Mohler's Rationale for Male Supremecism

Al Mohler stepped forward to defend Frank Page's flip-flop regarding women in ministry last week. In doing so, he defended his own flip-flop on the same issue. Flip-flops that result in a benefit to the flopper are characteristic of those who put politics above principle. Changes of mind that prove costly are characteristic of those who put principle above politics. Mainstream readers can determine the difference for themselves.

Mohler suggests his original position was due to his seminary's failure to offer conservative perspective when it was controlled by moderates. A similar allegation was clearly refuted by Paul Debusman, the seminary's librarian who was terminated ten months prior to his retirement for correcting statements along that same line by Tom Elliff while he was President of the SBC.

Al says his change of heart on women's ordination and service resulted not from the changed political climate within the convention but from a study that was prompted by a conversation with Carl Henry. He dresses up his male supremecist position under the circumlocution of "complementarianism" and concludes:

Nevertheless, my study of the question led me to a very uncomfortable conclusion -- my advocacy of women in the teaching office was wrong, violative of Scripture, inconsisent with my theological commitments, injurious to the church, unsubstantiated, and just intellectually embarrassing.

Mohler certainly has the weight of Southern Baptist hermeneutics on his side. It is the same hermeneutical method that in 1845 believed it was "wrong, violative of Scripture, inconsisent with . . . theological commitments, injurious to the church, unsubstantiated, and just intellectually embarrassing" for Baptists in the North to refuse support for a missionary who owned slaves.