December 15, 2009

Are We Recognizing the “New” New Evangelicalism?

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

I am developing another article in the series on the Manhattan Declaration (MD) and its ramifications for the New Testament church. With the Christmas holiday upon us I may reserve that article for publication just after the New Year holiday.

We have been discussing the ecumenical spirit of certain signatories from the so-called “conservative” evangelical camp. Some of the “conservative” evangelicals like Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan who signed the MD apparently did not intend, “to forge an ecumenical relationship which compromises the gospel by giving Christian recognition to people without a credible profession of the gospel. That wasn’t the intent, but it is the result.”1 I will continue on this theme in the next article.

In the meantime my reading and research has shown me that the current trend toward ecumenism by the likes of Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, et. al. is eerily similar to a previous generations slide toward New Evangelicalism. There may be some greater measure of restraint in this generation, but nevertheless there is tangible evidence of a slide toward New Evangelicalism.

If there is one book I would recommend to help contemporary Fundamentalists get a handle on the danger at their doorsteps it would be The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism, 1994 by *Dr. Ernest D. Pickering. For their consideration I am going to share select excerpts from Pickering’s classic on the subject. The following excerpts come from Chapter Seven, Gray Hairs Are Here and There. Afterward I will close with some personal commentary.



From The Subtle Drift Toward the New Evangelicalism, p. 155.
The ancient prophet Hosea was concerned about gray hair also, but for a different reason. In a brokenhearted lament over his beloved nation, Israel, he wrote: “Strangers have devoured his strength, and he knoweth it not: yea, gray hairs are here and there upon him, yet he knoweth it not” (Hos. 7:9). Gray hairs are a mark of aging, of deteriorating strength, and, in the spiritual sense employed by Hosea, of a loss of spiritual vitality. The saddest note in this lament was the fact that the nation did not realize it was losing its spiritual moorings.

All over America and the world at this hour there are churches that are drifting into New Evangelicalism without the remotest knowledge that they are doing so. They are being carried along with the shifting winds of compromise and have long since departed from the solid biblical position established by their predecessors. Young pastors, many without firm doctrinal underpinnings, have led their churches to believe that in order to reach the masses they must abandon the strict biblical principles of yore and embrace more fluid and attractive positions. They have changed, but they do not realize that they have changed.


Many contemporary fundamentalists are being wooed by the siren call of New Evangelicalism. It seems especially compelling to younger men (though not exclusively so). Born in a different generation and without personal involvement in the battles against the early forms of New Evangelicalism, some are impatient with the fray, do not see the relevance of the conflict, and are inclined to adopt the attitude “a plague on both your houses.” What is there about the New Evangelicalism that seems to attract some from within the fundamentalist camp?2


David Beale warned against those who bear the label fundamentalist but whose personal philosophy is essentially New Evangelical. “Unlike present-day Fundamentalists, they refuse to regard the militant defense of the faith and the full doctrine and practice of holiness as intrinsically fundamental.”3 In other words, there are fundamentalists who are either becoming or already are New Evangelicals. Some are actually adopting New Evangelical philosophies while still proclaiming that they are not New Evangelicals. The basic problem is this: Many fundamentalists, when speaking of the New Evangelicalism, are referring to the original positions and writings of the early founders of New Evangelicalism such as Carl Henry and Harold Ockenga. They repudiate heartily the thoughts of these earlier leaders, but either in ignorance or willingly they fail to recognize the updated version, the “new” New Evangelicalism. It is always safer to berate the teachings of those historically farther removed than of those who are currently afflicting the church.
The first step toward New Evangelicalism is refusing to live in fidelity to the Scriptural mandates that call for separation when it is clearly warranted. Unfortunately some men in Fundamentalism, who presently identify with biblical separatism, appear to be “either in ignorance or willingly” greasing their own skids and may not be too far behind the direction of men like Dr. Mohler. The trend of some Fundamentalists toward the “conservative” evangelicals appears to be how can I keep my fellowship with them instead of what does the Bible mandate for me.

I am hearing of pastors and Bible college leaders who have begun laying out in stark terms to their congregations and student bodies the dangers of ecumenical compromise, and are referencing both the MD and its signatories as a prime example of it. I am grateful for men who have marked certain signatories to the Manhattan Declaration. When we speak of to “mark” we must, however, speak of it in terms of mark ANDavoid” (Rom. 16:17).
Paul admonishes believers to ‘avoid’ those whom we have marked. The form of this verb indicates that it is a present imperative, which indicates that this avoidance is neither a suggestion nor advice, but, in fact, a command. We are commanded by God to continually avoid the person who has been marked!4
Unless men determine to set the right example (Phil. 3:17) putting fidelity to Scripture ahead of tolerating doctrinal aberrations and methods of ministry among the conservative evangelicals that they (fundamentalists) would never tolerate in their own ministries they will inch their way closer to New Evangelicalism. With each step of tolerance for and compromise with the disconcerting actions of evangelicals the mature Fundamentalists are showing the younger generation, under their influence, the way there.


LM

1) Dr. Dave Doran, A Bronx Declaration, Dec. 2009.

2) Pickering goes into detail as he answers that question under the subheadings of: A Lessening of Tensions; A Wider Working Relationship; A Greater Attractiveness to the Masses; The Perception The New Evangelicals are More Loving; etc.

3) In Pursuit of Purity, pp. 261-ff.

4) In Defense of the Gospel, p. 212.

*Dr. Ernest D. Pickering (1928-2000) “was a fundamentalist pastor, author, college administrator, and mission board representative…. Pickering criticized the ecumenical neo-evangelism of Billy Graham in print as early as 1957, and his chief contribution to twentieth-century evangelical Christianity was as a Baptist theoretician of separatist fundamentalism.” I recommend three more works by Dr. Pickering that may be helpful to those who are concerned over modern day compromise with evangelicalism. They are:

Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church

Holding Hands With the Pope: The Current Evangelical Ecumenical Craze

Are Fundamentalists Legalists?

Previous Articles in this Series Include:
Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration: Is This a Clear Case for (Dave Doran’s) “Gospel-Driven Separation?”

Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration, Part 2: Was This a First Time Foray Toward Ecumenism?

Al Mohler Signs TMD, Part 3: Tolerance & Compromise Will, In Its Wake, Leave Casualties

ADDENDUM:Through 12/14 I had been participating in a discussion on the MD at another blog. Within that interaction two persons there have discussed with me various articles/comments I have made about Dr. Dave Doran’s Gospel-Driven Separation series; the “biblical obligations” he has defined in particular. Each of these men asked me a companion question. These were reasonable questions to which I gave a careful response.

Those questions and answers, however, do not fit the subject matter of this particular article. Therefore, I have located those questions and my response to the thread location of Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration: Is This a Clear Case for “Gospel-Driven Separation?”
From Gradually Sliding into New Evangelicalism, p. 159.

From The Appeal of New Evangelicalism to the Fundamentalist, p. 156.

December 10, 2009

Al Mohler Signs TMD, Part 3: Tolerance & Compromise Will, in Its Wake, Leave Casualties

In recent years Roman Catholics and evangelicals have made common cause in the political arena, uniting forces in struggles over the abortion issue, homosexuality, etc. These joint efforts have brought together leaders from both sides who had never worked together previously. Personal friendships have been formed, and, as a result, serious doctrinal differences have begun to be down-played. Since there is agreement on some social issues, and since these issues are so important in the life of America today, many leaders on both sides are willing to minimize doctrinal conflicts on the plea that we need to cooperate in ‘saving America’.1
Dear Guests of IDOTG:

The previous two articles in this on-going series dealt with The Manhattan Declaration (TMD) and in particular SBTS president Dr. Al Mohler having affixed his name as an original signatory. The series began with, Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration: Is This a Clear Case for “Gospel-Driven Separation?” I included this comment,
With Mohler being counted among the star personalities of the so called conservative evangelicals, whom Reformed Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) men have been eager to formalize fellowship with, his signing TMD must surely be problematic. Mohler’s signing The Manhattan Declaration to essentially hold hands with the Roman Catholic Church for social justice irrefutably “compromise(s) the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith.”2
I followed the first article with an expose on the historic pattern of Al Mohler moving in the direction of the ecumenical mindset in Al Mohler Signs TMD: Was This a First Time Foray Toward Ecumenism? From that article I documented that,
“Al Mohler endorsed, promoted and served as crusade chairman for the last half century’s high priest of ecumenical evangelism, the Rev. Billy Graham. Ecumenical evangelism may not be Mohler’s personal practice, but through his chairmanship of the crusade he did at the very minimum lend tacit support for and endorsement of Graham’s ecumenical evangelism.”
Commentary from both sides of the debate on TMD has continued at various Christian blogs. I have read many of them and left personal comments at a few. Yesterday, I left a comment at one blog under an article titled, R. C. Sproul Chimes in on the Manhattan Declaration. In the discussion thread I enjoyed a helpful discussion with another gentleman.

Earlier this week I was not particularly motivated to contribute any new articles toward the on-going controversy, but overnight I became motivated once more. For the balance of this article I am going to revise and significantly expand upon the comment I left under the blog article I referenced above.


In The Manhattan Declaration: Why Didn’t You Sign IT, RC; Sproul wrote,
Without question, biblical truth must be proclaimed and the gospel preached prophetically to our nation. But how could I sign something that confuses the gospel and obscures the very definition of who is and who is not a Christian? I have made this point again and again since the days of ECT. Though the framers of the Manhattan Declaration declaim any connection to ECT, it appears to me that the Manhattan Declaration is inescapably linked to that initiative, which I have strenuously resisted. More than that, this new document practically assumes the victory of ECT in using the term ‘the gospel’ in reference to that which Roman Catholics are said to ‘proclaim’ (Phil. 1:27).”3 (bold added)
I appreciate that excerpt from Sproul. He is correct in stating that TMD by virtue of its ecumenical nature “confuses the gospel” and that is a very serious matter. It has been my opinion that the Manhattan Declaration is a thinly veiled first cousin of Evangelicals & Catholics Together (E&CT). TMD was crafted to in part revitalize the raw ecumenism of E&CT under more subtle terms.


The Manhattan Declaration is a Trojan horse for full-blown ecumenism.

No man who believes in the biblical mandates for separation from denominations that propagate a false gospel, such as the Roman Catholic Church, should have signed on to TMD. Sproul followed his prior statement above with this commentary toward the men who did sign the TMD.
I think my friends were misled and that they made a mistake, and I want to carefully assert that I have spoken with some of them personally about their error and have expressed my hope that they will remove their signatures from this document. Nevertheless, I remain in fellowship with them at this time and believe they are men of integrity who affirm the biblical gospel and the biblical doctrines articulated in the Protestant Reformation.4
Men should obey the biblical mandates to “admonish” (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15) brethren who did sign on to the TMD, which Sproul did. I am grateful for a few others who have. If TMD signers like Al Mohler refuse correction then believers have one option if they are going to obey the Scriptures, “withdraw” from him (them). Clearly Mohler, J. I. Packer, J. Ligon Duncan, et. al. will not “remove their signatures from this document.” Sproul is unwilling to make the necessary application of the biblical mandates that are irrefutably warranted. In his series on Gospel-Driven Separation Dr. Dave Doran wrote,
For the sake of the clarity of the gospel, believers and churches must separate from those who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith (Rom 16:17 ; Phil 3:17-19 ; cf. 2 Thess 3:6-15 )… We cannot extend Christian fellowship to those who deny fundamental doctrines of the Faith. We cannot ignore the disobedience of those who do so. We cannot blur the line between the church and the world.”5
There are men in Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) circles who publicly affirm their fidelity to the biblical principles of Gospel-Driven Separation, including from brethren (2 Thess. 3:6-15; Rom 16:17). Like Sproul, however, they will tolerate a pattern of disconcerting actions of men like Mohler for the sake of fellowship with them.

Where does the Christian’s FIRST LOYALTY belong; to the Word of God or to his friends and their fellowships?

The direction and object of that loyalty is becoming increasingly muddled in this present day.

One can only imagine the outcry from IFB men who profess fidelity to biblical separatism if a Fundamentalist college president had signed the Manhattan Declaration, accepted the Charismatic sign-gifts as active for the church today or served in an official capacity for a Billy Graham crusade. We are witnessing a consistent pattern among some of our Reformed IFB men to tolerate, give benefit of the doubt and/or excuse things in the ministries of the “conservative” evangelicals that they (IFB men) would never allow for, tolerate or excuse in their own ministry or in a fellow IFB’s ministry.

I appreciate a clear stand for a balanced biblical separatism, which is a hallmark of Fundamentalism. The problem, however, is that when circumstances warrant, such as the signing of TMD, some men are highly reluctant to openly “admonish” and/or will not “withdraw” from the evangelicals who do these things.

Reformed IFB men have been and will in greater numbers continue attending the evangelical sponsored conferences. They will happily sit under the preaching/teaching ministries of Al Mohler, John Piper and C. J. Mahaney. IMO the glue that holds that desire for fellowship together, in spite of the obvious reasons to avoid certain conservative evangelicals, is their “mutual affinity for Calvinism.”6 They want the fellowship around Calvinism and will tolerate the obvious problems among the conservative evangelical Calvinists to have that fellowship.
There has been a steady increase of interest among Reformed IFB men with the evangelicals such as Mark Dever, Al Mohler, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, C. J. Mahaney, John MacArthur, et. al. Men in IFB circles have disagreed over Calvinism yet have shared fellowship in most cases. I cannot, however, recall a time when our separatist IFB brethren have been so willing to embrace evangelicals who demonstrate such obvious compromise.
The growing contemporary convergence of fundamentalists with evangelicals is a powerful force right now. Regrettably, it is growing into a force that is beginning to cause compromises that will eventually leave many without anchor, discernment or purity. This compromise will, in its wake, leave casualties.7


LM

Please continue to the attached discussion thread for additional commentary.


Addendum:
With every step of compromise then next step becomes easier. See- Your First Step Won’t Be Your Last

1) Dr. Ernest Pickering:
Holding Hands with the Pope: The Current Ecumenical Evangelical Craze This excerpt, which was in response to Chuck Colson’s Evangelicals and Catholics Together (E&CT), is just as applicable to The Manhattan Declaration as it was in 1994 to E&CT.

2) Dr. Dave Doran:
Starting at the Right Spot, Part 1 from his Gospel-Driven Separation series.

3)
The Manhattan Declaration: Why Didn’t You Sign It, RC?

4) Ibid.

5) Dr. Dave Doran:
Starting at the Right Spot, Part 1.

6) While this may not be a universal sentiment it is wide spread and has been confirmed to me personally by men who are among those in that movement toward
conservative evangelicalism.

7) Revised content from personal e-mail correspondence.


Please continue in this series with: Are We Recognizing the “New” New Evangelicalism?

December 2, 2009

Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration, Part 2: Was This a First Time Foray Toward Ecumenism?

In recent years Roman Catholics and evangelicals have made common cause in the political arena, uniting forces in struggles over the abortion issue, homosexuality, etc. These joint efforts have brought together leaders from both sides who had never worked together previously. Personal friendships have been formed, and, as a result, serious doctrinal differences have begun to be down-played. Since there is agreement on some social issues, and since these issues are so important in the life of America today, many leaders on both sides are willing to minimize doctrinal conflicts on the plea that we need to cooperate in ‘saving America’.1

Last week I began this series with Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration: Is This a Clear Case for “Gospel-Driven Separation?” At the conclusion of that article I indicated that Mohler signing The Manhattan Declaration (TMD) was not his first questionable decision along these lines and that we would review similar events. I also mentioned we would look at how Dr. Dave Doran might answer questions such as,
Will Dr. Doran make the application of his own counsel on Gospel-Driven Separation? Does he “admonish” (2 Thess. 3:15) Mohler. If Mohler refuses correction would Doran “mark” him and warn men to “avoid” him (Rom. 16:17)?”2

It was my intention to address both subjects in a single article. This has proven difficult partially because I prefer brevity in blog articles. Today, for your consideration, I am going to present a number of events in the ministry of Dr. Mohler. In a future article we may take another look at Dr. Doran’s Gospel-Driven Separation series in which he defined the “biblical obligations” for just such a “compromise (of) the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith….


Al Mohler & Ecumenism
The message of ecumenism is that doctrinal differences are not so great that they can’t be set aside to work together for some common cause. Similarly, ecumenism can be defined as the setting aside of theological differences to work in cooperation towards mutually shared goals.

To be fair Mohler is adamant that his signing TMD is not a caving in on fidelity to the justification by faith message. Mohler does not set aside personal theological differences with Roman Catholicism. In Why I Signed The Manhattan Declaration Mohler stated, “I could not sign a statement that purports, for example, to bridge the divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of justification.” Al Mohler is not a full-blown ecumenicist like J. I. Packer and Tim Keller. In signing TMD he did, however, enter into a cooperative effort with men who represent Roman Catholicism’s sacramental system and this may be an ominous signal.

He (Mohler) does not…embrace the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham.”3

Does Al Mohler keep his distance from the “ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham?” There are examples in the ministerial record of Al Mohler that show his signing TMD is not a one time, first time foray toward ecumenical compromise. Signing TMD actually adds to a pattern of honoring and/or joining in fellowship with rank liberals and new evangelicalism’s ecumenical compromise.

I. Billy Graham School of Missions and Evangelism
Al Mohler is president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS), which houses the Billy Graham School…. Al Mohler became president of SBTS in 1993. In all fairness, therefore, arrangements for honoring Graham by naming the school for him in 1994 probably preceded Mohler’s presidency.

With Billy Graham’s most recent Universalist statements, I believe the pressure has been mounting for Mohler and the SBTS. Leaving Graham’s name, knowing his legacy, on a school dedicated to training believers for world-wide evangelism must certainly be problematic. Honoring Graham’s legacy of ecumenical evangelism is a giant leftward step away from the so-called “conservative” branch of evangelicalism with which Mohler is presently identified.

II. Honoring a Liberal Theologian
In June 2009 Southern Baptist Theological Seminary celebrated its 150th anniversary. Part of the celebration included dedication of a new pavilion to commemorate the event. Following Dr. Mohler’s message, the seminary honored its seventh president Duke K. McCall by announcing the dedication of its new pavilion in his honor.

This is what boggles my mind. Here you find a staunch theological conservative (Al Mohler), backed by other staunch conservatives (e.g., chairman of the SBTS board, Mark Dever), naming a pavilion in honor of a man whose service at SBTS produced the mess which Mohler is credited for reversing. Recognizing him at the event is one thing, but naming a pavilion after him? What biblical justification can there be for something like this?”4
There is, of course, no legitimate “biblical justification” for honoring men who undermine the Word of God.
Symbolic gestures are important. Naming schools after new evangelicals like Billy Graham and buildings after liberals like Duke McCall are symbolic gestures that mean something. And they mean something bad to many of us. I just don’t get it.”5
I just don’t get it either. If you don’t get how Mohler can name structures for evangelism after one of the founders of contemporary ecumenical evangelism and to honor an alleged moderate who tolerated theological liberalism, you definitely won’t get this next one.

III. Billy Graham Crusade in Louisville, KY.
Dr. Al Mohler served as chairman for the 2001 Billy Graham Crusade in Louisville, KY.
R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and chairman of the Greater Louisville Crusade’s executive committee, said he is thankful that Graham has come to Louisville again. “There has been a group of persons who for many years have been praying together that the Lord will bring Dr. Graham here for a major crusade,” Mohler said. “The seeds of this were really sewn in 1956. Rare is the city that has the opportunity to host a Billy Graham crusade. Far rarer is the city that is able to have Dr. Graham come twice.6

On Saturday night, Graham is expected to preach to a crowd of young people… . It's being billed as the “Concert for the NeXt Generation,” and will feature Christian rap and rock music… .

In Louisville, the crusade has drawn tremendous ecumenical support -- involving nearly 600 churches from 53 denominations -- and leadership ranging from the pastor of Southeast Christian Church, a nondenominational megachurch, to Southern Baptists and black Baptists, to Presbyterians, Methodists and Episcopalians.
7
Al Mohler endorsed, promoted and served as crusade chairman for the last half century’s high priest of ecumenical evangelism, the Rev. Billy Graham. Ecumenical evangelism may not be Mohler’s personal practice, but through his chairmanship of the crusade he did at the very minimum lend tacit support for and endorsement of Graham’s ecumenical evangelism. Just prior to the crusade Mohler told the Baptist Press,
This is a remarkable opportunity for our students to be involved in one of the great evangelistic movements in Christian history…We have urged all our students to be involved in every possible role. To miss this would be a tragedy….A Billy Graham Crusade comes to a community only once in a generation -- if at all. God has given us this opportunity, and we dare not miss it. Our students will gain hands-on experience in the work of a major crusade, and will learn evangelism and follow-up by direct participation.”8
“Dr. R. Albert Mohler…opened the first meeting on Thursday, referencing hope among the local Christian community that the crusade would have lasting results. ‘Nothing else has brought together the kind of ethnic and racial and denominational inclusivity as is represented in this crusade; nothing in my experience and nothing in the recent history of Louisville has brought together such a group of committed Christians for one purpose’.”9
Wanting to give benefit of the doubt I looked for, but in vain for any documentation in which Dr. Mohler might have apologized for and/or repented of having chaired the Billy Graham crusade. I did find a published letter he wrote to another blogger explaining his decision to pull out of D. James Kennedy’s Reclaiming America for Christ conference where he would have shared a pulpit with Roman Catholics and for that I was grateful. His signing TMD, however, indicates he does not fully appreciate the necessity of absolute separation from the Roman Catholic Church and its priesthood.

On Sunday, 11/29 I sent Dr. Mohler an e-mail to notify him that I would be publishing this article. That I would address his having served as chairman for the Billy Graham Crusade. I expressed my concerns and linked him to the previous article as well. I did my due diligence, giving him benefit of the doubt on the subject matter of the new article. He replied to my initial contact and I followed with an offer to publish his response and explanation of his chairmanship of the crusade if he wishes to make it public.

To My IFB Brethren (& Every Believer)
I trust most IFB men were aware of most if not all of Mohler’s actions above that took place prior to his signing The Manhattan Declaration. The question is: In light of what has become an obvious pattern in the ministry of Al Mohler will Reformed IFB men begin to “admonish”, “mark” and “avoid” him? Men in the IFB community can claim there is no ecclesiastical fellowship with the “conservative” evangelicals and that, by strict definition, is essentially correct. The problem, however, is that we have Reformed IFB men, in increasing numbers, attending and encouraging others to participate in the mounting number of evangelical fellowships where men like Al Mohler, John Piper, Mark Driscoll and C. J. Mahaney are in leadership and have the platform.

The actual gatherings and the growing close-knit on-line community around T4G, The Gospel Coalition, Desiring God and Shepherd’s Conference are IMO fast becoming the first cousin of an ecclesiastical fellowship. Hence, my concern over why the “biblical obligations” for Gospel-Driven Separation are not being consistently brought to bear with Mohler over TMD and in regard to other deserving cases in “conservative” evangelicalism when it is clearly warranted.
I don’t know if the Manhattan Declaration will actually do anything to stop abortion or prevent the destruction of marriage. Even if it does, though, the price for doing so is too high—fidelity to the gospel. This declaration does, however, provide an excellent opportunity for conservative evangelicals to fully and forcefully reject ecumenical evangelicalism. And I mean reject it completely, not merely say you oppose it while you actually engage in it.10


Al Mohler joined with Roman Catholic priests as an original signatory to TMD. He did so at the expense of “fidelity to the Gospel.” Al Mohler chaired the Louisville Billy Graham crusade, which at the minimum was a tacit endorsement of Graham’s ecumenical evangelicalism. Mohler may personally oppose ecumenical evangelicalism, but by his chairmanship of the Graham crusade he lent it credibility. In essence Dr. Mohler stood behind Graham’s ecumenical evangelism.


Billy Graham has turned thousands of (alleged) converts over to Roman Catholic and modernistic churches. Mohler knew this when he accepted the chairmanship of Graham’s Louisville crusade.

For the objective, unbiased on-looker Mohler’s joining with liberals and Roman Catholics to sign TMD would remove any doubt of his ecumenical mind-set. Furthermore, Mohler was not simply an attendee at the Graham crusade. He was not a minor bit player on an advance team for the Graham crusade. Al Mohler was the chairman, the chief executive for the Graham crusade. Al Mohler is well past the time when one might afford him benefit of the doubt.

I am encouraging all men in IFB circles to act in fidelity to the Word of God, to obey what you find in passages that Dr. Doran identified as the “biblical obligations” (2 Thess. 3:15; Phil. 3:15-17; Rom. 16:17) for Gospel-Driven Separation. We are obligated to obey what is there. This is “an excellent opportunity for (all IFB men) to fully and forcefully reject” this brand of “conservative” evangelicalism exemplified by “conservative” evangelicals such as Dr. Al Mohler.


LM

For additional documentation and commentary please continue to the discussion thread.

1) Dr. Ernest Pickering: Holding Hands with the Pope: The Current Ecumenical Evangelical Craze This excerpt, which was in response to Chuck Colson’s Evangelicals and Catholics Together (E&CT), is just as applicable to The Manhattan Declaration (TMD) as it was in 1994 to E&CT. IMO, TMD is the first cousin of E&CT and may have been crafted to in part reinvigorate the raw ecumenism of E&CT under more subtle terms, i.e., a Trojan horse for full-blown ecumenism.

2) In subsequent Nov. 30 and Dec. 2 articles it appears Dr. Doran may be finding his voice for and indentifying the just cause to “admonish” (2 Thess. 3:15) evangelicals and warn those in his (Doran’s) sphere of influence to “avoid” (Rom. 16:17) them. I commend him for these new articles and am hopeful he will move closer toward a definite application of the “biblical obligations” for Gospel-Driven Separation.

3) Dr. Dave Doran, All Over Manhattan, 11/25/09

4) Dr. Dave Doran: Honor to Whom DisHonor is Due, 6/25/09.

5) Ibid.

6) Graham, in Louisville for crusade, aims 'to preach as long as I live' Baptist Press June 20. 2001.

7) Leslie Scanlon, Billy Graham Brings His Crusade to Louisville, The Presbyterian Outlook, June 22, 2001.

8) Baptist Press, Hundreds of Southern Students Prepare for Graham Crusade, May 3, 2001.

9) Proclamation Evangelism Network, Greater Louisville Crusade, June 21-24

10) Dr. Dave Doran: The Manhattan Melting Pot