Confessing the True Faith: An Interview with R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

 JBMW: Could you tell us a little about your background, how you became a Christian, and how you came to be the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?

AM: By God's grace, I was born to godly Christian parents and raised in a Christian home. I came to know Jesus Christ as my personal Savior when I was nine years old at a Vaca- tion Bible School service. This was the first time I really understood that I was a sinner and that Jesus Christ was my Savior. I did not have any sophisticated understanding of the doctrine of the atonement, but I knew that Jesus was my Savior and Lord, and I made a public profession of faith and joined the church and was baptized. I grew up in a very traditional, tall-steeple, Southern Baptist church, and though I had been in the church virtually all my life, this was the first time I understood what it meant to be a Christian and a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ.

My family made a significant move when I was thirteen, from the town of Lakeland in central Florida down to Fort Lauderdale in south Florida. That was a huge shift, culturally and socially. South Florida in the early 1 970s was a very interesting place to be. It was during that period that I began to have some serious questions about the Christian faith, and I became very interested in finding answers to these questions. I had some good and godly mentors. I started reading Francis Schaeffer and other apologists. I had a deep hunger to know the Scriptures and began to develop a sense of vocation as a theologian-as a pastor.

I had been attending the state university, headed, or so I thought, for a career in law. Yet I was very unhappy as I pursued the line of studies leading in that direction. I came to understand clearly that I was called to the ministry. I left the school where I was studying and began to prepare for the ministry at Samford University, a Baptist school.

While at Samford, I came to know the woman who was to become my wife. Mary was the sister of my roommate. Though we were from the same home church in Florida, we didn't know each other very well since it was such a large church. We got to know each other, fell in love, and were married in 1983.

I graduated as President of the ministerial association at Samford, with a degree in religion and philosophy, and then went to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. I arrived here in 1980 and received my Master of Divinity degree in 1983 and a Ph.D. in Systematic and Historical Theology in 1989. For most of those years between 1983 and 1989 I also served as assistant to the President of the seminary.

From Southern we moved to Atlanta, where I became the editor of the Christian Index. This is the oldest of the Southern Baptist newspapers, now owned by the Georgia Baptist Convention. We were there for four years, and then returned to Southern, where I took office as President of the seminary in August of 1993.

JBMW: Can you tell us about the history of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?

AM: Southern Seminary began in 1859 as a solidly Baptist, evangelical, classically orthodox institution. It was established to meet the need for the training of ministers in the South, but also as an alternative to other options that were considered to be less theologi- cally sound. James P. Boyce and Basil Manly, Jr., were two of the four founding faculty. Both had studied theology under Charles Hodge at Princeton. Their vision was to establish a "Baptist Princeton."

The seminary followed the vision of the founders for about the first third of its heritage, up until the turn of the century. At that point in 1899, the fourth president was elected, a man by the name of E. Y. Mullins. He was a towering figure, one of the most significant reli- gious leaders of the early twentieth century in America. He was also evangelical, but he shifted the seminary's focus away from its confessional tradition and more toward an engagement with the larger culture. The theological shift was away from Protestant orthodoxy, toward what he saw as a more updated evangelicalism.

JBMW: With an emphasis on experience.

AM: Precisely. There was definitely an openness to the ideas of Friedrich Schleiermacher, though he was read through evangelical lenses. Theology merged out of experience and was based on a voluntary principle. From that point on, the stance of the seminary shifted quite significantly, so that by the World War II period, it was deeply into a neo-orthodox phase. They were very interested in the writings of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner.

By the time the seminary reached the 1960s and 1 970s, more radical theological schools of thought had made great inroads. When I came as a student in the 1980s there were advocates of liberation theology, process theology, feminist theology, and post-modern hermeneutics teaching on the faculty.

JBMW: How does the recent shift in the Southern Baptist Convention relate to these changes?

AM: Had that shift not happened, the seminary would be headed in that older direction and would be much farther down the road. Southern's faculty in the early 1980s was convinced that the conservatives would never gain control of the seminary. But as the S.B.C. continued to elect conservatives to the Presidency, the faculty tried to resist any changes at the school. This resistance ultimately failed, and the conservatives gained control of the seminary's board in 1992. And I was elected in 1993.

JBMW: You are credited with leading the reformation at Southern Seminary. Tell us about that.

AM: Let me say first of all that the change here, it is safe to say, is almost unprecedented in American religious history and in the history of the Church. To have an institution of this size and stature, headed for so long in a liberal direction, be turned back to the vision of the founders and to our confessional heritage, is a remarkable occurrence that runs counter to the general trend in academic institutions. The general trend seems always to be a movement from the right to the left and never in the other direction.

The reformation that took place at Southern Seminary was not without conflict. The issue of the roles of women in church, home, and society was one of the most explosive on campus. We were under constant media scrutiny. The transformation that took place here involved everything from campus sit-ins and candlelight vigils to protest marches and even a PBS documentary.

JBMW: In the process of that reformation, how did you respond when people said, "You're being too harsh; too mean-spirited"?

AM: Well, that is hardly a new accusation. I'm sure that's exactly what was hurled at Peter and Paul and the disciples, because the drawing of boundaries is never politically correct, whether in the first century or today. I do believe we are living in one of those eras in which it is most odious to the popular mind to make distinctions and rules, and to live by them. In this case, the only sufficient rationale for forcing this kind of change on an institution is that it is required by faithfulness to God's Word. So there was a scriptural authority behind us, and we were quite certain of this. And before that authority and under that authority we had to take certain very determinative actions and force a course of change that was certainly controversial, and we were accused by many of being harsh. But we had to look at it as necessary surgery. Yes, the surgery would be difficult, and the recovery period would also have its difficulties, but the only way to regain health, biblically speaking, would be to undergo this kind of surgery.

JBMW: Is biblical manhood and womanhood a confessional issue?

AM: Let me speak as a historical theologian. There are really two questions here. First, "Is it a confessional issue?" Well, it is for us. I mean, in one sense that is an objective, rather than a subjective question. It is now a part of the Baptist Faith and Message, to which all faculty here must subscribe and which is the Confession of Faith of the Southern Baptist Convention. So objectively speaking, it is now a confessional issue among Southern Baptists. The second question is, "Should this be a confessional issue?" I believe, yes. Let us remember that creeds and confessions, historically speaking, emerged out of the Church's responsibility to address false teaching with a corrective confession of the true faith once for all delivered to the saints. So, most of the creeds, most of the great conciliar documents, going back to Nicaea, Chalcedon, all the way through the Reformation and beyond, emerged out of some controversy. And that controversy required a clear statement from the Church. I believe that gender-confusion in our culture and in our churches amounts to a crisis crying out for that kind of clarification.

JBMW: Do we need an ecumenical council on this topic?

AM: I would have to say that there is not, at present, a structural basis for an ecumenical council like or similar to those of the first seven. What we have are numerous denominations and parachurch organizations, each of which, if confessional, has its own confession of faith, and there is no super-structure to call together this kind of council.

I would use the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy as an example here. The issue of biblical inerrancy is absolutely fundamental. And yet there has been no means of calling together even a limited group of evangelical Protestants, organizationally and structurally, to settle an issue once and for all. Instead, the ICBI became a very helpful witness. It produced a very helpful document. That document has become a touchstone. But it is still not a confessional document, carrying confessional authority as in those first seven councils. I think that's where we stand also with the issue of biblical manhood and womanhood. I think the Danvers Statement serves as a very important touchstone, but something significant is going to have to happen among evangelicals before we could move to any kind of ecumenical council.

JBMW: Is feminism a heresy? And if so, in what sense?

AM: Yes, I would say it is a heresy, because on one level, heresy is any false teaching. But we must also ask, if it is a heresy, what degree of heresy is it? I have argued for a long time that there must be a process of theological triage, like in an emergency room, where patients are brought in from an accident. Some have internal injuries, some have broken bones, and some have superficial injuries. You deal first with the internal injuries-the life-threatening issues. Then you deal with major injuries, and finally, you get to the superficial ones.

In theology, there are these same levels of importance, as the apostles and the early Church recognized. So, for example, by the time you get to Nicaea, the issue of the person of Jesus Christ is understood to be so central, that error on this doctrine means that one is not a Christian and that one is outside the Church. This is a life-threatening issue. To err on this doctrine is to be guilty of a first-order heresy.

Now the question comes, is feminism-is a rejection of biblical manhood and womanhood-a heresy? Yes, I would argue it is. It is not a first-order heresy, in the sense that persons who disagree with us are not Christians. But I would say it is certainly an issue that is so definitive for the Church, that a true gospel Church will order its ministry only in accordance with the New Testament.

God has revealed an order within the home, an order within the family, an order within the church. No doctrine can be taken in isolation from all others. So one cannot speak of accepting the feminist agenda having to do only with the home, or only with marriage, or only with the role of women in the ministry. Everything is interconnected. A denial of the part is not always self-consciously a denial of whole. But a denial of the part, taken to its logical conclusion, will eventually lead to a denial of whole.

JBMW: Our culture has been feminized to a great extent. How do you see that in the academy, in the church, in elders' and deacons' meetings?

AM: Let's speak of it at three levels, beginning with the level of popular culture. Our whole discourse has become so feminized that we are oblivious to it. Our ears no longer hear the change in the language. So at that level, the culture is now so thoroughly feminized, that it has become scandalous to speak of the particularity of men and women. Then you go to the next level, which is in the academy, where it is even worse than in the popular culture. In the secular academy there is the assumption that the traditional, biblical understanding of manhood and womanhood is patriarchal, oppressive, hegemonic, and genocidal. And if you hold to this position, you are a threat to civil society and you have no place in academic discourse. You are just ruled out of the game.

The next level is the evangelical seminaries and churches. We are fooling ourselves if we do not see that we have been impacted by the popular culture to such extent that many pastors, elders, and professors trim the sails somewhat, and leave certain issues untouched out of fear of offense. I would say that a church, a pastor, has to reach the point where you pay the price on this. We've done that at Southern Seminary. So you hold to these convictions, you hold to biblical authority, you make this known, and then you pay the price, whatever it is. And you continue to keep these issues before your people with real clarity.

JBMW You are involved in the training of pastors. How do you teach pastors to have courage?

AM: I have just finished preparing a series of lectures on a theology of courage. Let me say first of all that we must not take the issue of courage on its own, because one can be courageous for all the wrong reasons and for all the wrong ends.

Having said this, one must go back to the knowledge of the one, true, and living God, and absolute confidence that He has revealed Himself in His inerrant Word. Thus, we have an authority from which we cannot be moved, a word that is eternal and unchangeable and totally true, bearing the authority of the self-existent, holy and omnipotent God. And so, whatever courage we have in ministry-and I can assure you that authentic ministry will require super- human courage-has to come from God's own authority and the assurance that we are about His business. Remember back in the first chapter of the book of Joshua, where the word of the Lord to Joshua was, "Be strong and courageous." This was repeated several times. Where does the courage come from? It comes from God's assignment.

Courage used to be honored in our society and in our literature. Young men used to be told to take courage; soldiers were told to take courage. We used to honor a person who demonstrated true courage. Nowadays in popular culture, that is hardly the case. But it had better be in the Church. The evangelical church has become so acculturated over the past several decades that not much courage has been demonstrated. To stand before a post-modern, post-Christian, American culture and proclaim the true gospel, to make clear the realities of God's Word, including biblical manhood and womanhood, will require a demonstration of true courage. This can come only from the assurance that we are standing upon the authority of God's Word.

I think the Lord also gives us glimpses of why courage is so important by allowing us to see the costs of failure. We look at our own lives, our own families, our own churches, and consider what will happen if God's patterns are denied. That is another reminder of the necessity of courage.

JBMW: How did you come to your convictions about biblical manhood and womanhood?

AM: I came to my convictions about biblical manhood and womanhood the hard way: by being wrong and having to get right. I grew up in a very traditional home, where my father and mother modeled biblical manhood and womanhood. I never really thought much about it until I was in seminary, and there, the only model that was promoted was an egalitarian, feminized model. Unfortunately, I pretty much accepted what I was given. I need to say, just as a matter of intellectual and spiritual honesty, that I was in the wrong place, holding to the wrong position.

But the Lord used several instruments to bring me to a humble acceptance of His pattern. One of these was an individual, Dr. Carl F. H. Henry. He has been a mentor to me in so many ways. He knew that I affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture, that I considered myself a conservative evangelical, and that I wanted to stand as a consistent evangelical. So he hit me directly with the question of how I could justify my egalitarian beliefs in the light of Scripture. I had never really been asked that question before and I had never seen cogent, scriptural arguments for biblical manhood and womanhood. I can assure you, when someone like Dr. Henry, who meant so much to me and whom I so admired, said something like that, it really sent me to work. And I came to the conclusion that not only did I hold to the wrong position on the issue, but I held a completely erroneous understanding of the importance of the issue. So this is a very passionate matter for me, because I was driven by Scripture itself to these conclusions.

JBMW: How does this work out in your own home?

AM: Thankfully, the Lord led me to a wonderful Christian woman who already held these convictions. We seek to live out the biblical role of the husband and the wife in our family and in the raising of our children. We have a daughter who is 11 and a son who is 8. There is no question that Mary accepts my responsibility and authority as husband in the household, and there is no question that she understands my tremendous respect and love for her as the wife whom God has given me and the mother of our children. In the home that also means that our children understand the authority of a father and of a mother. Your children, even those attending Christian schools, come to understand very early the difference between how your family is ordered and how the families of many of their friends are ordered.

By the way, Mary was a member of the committee that wrote the statement on the family that was added to the Baptist Faith and Message. I am so proud of her. She has had many opportunities to speak on this topic, and she has been clear in presenting her convictions. It is really powerful for other women to hear her say that not only does she support this amendment, but she helped to write it. And then she explains why she supports it.

JBMW: Do you see any early results from adding this statement on the family?

AM: The statement has certainly been productive of results. The first result was controversy. The second result was the exodus of liberal churches from the Southern Baptist Convention. The third result is in process even now, and that is the growing consciousness of Southern Baptists as to the importance of this issue of the reality of biblical manhood and womanhood.