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. 


 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


  1. To All:

    Through another blog I found the following quote by Chuck Colson in an article at his website. Speaking of The Manhattan Declaration (TMD) he wrote,

    And just as important, I believe the Manhattan Declaration can help revitalize the church in America. One great weakness of the Church today is its biblical and doctrinal ignorance. This document is, in fact, a form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith.” (Just the Beginning, Nov. 25, 2009)

    I would reiterate a note I placed in footnote #1.

    IMO, TMD is the first cousin of Evangelicals & Catholics Together (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.

    How men like Al Mohler did not recognize the close proximity of TMD to Evangelicals & Catholics Together, and if he did why he signed inspite of this is troubling.


  2. Dear Guests:

    I just added another quote from Dr. Mohler as reported by Proclamation Evangelism Network (June 2001). See footnote #9 in the main article.

    “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’.”

    See- Proclamation Evangelism Network, Greater Louisville Crusade, June 21-24

  3. Furthermore, following Mohler’s crusade opening remarks,

    Executive Committee First Vice Chair Dr. Bob Russell, senior minister of the 17,000-member Southeast Christian Church, echoed (Mohler’s ‘denominational inclusivity’) sentiment, expressing his hope that the lost will be saved, the saved will be edified and the edified will be unified. But as Christians, we are hoping not only for a unifying, but a transforming experience, because the only unifying force is Christ.” (Proclamation Evangelism Network, Greater Louisville Crusade, June 21-24)

    Why is this significant? I have added this information because Southeastern Christian Church (SCC) is presently a member of Bill Hybel’s Willow Creek Association of Churches.

    My research does not yet verify that SCC was a Willow Creek Association member church in 2001. If, however, it was, then Dr. Mohler, as chairman of the Graham crusade, cooperated with a known “seeker-sensitive” ministry. This would be another irrefutable proof that Dr. Mohler willingly cooperated in an ecumenical approach to evangelism. This Willow Creek church was just one of 53 denominations and 600 participating churches in the Graham crusade. How many more alarming examples might we find among the 53/600 Mohler cooperated with on his executive committee?


  4. Lou,

    I love that you are telling the truth about Mohler. I've been saying the same things for years. Mohler is an ecumenist and he is also on board with Rick Warren's (his fellow Southern Baptist's) agenda. I also know about Mohler's ecumenical comments regarding leading Graham's crusade.

    Allow me to tell you a few even more disturbing facts about Mohler which will prove that he is an agent for Satan. He leads 2 UN-NGO's which are dedicated to the UN's one world anti-Christ agenda. He was the "founding fellow" of the think tank of the ERLC (Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission) and he sits on the board of Focus on the Family, another UN-NGO.

    Also, Mohler's close friend and associate who was also a founding fellow of the ERLC is Richard Land. Land, like Rick Warren, is a member of the CFR!

    Do you think John Macarthur is a true Christian? Would it surprise you to learn that he is fully on board with Rick Warren's agenda?

    Please read my website articles and my expose of John Macarthur which includes a lengthy section about Mohler and Dever (who once dismissed 256 members of his own church for opposing his change program) at and

    Bob Johnson

  5. Bob:

    I appreciate that you find these articles in which I address Mohler’s growing toward ecumenism helpful.

    There is an obvious growing trend toward anti-god denominations such as the RCC. Mohler and Duncan signing the MD was IMO a step closer to New Evangelicalism and ultimately the supra-religion from Rev. 17 & 18.

    What especially disturbs me is that men who claim to be committed to the biblical obligations for separation from unbelievers and believers who hobnob with them are becoming ever more so willing to tolerate and allow for the ecumenism and other doctrinal aberrations coming from the so-called “conservative” evangelicals. RAP/CCM, non-cessationism, questioning young earth creation, blatant disregard for biblical separation, etc.

    In any event, while I appreciate your sharing your commentary above I want to make a few initial reactions.

    When addressing brothers in Christ, even those who have gone off in doctrine and practice I really try to avoid inflammatory caricatures. “Agent of Satan,” would be one of those I would have asked you to moderate if I had the opportunity prior to your posting. When we use really harsh caricatures we often lose the opportunity to be heard by those who may be on the fence, and uncertain about what is happening with men like Mohler and other “conservative” evangelicals like John Piper, C. J. Mahaney and Mark Driscoll.

    I trust the details you share below about Mohler’s association with Rick Warren, ERLC and Focus are verifiable.

    Finally, what is UN-NGO?


  6. Kevin Bauder on: Al Mohler’s Occasional Inconsistency?

    For the record, I was just informed that Kevin Bauder has made some very brief personal remarks about Al Mohler and his signing the Manhattan Declaration. Bauder made his remarks on April 27, 2010 at the Foundation’s Conference. Bauder said,

    Al Mohler felt liberty to sign the Manhattan Declaration (MD). Other conservative evangelicals not only did not feel that liberty, but were critical of Mohler for doing that. Personally I think that in signing the MD Mohler is acting inconsistently with his own principles, but I think we give a man a certain amount of liberty for an occasional inconsistency. Which of us isn’t occasionally inconsistent? I don’t think the occasional inconsistency is what establishes a position. I think we take Mohler and others in terms of their overall conduct not in terms of a single episode.”

    This article has irrefutably documented a long running pattern of inconsistency in the ministry of Al Mohler. Kevin Bauder is not unaware of these incidences in Mohler’s ministry. Signing the MD is NOT a “single episode” of inconsistency and Bauder knows it is not his (Mohler’s) first or only episode.

    Al Mohler signed the MD, which gave Christian recognition to the enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18) and compromised the Gospel. None of this was worthy of mention by Bauder.

    If Mohler were a novice Christian this might be excusable. He is, however, a seasoned pastor and has a track record of missteps, such as have been documented in this article.

    You can also add that Mohler has for years and does today sit on the board of Focus on the Family.

    In October 2010 Mohler has another opportunity to demonstrate whether or not his pattern of inconsistency will continue. Will he join Rick Warren on the platform of John Piper’s Desiring God conference?

    There is nothing occasional about Mohler’s “overall conduct” and Kevin Bauder has conveniently ignored that pattern in his remarks above.


  7. Lou,

    Here are a few thoughts about Dr. Bauder's reported comments.

    Has he properly framed the matter concerning Dr. Mohler's signing of the MD in describing it in terms of "liberty," "his own principles," and "inconsistency"? I think not? As a man who has publicly criticized Fundamentalists for not taking Scripture serious enough, this statement of his is indeed odd. Somehow in this reasoning of his, which in the political realm would be heralded as clever spin, the real offenders are those of us who would criticize Dr. Mohler by not giving him liberty for an occasional inconsistency.

    However, Dr. Bauder blunders two-fold in saying that. First, because while it is true that we are all way too inconsistent in living according to our personal principles the Scriptures implicitly warns us all that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Secondly, signing a document is not akin to making a one time statement. A signature is a continuing blemish that can be removed, and by refusing to remove it the blot remains.

    Finally, Dr. Mohler could not have felt at liberty to sign the MD because the Scriptures affords him any such liberty. If, as Dr. Bauder suggests, he indeed felt liberty to sign it, it was from his Biblically inconsistent friends where that feeling of freedom to so gravely error without fear of consequence came.