But there is always something a bit 'off' in his commentary
and his overall outlook. I'm opposed to his rationalistic tendencies at work in
the realm of theology but perhaps even more than that I reject his
philosophical syncretism, his commitment to sacralism. I will grant his
position is the majority position in terms of Western Church history.
But that does not make it right. Even he would have to admit
that.
I cannot think of a single time I have read his works or
listened to him where things aren't more than a little out of focus, skewed,
and ultimately corrupted. His sacralism plays out not only in his theology, but
most poignantly in his sociological commentary, political analysis and
historical interpretation. It is on these points that as a Biblicist, I cannot
agree with him at all.
Here's his 'briefing' from 29 October 2015.
I only listen to him on occasion because in almost every case
I already know what he's going to say and I don't find his comments to be
accurate or very insightful. But knowing his influence and the scope of his
audience I attempt to keep abreast of his general viewpoint. I listened to this
commentary because I wanted to see how far he'd push the issue and if he would
even question or defend the assumptions of his position. I assumed he wouldn't,
and he didn't disappoint. Mohler is a thoroughgoing sacralist. While he
proclaims to be committed to Biblical Christianity, he actually has more in
common with Medieval Catholicism.
He laments the fact that church buildings in England are in a
state of social and financial decline. No one attends them. He also is
disturbed the culture wishes to utilize them in a secular manner without
acknowledging or more preferably paying homage to the theology inherent within
the architecture of the buildings and the historical meaning and context they
represent.
Of course how lost people are supposed to this we're never
told. And why would they celebrate a belief system long abandoned? Well, that's
not clear either.
At the end he briefly mentions in less than clear terms the
apostasy of the Church of England and why it is in its present state. Of course
we might also argue that had the Church of England ever been Scripturally faithful
to begin with, it would have:
a. Never existed
b. Never been able to grow to over ten thousand congregations
to begin with and thus the dilemma of all but empty buildings wouldn't exist.
It was largely a sham from the beginning. Many of the
Reformed attempt to celebrate 'what almost was' under Edward VI, Elizabeth and
the Puritans, but it never came to pass. In fact it failed miserably and by the
time of the Restoration it was clear the whole project in the end did much more
harm than could have ever been imagined. And had their dreams been fulfilled
resulting in a Calvinistic Anglican Church guided by the Westminster Confession
of Faith... it would still have been a state church and thus a theological
aberration, a corruption of New Testament Christianity. And like every other
state church, it would have succumbed to the culture and thus ultimately to the
Enlightenment. The Reformation in rending asunder the basis for medieval social
cohesion and consensus, unwittingly spawned the crisis that resulted in the
Enlightenment and the eventual downfall of European Christendom. The
Reformation planted the seeds of its own destruction.
Mohler assumes these buildings were valid expressions of
Christian faith and celebrates the sacral symbolism of the steeple, the Tower
of Babel-like proclamation that every society makes in its architecture. He
doesn't view it that way of course but celebrates the symbolism of Christendom.
Like most sacralists he simply assumes the validity of calling buildings
'churches' and then without hesitation accepts all the subsequent theology
generated by this basic doctrinal error.
He would do well to read Verduin's 'The Reformers and Their
Stepchildren' and in addition revisit an older chapter of history, the
Pre-Reformation Church in England, where
we find the Lollards operating as a Biblicist underground church. This all
antedates Henry VIII and his scandalous corruption of marriage which was the
genesis of the so-called Church of England.
The Lollards, like the Waldensians on the Continent had no
time for steeples and spires, stained glass and bells. They rejected these
popish corruptions and innovations. While the later Reformed (being sacralists)
certainly constructed buildings, it is the British Puritan tradition, the very
tradition Mohler claims allegiance to that was most dubious about buildings and
all the leftover trappings and 'worldviews' associated with medievalism. Their
iconoclasm vis-à-vis Christendom was not as penetrating as might be wished for
but in another sense is in our own day significantly downplayed. Their
radicalism is tolerated but increasingly few celebrate it.
One does not wax sentimental about Puritan 'Meeting Houses'
and though they were sacralists to be sure, there was no theology of Church
Architecture apart from a negation of the Roman Catholic tradition and a return
to New Testament simplicity. How the Regulative Principle is hated in our day.
And yet many err in thinking it finds it genesis with the British Puritans. The
majority of the pre-Reformational movements espoused it in one form or another.
Mohler loves Calvinistic Soteriology but being a Baptist
doesn't understand the comprehensive nature of the theology. He loves Reformed sacralism
but can't seem to navigate the nuances and its interaction with European social
history. In some ways Protestant sacralism represented a continuity with medievalism
and in other ways it was absolutely revolutionary and represents the beginning
of secularism. It must be said again, because it is supremely ironic that the
Reformation most certainly opened doors that it did not mean to and in the end
was self-defeating and destructive. Mohler would contest that of course. We can
agree there's much to celebrate with regard to the Reformation, but not the
romanticised version that Mohler and those like him propagate. Their
interpretation of the 16th century and the events leading up to it
are self-serving and lack integrity. Their subsequent narratives regarding
Protestant history often tend toward pure fabrication and in some cases
fantasy.
Today while claiming to adhere to Scripture, Conservative
Protestantism has become reactionary and revisionist, recasting and
re-embracing Europe's pre-Reformational and therefore pre-Secular heritage.
And yet during Mohler's Golden Age of Christendom, there were
many voices arguing from Scripture against the very ideas and notions Mohler
holds dear. This is why Sacralism has little interest in groups like the
Waldensians and Lollards. They do not supplement their argument and narrative but
stand in direct contrast to it. If they do refer to Waldensians and Lollards in
their histories and works it is either in superficial or romanticised terms.
On the one hand, I too love the old buildings. That's part of
Europe's charm and I've certainly worshipped in more than a few old Anglican
Church buildings. I know the appeal and cannot help but feel the sentimentality
when visiting the old village churches. I love the connections with the past.
I've written about this before.
It must be emphasized once more that even speaking this way about
'old village churches' grants the false assumption that these buildings even
ought to be called churches in the first place.
The funny thing is that where I live, the largely apostate
Methodist and Presbyterian 'churches' don't possess the charm, or the
interesting architecture. It's usually just a wooden faux-variety, a
romanticised rip-off of some kind of European style. If they disappeared it
would be no great loss. That said, many people do feel the same affinity for
many of the old country churches, and I'll also admit I enjoy the feeling of
history when I step inside, although the reaction is considerably different
from when I step into an Old World building that's hundreds of years older.
On the one hand I lament the decay of these buildings and
their history. On the other hand when I view it from a theologically objective
viewpoint, as opposed to Mohler's reactionary romanticism, I say 'tear them
down'. Remove the false witness so that the antithesis between the world and
Biblical Christianity can be made more manifest.
Or better yet... let them be used for something else to keep
them standing. That way we can remember the history and yet reflect on it
instead of celebrate it. And then, those who care can still gaze upon them and
learn something, whether it be the false theology at work in steeples and
stained glass, or the lessons of institutions that succumbed to the spirit of
Ichabod. Though this would horrify Mohler and create a narrative that would
make a sacralist pour ashes on his head, I say 'Make them into village museums'.
Many lament the iconoclasm that occurred at the time of the
Reformation, the smashing of statues and other works of art. Even the
celebrated Francis Schaeffer said it would have been better if they had been
put into museums and looked at as objets
d'art rather that venerated.
Though no fan of Schaeffer I'll play along and I'll simply
say that the buildings should be treated in the same manner. But for Mohler and
those like him the buildings represent something more, they are quite literally
a physical stamp, a tangible claim of Christian Sacralism on society as a
whole. Relegating them to the status of artifact is an admission of defeat and obsolescence.
As far as weddings go, Mohler once again displays his
theological ignorance and shallowness as well as his sacralist assumptions. The
whole idea of a 'church wedding' is also a holdover from medievalism and is
thoroughly sacralist in orientation.
Waldensians and others were viewed as fornicators and their
children as bastards because they refused to be wed in Roman Catholic buildings
by the extra-scriptural sacramental arrangement created by Rome.
They were wed privately and among themselves, but this was
not recognized by the sacral society in which they lived. Despite the erroneous
claims of some, the Waldensians were almost exclusively paedobaptist but they
like the later Anabaptists had a problem with baptism being tied to the sacral
society. They had a problem with Christian identity being confused and conflated
with citizenship, the very thing Mohler celebrates and even demands. But as a Baptist
his theology on this point is rather muddled and exposes the shortcomings of
his own system rather than provide any clarity for his audience. At the core of
sacralist thought is the idea that at least outwardly society represents a
monistic structure, everyone is (in some sense) a participant in the
civil-religious fusion. Pluralism, the teaching and demand of the New Testament
is the great enemy. The composite society in which we live as strangers, pilgrims,
exiles and aliens is the status sacralism seeks to eliminate. Interestingly
when doing so, many of the ethical foundations of New Testament are eliminated.
Sacralism's consequence is a new foundation for ethics and a
host of newly formed necessary consequences and imperatives result. It can look
like Christianity but results in something very different. Mohler's ethics applied
to the world all too often bear this out. The values of the world and the
Kingdom become muddied and distorted. War, greed and pride are recast. Serving
the greater good they can become tools and fruits of virtue.
While we can certainly agree with Mohler's criticism of
modern society's narcissism and the absurdity of our contemporary wedding
culture, we cannot agree with his theological assessment. Even then, I think
many of his sociological analyses are incorrect. Not everyone rejecting a
'Church Wedding' is a narcissist. He is guilty of his own non sequitirs. Some wish to avoid formalism and grandiosity and
though he insists 'Church Weddings' are not inherently expensive, even a simple
one can be somewhat overwhelming. Granted it doesn't have to be $30,000 but it
can easily run $3-5000 and for some that's too much. The bourgeois Mohler, like
not a few of his Reformed brethren, lives in a different world, one quite
foreign to many working and lower class Americans.
He seems to think that it is only modern culture that makes
the wedding an expression and celebration of the self. While this has been
taken to a new level to be sure, I can say with great confidence that even many
a traditional wedding has been very much about the bride and a celebration of
'her moment'. Even many of the contemporary wedding 'reality' programmes
clearly demonstrate that a 'Church Wedding' in no way eliminates the narcissism
and self-focus that seems bound to occur when formal dress and pageantry come into
play on a grand scale.
Once again, even if we assume his position, why should we
expect nonbelievers to view the wedding ceremony in the same way Christians
should? It is always baffling to me that sacralists seem to find some kind of
great satisfaction in forcing infidels to hypocritically 'go through the
motions' and be forced to participate in some kind of made up social ritual or
exercise in civil religion.
Despite Mohler's claims, it's not Biblical. There's nothing
in the New Testament that tells us to compel the pagan through the threat of
law. There's nothing that suggests that we take over society and impose
Christian (and hence spiritual) realities on people who cannot apprehend let
alone comprehend them.
And there's nothing in the New Testament to suggest that the
wedding is some kind of quasi-worship service. The modern 'Church Wedding' is
the child of medieval Roman sacralism, a philosophical consequent of sacral
theology. It is not derived from New Testament exegesis and its retention by
Protestants claiming Sola Scriptura is
in fact a denial of the principle. Mohler undercuts his own ability to argue
against other Catholic innovations. By embracing the building and the wedding
ceremony he's already admitted the Scripture alone is not his source of
doctrinal and ecclesiological authority.
Marriage is a Common Grace institution that we're told will
cease at the Eschaton. While I do not doubt our spouses will be known to us in
heaven, the relationship is not the same. Marriage is a temporary order that
will perish when this age is consummated.
That said, marriage most certainly takes on a different
meaning for the Christian couple as it 'also' represents in symbolic or metaphorical
terms our Union with Christ.
In the time of the Patriarchs, Isaac brought Rebecca to his
father's tent, they were blessed and they were considered married. There was no
great fanfare and there was no holy building or priesthood. The Patriarchal
Period, or even the similar Antediluvian era is more analogous to our own epoch,
the New Covenant/Kingdom era governed by the Already-Not Yet dynamic. To attach
significance to a building, to clerics and to ceremony (manmade at that) is to
Judaize.
The confusion grows because to many the marriage is
legitimated by the state issued license. This has led not a few to balk at the
state sanction and for some to reject it altogether. If, the certificate was
specifically 'sacral' as it was in the Middle Ages or more recently in Rick Santorum's
dream state of Spain under Franco, then we too would have to reject the
certificate, and be married 'underground' as it were. Again, this is what many
a Biblically minded non-conformist opted for during the totalitarian regimes of
Roman and in some cases Protestant Christendom.
But contrary to Mohler we can be thankful that we live in a
secular society. Marriage in terms of the civil order has no religious meaning.
Therefore I can go and get the certificate... it wouldn't matter if it was done
on the exact same day as the wedding vows and consecration.... for simple legal
purposes. The state issued certificate has nothing to do with sanctioning the
marriage in terms of Christian doctrine or ethics. It's simply a legal
formality and social convenience. It's not a holy stamp of approval from a
sacral society nor does Babylon's necessarily wrong interpretation of marriage
have any bearing on my understanding as a Christian.
We register with Rome/Babylon because it makes life easier in
terms of taxes, medical decisions, inheritance and so forth. If Rome gets out
of the 'marriage' business altogether and allows us to legally establish our
tax, medical and inheritance connections through other means and under a
different nomenclature, then so be it. It might even aid in lessening the
confusion.
To suggest that marriage will be understood in Christian
terms by unbelievers is to reject the testimony of the Holy Spirit. It is to
assume the unregenerate can take hold of the holy and understand Union with
Christ. This is folly as is the whole of Mohler's thought and commentary.
There is much to criticise about modern wedding culture and
its obscenities. Failing to get married in a 'Church Building' is
insignificant. Actually it is Mohler's position that is far more disturbing and
exposes the distorted thinking at work in the Sacralist worldview and its
theological and social hermeneutics.