only means of salvation (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Cor. 15:1-4), have even become common within evangelical circles. Thus, rather than refute false doctrine, or questionable teaching, evangelical leaders have sought for ways to incorporate it under the broad spectrum of what is now simply “evangelicalism.” Publishers, broadcasters, schools and denominations mostly refuse to critique or expose those who are propagating theological error. And, even when criticism is leveled against these men and women, they rarely face consequences. They are not put out of churches or denominations or associations. They continue to be published and broadcast on “Christian” radio stations. The error simply continues in unabated torrent.

The second item that came to our attention which begs the aforementioned question centers around Mohler’s own credibility and associations. It is rather difficult to take seriously Mohler’s criticism of Osteen when Mohler gives honor and adulation to the work of Dr. Duke McCall, who for many years was one of the leading lights of theological liberalism, who stood in diametric opposition to the truth of Scripture and the “conservative resurgence” in both the SBC and at the very institution over which Dr. Mohler now presides (Southern Seminary Magazine, Vol. 79:4, Fall 2011, pp. 14-15, 43). It is not that Mohler and others do not understand the devastation of theological liberalism. From their writings, they clearly do. His own criticism of former President Carter is well documented. So, how Mohler and his seminary can honor a proponent of a system of theology that is opposite of the truth is more than a little puzzling. Theological liberalism is not something to coddle, as if it is merely a different form of Christianity. As J. Gresham Machen pointed out many years ago in his book Christianity and Liberalism, it is an entirely different, and deadly, religious system.

What should Southern Seminary have done to recognize the contribution of McCall? In a word, nothing (2 John 7-11). Why applaud the “contribution” of one who knowingly worked tirelessly to lead an entire denomination away from the authority of Scripture and the Christ who died so that men might have eternal life? We do not presume to know McCall’s heart. Whether he is saved or not is a matter for the Lord. But, given the course McCall set at the seminary and in the convention, to establish liberal/modernist theology and the social programs that stem from it, in our estimation, raises in our minds Mohler’s ability to discern “the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:6). — Gary Freel