Posts by R. Albert Mohler Jr.

A moment of decision: will Southern Baptists face the future, or will we flinch? June 12, 2010

A great sense of historical importance looms as the 2010 meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention fast approaches. The messengers to the SBC meeting in Orlando will cast many important votes, but one exceeds all others in significance, and that is the vote on the report of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force.

Southern Baptists have faced such moments before. In 1845, those messengers who founded the SBC took a great step of faith as they created a convention of Baptist churches called by and committed to a Great Commission vision. Southern Baptists faced another moment when they revolutionized the denomination in 1925 by adopting the Cooperative Program as the unified means of supporting our Great Commission efforts, established the Executive Committee, and adopted our first confession of faith, the Baptist Faith & Message.

Throughout the years from 1979 to 1990, Southern Baptists showed up in force to reclaim the denomination for the full authority and integrity of the Bible and the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Each of those conventions was a moment of historical consequence. The same was true in 1995, when Southern Baptists adopted the Covenant for a New Century, streamlining the convention as it celebrated its 150th anniversary.

Now, once again, Southern Baptists will convene for a meeting that will make history. Messengers to the 2009 convention in Louisville overwhelmingly adopted a motion calling for a task force to report this year concerning how Southern Baptists may work more faithfully and effectively together in service to the Great Commission. A generation of younger Southern Baptists is gripped by a vision for a Great Commission Resurgence, and Southern Baptists of every generation are reminded again of the reality of a lost world and of Christ's commission to His church - the command to make disciples of all the nations.

The Southern Baptist Convention is a massive denomination. No task force or committee can review the totality of the convention's work and reach. Nevertheless, the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force dedicated itself to making the greatest Great Commission impact as Southern Baptists face the future.

The Task Force's report will be presented to the Convention on Tuesday, June 15, and that day will go down as a turning point in this denomination's life and work. This is true, not only in light of the report and recommendations presented by the Task Force, but in light of the attitude and passions that will be revealed in the deliberation and vote.

I am convinced that the recommendations we are presenting are both right and reasonable. They are not a revolution in themselves, but they point to the future with a statement that we are determined to be far more serious about reaching the nations and our own continent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The report is honest in setting the reality of lostness before us, and calling us to a renewed commitment to make disciples of all the nations. The report respects our Baptist polity and is based in gratitude for all that Southern Baptists have done in generations past. The recommendations are constructed with care to preserve the bonds that hold us together, and also to propel us into the future determined to do more, not less, in faithfulness to Christ.

Change is never easy, and change merely for the sake of change is a charade. Nevertheless, God's people are called to make whatever changes are necessary in order to obey the commands of Christ. Southern Baptists are a people committed to the Great Commission. That commitment will be shared by every messenger who arrives in Orlando ready to do the Convention's business. The future of the Southern Baptist Convention will not rest on this vote alone, but who can calculate what it will mean as a watching world and a rising generation watch to see if we are serious about emboldened Great Commission faithfulness in the future?

The looming question in Orlando is this - will Southern Baptists face the future with boldness, eagerness, and faithfulness, or will we choose business as usual? In other words, the real question is whether Southern Baptists will face the future, or flinch. So much rests on the answer to that question.

This article originally appeared at www.pray4gcr.com.

More

Mohler: Pray for GCR Task Force Meeting in Dallas/Ft. Worth October 26, 2009

This article first appeared at www.conventionalthinking.org, which is the location for R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s articles on the Southern Baptist Convention.

---------------------------------------------------

The Great Commission Task Force is gathering in Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex for important meetings as we continue the work assigned to us by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Please pray for the Task Force to be granted wisdom as we seek to discern what will help Southern Baptists to be more faithful in obeying the Great Commission.

On Tuesday we will be meeting with the majority of the Executive Directors of the state conventions for a very important session. Please pray that we will all hear each other, speak honestly to each other, and hold each other accountable to a Great Commission vision that will require the very best and the very most from all of us.

We face hard questions. Questions of finance and structure are secondary to the missional questions of reaching North America and the world beyond. We are living in a denominational house built long before the revolutions in transportation, communications, and geopolitics that have simultaneously made the world smaller and larger than ever before.

We are privileged to be able to ask these questions — and even to ask what questions we must ask. We are drowning in data.  Please pray that we will be led to the insights, judgments, and proposals that will best serve Southern Baptists as we face the future together.

I’ll report back as we make progress.

More

Welcome Address to the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention June 26, 2009

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

[This week the Southern Baptist Convention met in Louisville for its annual meeting. This is the welcome address I was privileged to deliver on June 23, 2009. Responsibilities with the SBC this week precluded regular commentary writing. I will return to regular commentary next week.]

[Update: The text of this address has been updated. The initial post contained several deviations from Mohler's address.]

It is my high honor to welcome messengers of the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention to the city of Louisville, Kentucky. The city, strategically located within the heart of the nation and historically situated where America’s westward expansion began, is now one of America’s major cities and metropolitan areas. This city welcomes the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention.

Baptists have been active in Louisville and its surrounding area ever since settlers crossed over the Alleghenies in the Revolutionary era. Baptist pioneers helped to establish the communities of Kentucky even as they planted churches, supported missionaries, and sought to win their neighbors to Christ.

Now, the Long Run Baptist Association and the Kentucky Baptist Convention number hundreds of Baptist churches. The roots of the Southern Baptist Convention reach deep within the churches of Kentucky and Louisville and Baptists from this area played leading roles in the shaping of Baptist identity and the Southern Baptist Convention.

Here, at the Falls of the Ohio, Baptists learned to defend their faith and theology over against the rise of rival denominations with different conceptions of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Here, Baptists developed historic patterns of cooperation and cooperative giving to missions.

This is the eighth occasion on which the city of Louisville has welcomed the Southern Baptist Convention for its annual meeting. In 1857, the seventh session of the Southern Baptist Convention was held in Louisville with 184 registered messengers and R.B.C. Howell of Virginia serving as president. In 1870, the Convention returned to Louisville with 399 registered messengers and P.H. Mell of Georgia presiding. The Convention returned in 1887, when P.H. Mell again presided, this time with 689 registered messengers. In 1899 the Convention was once again in Louisville with 869 registered messengers and W.J. Northen of Georgia serving as president. In 1909, just ten years later, the number of registered messengers was 1,547, almost double the registered attendance just a decade before. Joshua Levering of Maryland served as president. The convention was once again in Louisville in 1927 when President George W. Truett presided over 4,424 messengers. Finally, the Southern Baptist Convention came to Louisville in 1959 – exactly a half-century ago - when 12,326 messengers were registered and Brooks Hays of Arkansas served as president. Now, the Southern Baptist Convention makes history by returning to Louisville 50 years after the last Louisville convention.

This historical survey points to the growth and development of the Southern Baptist Convention, its churches, and its reach around the world. This year, the Southern Baptist Convention meets in Louisville not only to mark history but to make history.

In 1959, the Southern Baptist Convention came to Louisville in order to celebrate the centennial of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Now the Southern Baptist Convention returns to Louisville in order to mark the sesquicentennial celebration of Southern Baptist’s mother seminary.

Southern Seminary was born within the bosom of the Southern Baptist Convention and it began its history as classes first opened in Greenville South Carolina in 1859. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the Seminary moved to Louisville in 1877, finding here a city and a community of Baptists that would provide vital support and sustenance for the Seminary and keep it alive.

Now, as The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary celebrates its 150th anniversary, it does so by making clear its commitment to the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, to the faith once for all delivered to the saints, to the convictions that frame our identity as Baptists, to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the great task of sending ministers and missionaries into our churches and to the outermost parts of the earth in order to see the name of Jesus Christ exalted among the nations.

By God’s grace, Southern Seminary today is one of the largest theological institutions ever to serve the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. More importantly it is an institution that has been brought home to Biblical inerrancy, theological fidelity, and missionary urgency.

Southern Seminary welcomes the Southern Baptist convention to Louisville Kentucky and we welcome all Southern Baptists to celebrate the 150th birthday of Southern Baptist’s oldest institution and to visit your mother seminary as you visit Louisville.

Brothers and sisters, in these precious hours we spend together in this Convention may we not only mark history in Louisville — may we make history.

To God be the glory, Amen.

More

Mary Mohler’s Prayer for Wives of Pastors June 22, 2009

Mrs. Mary Mohler
Mrs. Mary Mohler

Mrs. Mary Mohler offered a prayer for the wives of pastors at the Sunday night session of the Southern Baptist Convention Pastor’s Conference. Here is her prayer:

Father, what an honor it is to lift up my sisters in Christ who serve as pastors’ wives.

Thank you for raising up these women to serve you in this unique and vital calling.

I pray your blessing upon each one—wherever she serves across our denomination.

May she be mindful of the role she alone fills in the church as the wife of the pastor.

May she take seriously the importance of respecting her husband, encouraging him, praying for him and loving him with all of her heart.

May she never underestimate the importance of watching well over the ways of her household as she seeks to provide a happy home environment that will be a welcome refuge for him from the pressures and perils of ministry.

If you bless her with the wonderful gift of motherhood, may she nurture her children in such a way that they not only love and follow you, Lord, but also that they come to love their life in a ministry family as she ensures they appreciate the privileges that are theirs in this special calling.

As she serves your church, may she enthusiastically develop and use the gifts and talents that you have already given her through the power of the Holy Spirit. May she foster a deep and abiding love for the people to whom you have called her to serve.

As the women of her church look to her as a mentor, and they will, may she seize that opportunity to reflect godliness, contentment, honesty, compassion and perseverance. In order to do so, may she embrace the daily discipline of being a serious student of your Word, committing it to memory and spending much time in prayer.

Guard her heart; guard her mind; guard her tongue; guard her feet as she seeks to not grow weary in well doing even as many of her completed tasks may seem to go unnoticed. May she truly do her husband good and not harm, all the days of her life.

Your word tells us that “the eyes of the LORD move to and fro throughout the entire earth that He may strongly support those whose heart is completely His.” I pray boldly that you will find us to be just that kind of people and that you will use us as ministry wives alongside our husbands to do great things for the kingdom for the sake of the Gospel and for your glory.

You also tell us that you are able to do “exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,” and with that in mind, I ask all of these things in the powerful and matchless name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Photo by John Gill.

More

Newsweek Takes on the New Testament February 10, 2004

Newsweek magazine has launched a frontal attack upon Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” but the real target of the magazine’s article is the truthfulness of the Bible itself. In “Who Really Killed Jesus?: What History Teaches Us,” Newsweek’s February 16 cover story, writer Jon Meacham labels Gibson’s movie “controversial,” “powerful,” and “troubling.” More seriously, he blasts the movie as anti-Semitic and potentially dangerous. Newsweek raises the specter of a new wave of anti-Semitism spreading across the world, directly due to the influence of “The Passion of the Christ.”

The movie is to be released February 25, Ash Wednesday. According to Meacham, the movie, “is already provoking a pitched battle between those who think the film unfairly blames the Jewish people for Jesus’ death and those who are instead focused on Gibson’s emotional depiction of Jesus’ torment.” Meacham conceives that Gibson “obviously reveres the Christ of faith” and then criticizes Gibson for “a literal-minded rendering of the most dramatic passages scattered throughout the four Gospels.”

Why would Meacham be surprised that Gibson turned to the Bible as the historical source for his movie? According to Newsweek, the Bible is simply not to be trusted. Mincing no words, Meacham describes the Bible as “a problematic source.” In his words: “Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing at particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance.”

Making this argument, Meacham reflects the trend of liberal biblical scholarship over the last half century. In the wake of the Holocaust and with the rise of modern sensitivities, liberal biblical critics have sought to distance themselves from the clear teachings of the Gospels. Furthermore, they have increasingly lambasted the Gospels as unreliable, anti-Semitic, and largely fictional accounts intended to justify the early church’s separation from Judaism.

Beyond this, such scholars argue that the Gospels have themselves fueled anti-Semitism throughout European history, and that a literal presentation of the biblical material is inherently dangerous.

In the magazine’s opening pages, editor Mark Whitaker justifies the cover story by claiming that “The Passion of the Christ” raises “disturbing questions” about who killed Christ. Pressing his point, Whitaker argues that Gibson blames the Jews of Jerusalem, rather than the Roman leadership, for the death of Christ. In Whitaker’s words, “we thought it was worth a clear-eyed review of the evidence.”

Unfortunately, Newsweek offered anything but a “clear-eyed review of the evidence.” Instead, the magazine took the opportunity to continue the slander of anti-Semitism against the Gospels and to fuel the very passions the magazine condemned.

Whitaker remarked that he had chosen managing editor Meacham to write this article because he is “an observant Episcopalian” who studied biblical history at the University of the South in Sewanee and “has remained a close follower of religious scholarship.”

Meacham may be a follower of religious scholarship, but his interest seems directed only at scholarship of a liberal bent. Whitaker stated that Meacham “dusted off his old textbooks and spoke to Christian and Jewish leaders and experts” in the development of his story. It is too bad he did not consult more conservative sources.

Leaving no room for doubt, Whitaker judges Gibson and the Gospels guilty of anti-Semitism. In his words, “Gibson based his highly emotional and violent account on literal readings of New Testament passages that have been most often used to imply Jewish culpability.”

In the actual cover story, Meacham blames the “errors” of Gibson’s movie on the filmmaker’s reliance on the Gospel materials. According to Meacham, “the roots of Christian anti-Semitism lie in overly literal readings--which are, in fact, misreadings--of many New Testament texts.”

Of course, Meacham presumes not only to judge the trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts, but also to be an expert in what would be a legitimate reading or misreading of the biblical text. In so doing, he advances the liberal argument that the only way to “read” the biblical text is to subvert its apparent meaning.

Without doubt, Gibson has based his movie on the New Testament accounts. He drew his narrative largely from the Gospels of John and Mark, though passages from Matthew and Luke also appear. The movie is a graphic account of the crucifixion and suffering of Christ, and the violence of the movie--true to the biblical accounts--has earned the film an R-rating. Nevertheless, Meacham judges that Gibson’s literal reading of the Gospel accounts will “give most audiences a misleading picture of what probably happened in those epochal hours so long ago.” Nevertheless, in order to make this judgment, Meacham must assume that historical sources apart from the Bible--sparse as they are--are more reliable than the Bible itself. Actually, Meacham bases most of his argument on speculative readings of the biblical texts and efforts by modern liberal historians to reconstruct the historical and religious context of first-century Judaism--not even on actual historical texts.

Just in case we might misunderstand his view of the Bible, Meacham offers an extended explanation of his view of biblical inspiration. According to Meacham, “The Bible did not descend from heaven fully formed and edged in gilt. The writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John shaped their narratives several decades after Jesus’ death to attract converts and make their young religion--understood by many Christians to be a faction of Judaism--attractive to as broad an audience as possible.” Of course, no one believes that the Bible descended from heaven complete with leather covers, but Christians have historically believed that the actual words of the Bible were directly inspired by God through the Holy Spirit. Meacham sees a political agenda behind the biblical text. Biblical Christians understand the Bible to be the very Word of God, and thus our responsibility in interpretation is to understand the text--not to correct it.

Given his view of the Bible, Meacham’s view of Gibson’s movie is quite understandable. He acknowledges the power of Gibson’s film, even as he condescendingly explains that “in the New Testament, the implication is that the world is in the grip of evil, and Jesus has come to deliver us from the powers of darkness through his death and resurrection--an upheaval of the very order of things.”

What about Christ? Meacham asserts that the titles “Son of God” and “Son of Man” were commonly used in the first century of religious leaders. This contentious point misses the larger truth that the New Testament Gospels reveal Jesus claiming these titles for Himself, combining in His life and ministry the messianic expectation of the Old Testament and His identity as the very Son of God in human flesh.

Meacham does make some important historical arguments, but he weaves back and forth between criticism of the biblical text and an unsubstantiated argument from secular historical sources.

One controversial scene in the movie, in which a Jewish mob cries out, “His blood be on us and on our children!,” ultimately cut from the film, prompted Meacham to allege that the source of the dialogue (the Gospel of Matthew) was “a partisan Gospel writer.”

As Meacham continued, “The Gospels were composed to present Jesus in the best possible light to potential converts in the Roman Empire--and to put the Temple leadership in the worst possible light.”

Further, Meacham claims that “many scholars believe that the author of Matthew, which is the only Gospel to include the ‘His blood be on us’ line, was writing after the destruction of the Temple in [AD] 70 and inserted the words to help explain why such misery had come upon the people of Jerusalem. According to this argument, blood had already fallen on them and on their children.”

Here Meacham’s subversion of the biblical text is most apparent. He projects the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew at least a generation after the crucifixion itself and attributes the shape and substance of the Gospel to an anonymous author’s intention to push a political agenda and to explain the destruction of the Temple.

Gibson is a traditionalist Roman Catholic, and Meacham chides him for failing to take his filmmaking instructions from the Vatican. In the aftermath of Vatican II, the Catholic Church adopted guidelines that suggest how the passion narrative should be presented in any dramatic format. According to the Vatican’s guidelines, “to attempt to utilize the four passion narratives literally by picking one passage from one Gospel and the next from another Gospel, and so forth, is to risk violating the integrity of the text themselves.” The guidelines also suggest avoiding the use of large Jewish crowds and any depiction of a Sanhedrin trial.

This is an example of political correctness infecting the Roman curia. As represented by these guidelines, the Gospels must be sanitized in order to be presented safely. The Sanhedrin trial, for example, is crucial to the passion narrative.

At the bottom of all of this lies antipathy towards the Christian gospel, the four New Testament Gospels, and the “scandal of particularity” that lies at the core of the Christian faith. The New Testament is very clear in presenting the death of Christ, not as a tragedy of world history, but rather as the accomplishment of God’s saving purpose.

The question, “who killed Jesus?,” should direct us to the historical reality, clearly presented in the Gospels, that complicity between the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities led to Christ’s crucifixion. But the larger point--and the essential theological point--is that Christ died for our sins. Thus, the correct answer to the question, “Who killed Jesus?,” is--we did. Christ died for sinners. That is the central theme of the New Testament gospel and it is the essential answer Christians must give, not only in the face of this controversy, but as the essence of our Christian witness.

The death of Christ was not a tragedy that befell Him. As Christ declared, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” [John 10:11]. Further, “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down at my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father” [John 10:18].

The cross does not represent defeat, but victory. Jesus Christ did not have his life taken from Him--He gave it willingly for sinners. His death was not the end of his ministry, but its fulfillment. Christ willingly suffered and died in the place of sinners--and God raised him from the dead as the vindication of his earthly ministry.

Regrettably, Newsweek decided to use this release of “The Passion of the Christ” to level its attack upon the New Testament. The controversy over the movie will produce many opportunities for truth-telling in the midst of the confusion. It’s up to us to tell the rest of the story.

This article was taken from Dr. Mohler’s daily weblog. To read more, please go to: http://mohler.crosswalk.com.

More

The Battle of Montgomery: Where Should Christians Stand? August 27, 2003

Judge Roy Moore, Alabama’s now-suspended Chief Justice, has at least two major weapons in his arsenal as he fights the Battle of Montgomery--a set of powerful arguments and all the right enemies. What began as a skirmish in the nation’s culture war has now expanded into a full-blown battle, with both sides seemingly prepared to dig trenches and fight to the finish.

The controversy began long before Moore was elected the state’s chief jurist in 2000. During his days as a circuit court judge in Gadsden, Moore had placed a plaque listing the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. A legal challenge led to a court order requiring Judge Moore to remove the Ten Commandments. The judge refused and only the intervention of the governor prevented further action.

Alabamians knew Judge Moore and his intentions when they elected him to the state’s highest judicial office three years ago. As the judge told Fox News’ Sean Hannity, “They knew what they were electing.” Two years ago, Chief Justice Moore had a 5,300-pound monument featuring the Ten Commandments placed in the rotunda of the state’s Judicial Building. Predictably, groups promoting the secular agenda sued to have the monument removed.

Nine months ago, the Federal District Court ordered the removal of the monument. Judge Myron Thompson ruled that the monument is “nothing more than an obtrusive year-round religious display.” After months of legal maneuvering and appeals, the order is apparently soon to be enforced.

Anticipating this showdown, Chief Justice Moore declared that he would not--indeed could not--remove the monument or comply with the judge’s order, because to do so would be to violate Alabama’s state constitution, which acknowledges “Almighty God.” Last Friday, the state’s Judicial Inquiry Commission suspended the Chief Justice from his duties, finding him guilty of disobeying a lawful order from the federal court. Unless the state’s Court of the Judiciary finds otherwise, Chief Justice Moore is almost certain to be removed from office.

The state--with the whole nation watching--now faces the prospect of a showdown between the judge’s supporters and whatever authority is called upon to remove the monument. The chief’s fellow justices and the state’s Attorney General will not defy the order. Several prominent Christian leaders have jumped to Judge Moore’s defense. Some, like Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson, warn that the nation stands at “a turning point, a pivotal point in the history of this country.” Furthermore, he said, “There are times when you have to respond to a higher law.”

Others, including Dr. Richard D. Land of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, argue that Chief Justice Moore is harming the cause of religious liberty and the rule of law by defying a lawful court order. As Land explains, “If we disagree with a judicial interpretation of the law (which makes it the law until it is changed) ... then we must change the judges and, if necessary, change the laws.”

With hundreds--and potentially thousands--of Christian citizens being urged to go to Montgomery to defend the monument and the Chief Justice, we face the very real possibility of an ugly confrontation. Serious Christians had better think hard and think fast before we find ourselves in a very public debacle. We had also better pay close attention to our arguments, for they are sure to be turned against us if we are careless.

With so much at stake, let’s try to think carefully as we review the critical issues.

First, Chief Justice Moore is certainly correct in his insistence that the Ten Commandments monument is fully constitutional. Nothing in the First Amendment touches even remotely on this issue, and the founders would certainly be flabbergasted to think that a federal judge would find such a display unconstitutional. Judge Moore is absolutely right in asserting that the Ten Commandments have long been acknowledged--even by the courts--as the foundation of our legal system and its moral precepts. After all, the Ten Commandments are inscribed on the wall of the U. S. Supreme Court--at least for now.

Second, the groups behind the federal lawsuit are a rogue’s gallery of secularists, including the American Civil Liberties Union (Alabama chapter) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The ACLU is notorious for its determination to purge the public square of any Christian reference. The Americans United organization is, if anything, perhaps more extreme in its secularist agenda. Both groups are zealously committed to a secular vision for America and oppose everything from voluntary student-led prayer at school sporting events to the presence of any religious symbol on public property. A quick look at these opponents tilts the argument significantly in Judge Moore’s favor.

Third, James Dobson’s warning that we stand at a crucially important moment is well taken. The secular tide threatens to deny history, distort the laws, rob believers of their freedoms, and push the nation into a brave new world of secularism--with all vestiges of authentic Christianity removed from public view and safely restricted to private settings. Let’s call this what it is. The secularists hate the Ten Commandments because the authority of the law eventually depends upon a divine authority, or all morality is absolutely relative and endlessly negotiable. The Ten Commandments remind us that morality is not relative. This explains the secularists’ hatred of the monument.

Fourth, Richard Land and Jay Sekulow have the rule of law on their side, and years of experience defending Christian liberty under their belts. Christians cannot turn to the courts when we want rescue and then disobey the same courts when we lose. Chief Justice Moore is not helping his case--or the cause of religious liberty--by refusing to obey a lawful order of the court. His arguments fail to sustain his refusal to obey the order. It is by no means clear that his obedience of this order would in any way imply that he, or the state of Alabama, is failing to recognize the authority of Almighty God. Did the state fail in this acknowledgment for all those years before Judge Moore established his monument? Land and Sekulow have put themselves in the line of fire in this controversy--and they are right.

Fifth, Judge Moore has not yet exhausted all the legal avenues of appeal open to him. He would be in a much stronger legal and moral position if he had obeyed the order of the federal court and then appealed by every means available. Then--and only then--would Christian civil disobedience be justified. Even then, civil disobedience would not be automatic.

Sixth, Chief Justice Moore and his stalwart defenders had better think long and hard about the justification for Christian civil disobedience. The Apostle Paul points to the Christian’s responsibility to obey the magistrate as a critical function of Christian witness [see Romans 13] . Similarly, Peter called for Christians to “Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.” [1 Peter 2:12] Let’s remember that Peter and Paul addressed their admonitions to Christians living under the pagan rule of Rome. We cannot possibly wiggle out of these words in the context of contemporary America. Or can we?

For centuries, Christians have argued that civil disobedience is lawful only in defense of human life, Christian witness, and Christian ministry. Christians were willing to die--and countless Christians have been martyred--because they would not bend the knee to Caesar [or Stalin, or Mao, or Castro, or the Taliban] and deny Christ. Christians in Nazi Germany risked their lives to save Jews. Christian pastors languish in jails around the world even today because they will not cease preaching the Gospel. No serious Christian would doubt their justification to resist the regime and disobey its laws. We do follow a higher law than the laws of men--but only when to do otherwise is to deny the faith or allow the innocent to die.

We must support and defend the right of the State of Alabama--or any other state--to erect a monument featuring the Ten Commandments. Judge Moore is right in his insistence that his monument is lawful. He should press that case in every court until all appeals have been exhausted. But he should also obey lawful orders of the federal courts until that point is reached. Even if he ultimately loses at the U. S. Supreme Court, we should work through the democratic process to remove the judges and reassert legal sanity.

Otherwise, we are effectively arguing that the American system of government is completely corrupted, and that no remedy can be found through the legitimate political process. Those who are ready to make that case should take full measure of what they are proposing. I know of no responsible Christian leader who is even close to making that argument. We are indeed living in a season of peril for our nation. The federal courts have twisted the Constitution to push a radical social and moral revolution. This is why concerned Christians should push for the confirmation of federal judges who will uphold the rule of law--and the original meaning of the Constitution. But we cannot simultaneously deny the courts’ authority and seek to correct their direction.

Seventh, we must learn to choose our battles wisely. The court-ordered removal of Alabama’s Ten Commandments monument would be a national tragedy and a travesty of law. But thoughtful and responsible Christian leaders must ponder whether this is the place to take our stand in a court-defying, go-for-broke effort. The recovery of a culture requires the stewardship of strategy as well as firmness of conviction.

Eighth, we should seize this moment as an opportunity to awaken the conscience of the American people to the peril we face. Unless the direction of the federal courts is corrected, religious liberty will be negotiated into nothingness. Courts and legislative bodies at every level threaten basic religious liberties and precious freedoms. The secularists really do want to expunge Christianity from the public square. We must educate Christians to engage the culture and the political system, or it will one day be too late.

Ninth, Christians of deep conviction must learn that we will at times disagree over tactics while standing united in a strategy to defend religious liberty and Christian witness. No one has motivated more Christians to engage these issues than has James Dobson. We all stand in his debt. Richard Land has transformed the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC into a trusted and powerful voice for righteousness. Jay Sekulow has represented us all before the highest courts of the land as he has won many of the most important victories for religious liberty and the sanctity of human life in our times. This is not a time for division, but for unity.

Last, we must pray for Chief Justice Roy Moore as he sets the course for how he will deal with this crisis in the future. He brought this case to national prominence because he is a man of deep Christian character, conviction, and principles. May God grant him wisdom to lead us out of this crisis in keeping with those same principles.

Taken from Dr. Mohler’s weblog at: http://mohler.crosswalk.com.

More