Talk:R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Louisville, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Louisville on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This page seems to me to be written by someone very critical of Mohler and his views. The content, while not written in a POV way, nonetheless highlights the "negative" (from a secular or liberal Christian perspective) portions of his life and beliefs, e.g., that "some but perhaps not all" women were stripped of their posts, that he views the Roman Catholic Church as a false church, or that he views Christianity as the only way. --Flex July 1, 2005 21:13 (UTC)

When I created the article I was actually hoping someone with a point of view different from mine would come along and enrich the article. Thanks for doing so. Specifically, can you talk a little more specifically about what you'd like to see in the article to balance it from a neutrality standpoint? I want to make the article better, too. Alan Canon 1 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

I'll do what I can, but I'll have to do a little digging. Perhaps some others with more knowledge of Mohler can help. --Flex July 2, 2005 21:34 (UTC)

Contents 1 3rd opinion, as requested 2 4th opinion 3 Poisoning the well? 4 improvements for article 5 Recent major edit 6 Regarding last paragraph 7 What does "R" stand for? 8 POV 9 Alcohol

[edit] 3rd opinion, as requested

In my opinion, the article seems as close as you can get to NPOV without being condescending towards Mohler. Even Mohler himself admits that his views are controversial and not necessarily polite. I think the only way you could improve this page is to provide countervailing opinions on the following points:

• One departing faculty member, G. Wade Rowatt, referred to the new regime as "a Baptist version of the Taliban." Were there any countervailing opinions of faculty that supported him and/or rejected this assertion? If so, what are they?
  • Agree. To be researched. Alan Canon 16:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC) Added positive statement on Mohler's ascendency from another seminary professor, Paige Patterson, with citation. Done.
• Sometime in the latter half of 2000, as a result of a secret mediation process, $928,541 in assets under control of the seminary were reclaimed by the Woman's Missionary Union. The mediation arose over a dispute over the assets of the Carver School of Church Social Work. Although a gag order requested by the Seminary as part of the agreement prevented either party from disclosing the nature of the dispute, the two organizations had historically operated under an agreement which stated, in part, "Whenever the Southern Baptist Convention ... shall cease to conduct a school ... for uses and purposes as set forth in said Article 2 of the Articles of Incorporation of the Carver School of Missions and Social Work as quoted above, the trust shall terminate and the corpus shall be returned to the Woman's Missionary Union, auxiliary to the Southern Baptist Convention, or its legal successor in interest." What relevance does this have to Mohler? His involvement in this mediation process is not specified, and it could just as easily been handed by a team of lawyers without his personal involvement at all. Was he directly involved in this decision? If so, are there any comments supporting his actions?
  • Agree little direct reference to Mohler. Moved to article on Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Alan Canon 16:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC) Found additional reference on personal conflict between Mohler and dean of Carver School, so added some text back, with additional citations.
• Although adherance to and respect for the creed had been a matter of course historically, this marked the first time that a signed written statement of fealty was mandated in the form of an ultimatum. What are the opinions of the laity pro/con regarding this change?
  • Agree. To be researched. Alan Canon 16:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• One source states that Mohler experienced a conservative epiphany growing from conversations with Carl F. H. Henry, whose essays Mohler later edited. This needs a citation.
  • Done, but need to find another reference for the beginning of the paragraph, as the reference cited does not directly evidence an early pro-women's ordination view for Mohler. Alan Canon 16:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC) removed said reference. Done. Alan Canon 21:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• He opposes the role of women in preaching roles, opposes abortion rights, and believes that homosexuality is a sin. This sentence is technically true as written, but could probably be made more NPOV by changing the phrase "abortion rights" to "abortion", like so: He opposes the role of women in preaching roles, opposes abortion, and believes that homosexuality is a sin. Reasoning: The use of the phrase "abortion rights" of necessity implies a right to abortion, and demonizes Mohler by casting him in the role of opposing a fundamental human right. While it can most certainly be argued this is true, Mohler's own argument (and that of the entire pro-life movement) is that abortion is not a fundamental human right, it is murder. Removing the word "right" from the phrase preserves the essence of his beliefs without demonizing him, and restores this sentence to NPOV.
  • Agree. Done Alan Canon 16:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Xaa 11:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 4th opinion

I believe as the article currently stands, it deserves the POV warning. While most of the statements may be true, the tenor of the article is clearly negative and not encyclopedic per wiki-policy. For one example, in "Professed Theology", his belief that faith in Christ is the only way of salvation is cast as a narrow inflammatory point of view when in reality it is the view of the vast majority of conservative Christianity. Selected comments criticizing his views and policies are included to the exclusion of positive comments thereby resulting an unbalanced article. Jim Ellis 16:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• ...the tenor of the article is clearly negative and not encyclopedic per wiki-policy. Well, I disagree, there, and I'm a Christian. I'm just not a fundamentalist Baptist - I'm a Lutheran. I think his views are presented about as neutrally as they can be (see the above discussion regarding "abortion rights" versus "abortion"). But, let's go over the Professed Theology section together, here:

1. Some references state that Mohler was initially liberal in his theology, particularly during his years as a seminarian, prior to the rise of the conservative movement within the Southern Baptist denomination. One source states that Mohler experienced a conservative epiphany growing from conversations with Carl F. H. Henry, whose essays Mohler later edited. (Realms of Faith: Christian Authors Database at propadeutic.com) -- Okay, this isn't a slam, it's pretty straightforward. When he was younger, he was more liberal, then he had a conservative epiphany. "Conservative" is not a bad word (if anyone thinks it is, then they aren't one), so we're pretty NPOV. Moreover, from a Conservative Fundamentalist POV, having an epiphany and turning away from a more liberal outlook would be a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.
2. Shortly after his term as President began, Mohler drafted a policy (which was ratified by the trustees) that the Seminary would only hire professors who believed that the Bible prohibits the ordination of women as preachers. Some women already in teaching positions at the Seminary, or who served outside the Seminary in a missionary capacity, were stripped of their posts. -- And, again, this isn't a slam, this is simply a flat statement of what he did. It supports the following summary paragraph, below:
3. Theologically, Mohler respresents conservative fundamentalist Christianity. He opposes the role of women in preaching roles, opposes abortion, and believes that homosexuality is a sin. -- I don't think there's many who would disagree with this, his views are, in the Conservative Fundamentalist outlook, pretty normal. Most fundamentalists believe that the bible does not support women in the role of pastors, most fundamentalists believe abortion is murder, and most fundamentalists believe homosexuality is a sin. Again, this pretty much NPOV, and stated very plainly.
4. He is aligned with other evangelicals such as James Dobson. -- And again, this is simply a statement of fact. Also, since "evangelicals" isn't a bad word, particularly to a fundamentalist, this again should be viewed as a good thing.

• I'm afraid I am going to have to disagree with your opinion. There really is nothing wrong with this section - it neither praises nor condemns him for his beliefs, it simply states what his beliefs are. Moreover, much of the terms used are not bad terms to those who truly are fundamentalists - for example, being called a "conservative" or "evangelical" is not a bad thing to a fundamentalist, it's a good thing. -- Xaa 17:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poisoning the well?

What is the role and the relevance of this statement: Another host of the program was Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, a figure with ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. ? "ties" of what kind? Does he somehow represent the positions of the Council of Consevative Citizens, through the Family Research Council? Is he a spokesman for David Duke? Does the CCC represent David Duke? Does Kevin Bacon figure into this conspiracy somehow? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

In response to your comment, I annotated the word "ties" to link to the relevant section of the Tony Perkins Article (1996 Jenkins Campaign Finance Scandal), which reads in part Perkins was the 1996 campaign manager for Republican U. S. Senate hopeful Louis E. "Woody" Jenkins of Louisiana, then a Democratic colleague of Perkins' delegation to the Louisiana House of Representatives, who was running against Mary Landrieu. The campaign was fined $3,000 by the Federal Election Commission for hiding $82,500 in payments to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in return for Duke's mailing list. See if you think that helps. Alan Canon 14:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm probably being dense, but I still don't understand why this is relevant. The sentence still suggests that Mohler is connected with David Duke, suggesting that he in some sense is allied; but the article says that he is "tied" to David Duke's mailing list by sharing the stage with Tony Perkins. This material, including the insinuated guilt by association with Chuck Colson, is irrelevant and dishonest. Do you want to remove it or should I? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the offending part of the paragraph, and the innuendo about connections to other kinds of badness through "Watergate-figure-turned-evangelical". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. Any other NPOV you'd like to address? Alan Canon 22:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the continuing need for the disputed banner. Can it be removed? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] improvements for article

This article still seems rather hostile to its subject. I'll try to be specific.

First the birth year on the photo is different from the one in the article. I don't know the correct date, so I defer on that.

The October 19, 1959 DOB was provided by an anonymous contributor. I am betting that more precise means more accurate, so removed 1960 birth date from photo caption. Alan Canon 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The basic definition at the top should be what distinguishes the person from everyone else. This statement is sort of a premature negative brand: "an American fundamentalist evangelical Christian." There are many people and many theologians that could be described in this manner.

I looked up some other theologians and people in wikipedia and the articles about them all list their positions and occupations as well as their position as a leading theologian or philosopher in their field.

Here's a section from the NT Wright article:

is the Bishop of Durham of the Anglican Church and a leading British New Testament scholar. Ordinarily he is known as "Tom Wright", although his academic work has always been published under the name "NT Wright" (Nicholas Thomas). He is generally perceived as coming from a moderately evangelical perspective. He is associated with the so-called Third Quest for the Historical Jesus, and the New Perspective on Paul (a complex movement with many unique positions, origining from the probing works of James Dunn and E. P. Sanders). He argues that the current understanding of Jesus must be connected with what is known to be true about him from the historical perspective of first century Judaism and Christianity.

Notice that it says "He is generally percieved as coming from". This is much more fair and NPOV. I think it is unfair to slap a big label on Mohler like that in that section. Certainly, in a section on his beliefs it would be perfectly acceptable to discuss this in a more neutral manner.

Deleted the phrase and tidied. Alan Canon 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The conflict at the Seminary and SBC leader's excitement over his new job as president would be more properly placed under the conservative resurgence section. The Southern Seminary heading should have boring verifiable facts like how long he's been there, etc.

Done Alan Canon 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason it says "dean of a unit of the seminary"? Why can't it just say Dean of the Seminary's Carver School... etc.?

Done Alan Canon 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Mohler was involved in the missionary event. I'm not sure but I think this is something that has to come from the babtist mission board and his position at the seminary does not include any authority over missionaries. The use of passive voice in this section makes it appear that he is using some direct authority to do this when that is not the case. If he supported this in theory or a sermon or something, that needs to be mentioned. In general, a stronger and clearer link needs to be drawn otherwise this section is unfair and incorrect. If his only action was the revision of the document it needs to be stated here rather than trying to pin the whole thing on him.

Will research Alan Canon 16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to rush out and do anything about this until there is a little bit of discusssion. (except for the birthday thing)

--Victoria h 09:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent major edit

First of all, sorry for leaving out the edit summary; I accidentally hit "save" first.

I attempted to remove this article's rather substantial POV problems, with large sections of the article simply giving Mohler's supporters' POV. However, I also removed the following, original research anti-Mohler POV :

...This is in contrast to apparently more consistent proponents of sola scriptura who note the numerous biblical passages which teach: 1) that wine is a gift from God (e.g., Psalm 104:14-15 and Isaiah 25:6); and 2) that Jesus acknowledged drinking alcohol and was called a "drunkard" as a result (e.g., Luke 7:33-34). Thus, like other Christian teetotalers, Mohler is stuck in the uncomfortable position of affirming both the sinlessness of Jesus and the sinfulness of Jesus' drinking.

I removed the lines saying that he supports "biblical ecclesiology and biblical preaching" -- these ideas need to be defined, since there is more than one view on what "biblical ecclesiology" is, for instance. I also removed a sentence that attempted to draw obvious conclusions from Mohler's support of torture: "From this statement it can be assumed that Mohler supports the use of torture under certain circumstances." This article has a very long way to go -- unsourced claims abound and only Mohler's most controversial views are discussed at any length. Though I knocked away a lot of POV, I didn't get rid of it all. Basically, it's less of a total mess now, rather than a good article. --Zantastik talk 22:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding last paragraph

"The Convention required missionaries and other representatives to sign the new Baptist Faith and Message, and those who refused to sign were dismissed or resigned. This marked a significant change in the Convention, given traditional Baptist opposition to creeds and the Baptist doctrines of Soul Competancy and Priesthood of the Believer."

This the last sentence doesn't seem accurate. Baptists have had lots of creeds -- the London Baptist Confessions of Faith in 1644 and 1689, The 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith, the SBTS Abstract of Principles (which has always been signed by all faculty every year), and three editions of the Baptist Faith and Message. Perhaps this should be changed to "creedalism," or "traditional" needs to be clarified.

The writer also clearly feels that this credalism flies against the Baptist doctrines of Soul Competency and the Priesthood of the Believer, but this is debatable, and thus this is not a neutral statement.

Also, "soul competency" is spelled wrong.

[edit] What does "R" stand for?

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think this article tells us what his first initial stands for. Does anyone happen to know? Bhumiya (said/done) 10:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I have tried to improve the "neutrality" of this article All fairly minor changes but I think the tone is less negative as a result, I have also referenced the last one or two unreferneced facts and removed a couple of non-refernced items.

I note that there has been little discussion recently on this article. I propose that unless there are any objections the warning about parts of the article being disputed and it being unrefenced be removed.

If there are no objections in a week or so I will do this - they can always be added again later! 8th Nov 2006 Jonathon Smith

[edit] Alcohol

It is important that Mohler's teaching of complete abstinence from alcohol is recorded in the article. He is one of many American evangelical leaders who teach this. This article is not, however, the place to debate this issue. As a person who believes that the Bible teaches that drinking alcohol in moderation is not wrong, I question Mohler's commitment to Sola Scriptura. But the only time any discussion of the tension between Sola Scriptura and Abstinence should appear in the article is if some article is written elsewhere which discusses it (eg in Christianity Today or in a Baptist blog).

Again - please do not remove the section on Mohler's position on alcohol. --One Salient Oversight 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)