So the lesson is that there are two different perspectives and approaches to fellowship. Conservative evangelicals will be friendly to the false teachers in their tribe and pretend fundamentalists don't exist. Fundamentalists will be friendly to the false teachers in their tribe and complain about the orthodox within conservative evangelicalism being friendly to the false teachers in their tribe.

Got it!

Something like that.

I sorted it all out one time and wrote down an easy-to-remember guide to keep in my wallet. You might find it helpful.

Fellowship with brethren in the faith is so important that we must limit the number and kind of people enjoying it. To do this we redefine “brethren” to include only those who naturally love what we love and hate what we hate, or those who can be constrained to love what we love and hate what we hate. As the distinctions, permutations, nuances and exceptions of mortal existence arise, that faith must be perpetually recalculated, like a fibonacci lattice, into infinity, and this great work is generally entrusted to the care of college and seminary presidents because of their special giftedness with ideas. Whatever issues might initially strike us as matters of conscience can thus become matters of policy which are much more easily imposed on others and much more readily policed.

I think we need a list of degrees of approval that naming any given object entails just for the sake of clarity. Maybe a pavilion is a little bit too much and it should have been the restrooms instead. Perhaps it is time for the FBF to produce a manual for confused evangelicals on the levels of fellowship implied in various architectural locations.

Any chance the SBC will be opening and operating a morgue in the near future?

And not only location!

Clearly its location on campus would indicate a certain level of esteem. Clearly the square footage of the structure would be indicative of admiration. It seems that the number of stories, the width of the stairs, the architectural style, the presence of a steeple or cupola, the amount of architectural detail, construction materials involved, the number of parking spaces, the necessity of a shuttle bus or access to public transportation, the presence or absence of landscaping, whether or not the building warrants its own maintenance crew…all these things should be delicately calibrated so as not to offend the good people in Allen Park, MI.

The argument about "scriptural basis" was devastating, you must admit. We are asked whether Paul would have erected a monument in Ephesus honoring a false teacher? Paul would have been much more discerning in naming pavilions.

The lack of discernment here points to a burning need for some bright seminary president to publish a new book: "On the Scriptural Guidelines for Erecting and Naming Monuments to Great Men". We can learn what the Bible says about making gilt statues of pastors, mighty golden fists to commemorate "militant" brothers, or perhaps asherah poles to praise God for granting fertility to the more "fruitful" of our leaders. After all, we are commanded to respect our elders, and no sign of respect is too lavish.

Well, I hate to disappoint you, but I admit nothing of the sort.

Doran seems to suppose Scripture addresses this issue, but I notice he provides no handy references. No doubt he doesn’t have an actual text in mind, he is just thinking of those infamous “biblical principles” fundamentalisticists speak of incessantly.

There are two issues here. First, I seriously doubt St. Paul would have named pavilions after anyone. Who is great or who is not great is not the sort of question Christians are encouraged to try to answer. We don’t know who deserves a construction site porta-potty, who deserves a gazebo, who deserves something with a split foyer or who deserves something with a rotunda.

The whole sport of men honoring men is embarrassing.

But what Doran does is different. Assuming there were a biblical and an unbiblical way to name monuments, we can be pretty certain that Doran should not be telling Mohler who to memorialize. Mohler was the real separatist here. He actually fought the battles and won some; he took the blows and suffered very real reproaches for it.

Now enter Dave Doran, who to my knowledge has done nothing remotely like this and has suffered no commensurate hardship at all. If Doran takes his suit to the cleaners, I doubt it was because any liberals spit on him. And for him to chide Dr. Mohler for not internalizing his (Doran’s) resentments toward McCall is just the perfect caricature of fundamentalist separatism.

I’m guessing this could be why fundamentalist schools are losing students to evangelical schools.

Yeah, hopefully the reference to "asherah poles" was a clear enough indication of sarcasm. Might as well just get it over with, and monumentalize whose is bigger, since that's pretty much what drives these chest-thumping exercises.

As you've repeatedly observed on this blog, there seems to be a real cultural orientation around authority figures and authority within fundamentalism. Paternalism and paternalistic authority were important to the early church, but paternalism is best understood as shepherding. The culture on display in this incident (and the Sweatt bombast, and etc.) is much different. It's more like the "paternalism" of a jealous Gorilla male exerting his dominance to keep the group together. Lots of grunting, chest thumping, and threatening snarls.

What's the scriptural basis for naming a dorm after a KKK Grand Cyclops?

I love irony.

Isn't going after Doran for not suffering a bit misguided in that Doran has never had the occasion to do that? I am not a historian of DBTS, but I don't recall there being a lot of "moderates" there over the years. Rice and McCune didn't exactly leave a mess for him.

Mohler did a good job and should be commended, but it was necessitated by bad decisions earlier on.

It sounds a little like calling out a teenage girl who stayed pure and tells others they should as well while praising a teen who got pregnant and then carried the baby to term rather than abort it. (Yes, I know no analogy is perfect.)

It reminds me that someone once commented to me that fundamentalists were not taking stands by preaching about things like women preachers. I pointed out it's because it's not an issue among fundamentalists. All of all our problems, we don't have that problem because we never left the Scripture on it (whatever fundamentalists might have done wrong).

It seems to me that Doran can hardly be blamed for not driving people that were never let in to begin with.

All of that simply to say that we should make good arguments. We should not expect someone to fight a battle they, by God's providence, were never a part of to begin with.

(And I don't keep track of everything Doran has ever said, but I don't recall him ever defending naming anything after anyone, much less someone from the KKK. Do you?)

Oh, there’s nothing at all wrong for not having suffered, but that’s not the point. Note the historical perspective: fundies have been ragging on the SBC for decades. They made a career out of it. Many in the SBC worked hard to do what they were told was impossible. Then after enjoying a measure of success and after Al Mohler earns a measure of respect, some fundie pops his head through the door and demands that dishonor be shown a moderate?

That’s cold, man!

And at a time when fundies are publicly bemoaning the loss of their own offspring and the attraction of conservative evangelicalism, to complain about naming a building?

“Honor to whom dishonor is due” seems a bit rich.

With this public image--of a seminary president, no less--do fundamentalists honestly expect to be around in ten years?

Thanks for your response.

Do you think Doran's point was to complain about naming a building? Or to point out a fundamental difference (no pun intended) in approach to matters of orthodoxy and honor?

I don't think Doran demanded dishonor be shown. He said, "Recognizing him at the event is one thing, but naming a pavilion after him?" I read that as saying the level of honor is what the issue was. A mention in a speech is one thing; a building is an ongoing honor that will be a constant reminder of the man. Is that the kind of man we want people to be constantly reminded of?

From what I understand of what Duke McCall led/allowed at SBTS, he should be dishonored, should he not? It's not like he allowed cracks in the armor of dispensationalism. He allowed some of the fundamental doctrines of the faith to be undermined. He created the problem that Mohler had to fix.

I don't think graduation at SBTS was the place to dishonor him. I think it probably shouldn't have even been brought up.

But in the end, I am unconvinced that your complaint about Doran's response is a legitimate complaint, particularly since his point seems to have been to underline the difference in how various groups respond to unbelief.

BTW, "will fundamentalism be around in ten years?"

Only if fundamentalists make a case for why they are different than others.

I hope most of fundamentalism disappears. Tomorrow would not be soon enough for some of it.

I don’t question for a second that McCall did the dead wrong thing. I don’t even believe there is a non-political defense for what he did. That is to say, it might be possible for one to assert something along the lines of he did what he had to do in order to accomplish __________. That’s not an argument I’m willing to make, and it’s an argument I’d find nearly impossible to accept.

I’m certainly not defending the school or the movement. I myself could not find a home there.

But having said that, I’m at a loss to understand why anyone, especially one who is making a public call for biblical justification for what one does, a) to suggest dishonor, and b) to make this call as an outsider, and c) to make it of Mohler.

Doran titled his piece “Honor to whom dishonor is due”. I'm trying to think of a verse.

If I were a young Southern Baptist, I know I wouldn’t want to go into battle with a fundamentalist behind me!

As for fundamentalism itself, it seems to want to die. But for good or ill, I think something important will be lost forever. Oddly, some want to distinguish the idea from the movement. Recent behavior makes me wonder if they don’t really want the idea to go down with the movement.

Doran seems to suppose Scripture addresses this issue, but I notice he provides no handy references. No doubt he doesn’t have an actual text in mind, he is just thinking of those infamous “biblical principles” fundamentalisticists speak of incessantly.

You asked. . . I will attempt an answer, but I am sure Brother Doran could answer better.

What verse indicates the error of this kind of honor? While I am new to the name Duke McCall (due to growing up in what some would call "the village" of Fundamentalism), it appears he allowed wolves to remain (or enter) a Christian training institution under his care and authority. If I have discerned this correctly, then Acts 20:28-31 seems applicable. The use of the word "wolves" falls short of the meaning of honor. Actually, my admittedly uncultured sensibilities (call them Philistine if you like) sense dishonor in Paul's word choice. The phrase "take heed" does not seem to lead my limited imagination to visions of memorializing the wolves. The only rebuttals that I can see for this passage would be to argue that either a seminary is not a church or McCall does not fit the bill of a wolf (e.g.he only allowed them to be there). The first I will beg some latitude for application purposes. The second I might grant due to my limited knowledge of the man, but can one really make the argument that he took heed to himself and the "flock" that he was responsible for. Should we honor (demonstrate value for) such inability to discern holy from unholy? Should we honor calling evil good and good evil? (Isaiah 5:20)

Another passage that one might apply would be Romans 16:17. Somehow the phrase "avoid them" leaves me searching for how to justify obedience to Holy Spirit inspired command and naming a building after the man. Again one might argue that he did not cause division contrary to the doctrine, but the little that I have learned about the situation makes this a thin argument. However, to my shame I have violated Proverbs 18:13 before in these types of discussions, so I will refrain from final judgment (or concrete answering) due to my limited knowledge of the situation.

Quite frankly, by dear brother Dissedens, I am at a loss to understand why you of all people cannot see the problems here. Are your sensibilities so unholy as to not see that honoring the enemy of the Gospel contributes to the damaging of the Gospel? Quite possibly Dr. McCall was not really this bad, but that does not seem to be the argument at this point. Instead it seems to be yes, he was bad, but he still deserves honor. Is there not an obvious incongruity at the highest order to be willing to endure spittle, ridicule, and even death threats only to later offer honor to one the men who created such turmoil (without repentance). {For those with visions of Calvary, remember that we are not universalists}. Would Jesus have honored Judas? In what way did Paul honor Demas? Will we find monuments(crowns)in heaven for all who lead "Christian" institutions for 30 years, simply due to their tenure--even if they lead badly? Come now, this really surprises me coming from this site. I thought we were done with the spirit of the age--goblins and philistines and such.

For His glory,
Christian Markle

Christian:

You need be baffled no longer. Most of what motivates your comment can be answered with a few words. I do not honor McCall in the least. I don’t believe I ever said that, and if I ever published anything resembling it, I’d assume my enemies inserted it when my back was turned.

As a matter of fact, as I suggested already, this sort of honoring of any man embarrasses me. I am not at all comfortable with this sort of behavior even if it were done for men I profoundly admire such as Spurgeon or Clowney or Tozer. I think it is unseemly; I think it is common. I even think it is worldly.

The scripture I do not find is the one that instructs me to dishonor anyone. Even if I were to overwork the metaphor you’ve chosen, I would not dishonor wolves, I would kill them. I just don’t see this sentiment encouraged anywhere.

One can “avoid” without “dishonoring”.

It’s this expectation that others internalize my resentments that is just obnoxious. We did not learn this from Christ.

And for the record, I don’t believe we are done with the spirit of the age or the goblins of the day. The banner merely states that I reject them.

It seems to me like you are getting hung up on the title of Doran’s post – “
Honor to Whom Dishonor is Due.” If you read all of his posts on this little situation, you will find that no where does he call for actual dishonor to be heaped upon McCall. He doesn’t claim that Mohler should have publicly rebuked him for his service at SBTS. I think his title was intended more as a pun; at least that’s how I took it. We all know the adage “honor to whom honor is due,” right? Well in this case, Doran feels like Mohler and SBTS are giving honor to a man to whom – if anything – dishonor is due. Maybe that’s too charitable an interpretation for this site.

You quoted Doran here: “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?”

How can you not see the irony in that, Dissidens? Of course it seems bizarre that Mohler and the rest would go out of the way to honor (indeed, memorialize) a man that Mohler stood staunchly against! In essence they are saying, “Thank you for your 30 years of service. I know that your tenure brought much theological liberalism and departure from the faith, but thanks anyway. Here’s something we and the rest of our campus can remember you by.” Why honor a man that stood so strongly against what the SBTS is today?

I know you are now saying that you are uncomfortable with any type of honor like that being given. Fine. It feels like you are really searching for a controversy here. Doran is simply saying, “Why? Why honor a man that was such a detriment to the gospel and that stood directly against the Conservative Resurgence that Mohler was credited for leading? On what biblical grounds can you justify honoring a man that held such views?”

I agree with glr here – I don’t think your complaint is legitimate. A simple reading of Doran’s posts show that he is not calling for mud to be slung at McCall. He is questioning why Mohler and SBTS would do this – what biblical reasoning they could give for honoring a man like that. That’s all.

Brother Dissidens,

I will give you your concern about honoring anyone through memorialization. I think a re-think of this sort of behavior is in order -- especially when we feel compelled to honor (in this way) the dishonorable. In an attempt attempt to spin this in a nice way I ask, "Is this not tradition gone mad?"

I would suggest however that one might need to determine what one (and others) means by "honor" and "dishonor". I think "value" is the core idea in the word. The Biblical text clearly says that we are to "honor all" (1 Peter 2:17). We ought to value all mankind. In a quick review of the Greek word family (time/atimos). I can find no direct command to dishonour; although we have clear statements about behaviors being dishonourable (Romans 1:24). However, I find it very interesting that one of the Greek words for "rebuke" (epitimao) uses honor as its base. This was only cursory and is worthy of more examination and thought.

BTW Romans 13:7 is the verse that tells us give "honor to whom honor" [is due]. This however is in context with governmental authority. We find honor also being due (without respect to character) masters from their slaves (1 Timothy 6:1) for the sake of the name of God. However, in other places we find the argument that one (Christ) is worthy of honor (Revelation 4:11,5:12).

My conclusion at this point is:
1) We are commanded to honor all (men). I suggest this flows from the image of God that although marred by sin still resides in each one us.
2) We need to think seriously about how we honor men.
3) We must be careful not to honor men in such a way to be complicit in their sin. (1 Timothy 5:22)
4) I believe the form of honor given to Dr McCall may have been an attempt to fulfill #1, but failed in both #2 and #3.
5) The tendency of all depravity is to honor the wrong things and despise the right things. It is incumbent on us all to recognize, guard against, and confess this in our own attitudes and activities as well as in love exhort against it in our fellow believers.
6) Finally and most importantly, love for God should drive this whole process--Seeking to love what God loves and hate what God hates.

For His Glory,
Christian Markle

I think there are two issues at stake.

1) What honor is due McCall?

2) What right does Doran have to criticize the leadership of the SBC?

There is not a whole lot of disagreement on the first item. No one here has advocated on behalf of McCall. However, there is disagreement on the second. It is important to remember that the two are not necessarily related. Just because one thinks that Doran is out of line does not mean he is in favor of McCall.

And not only that, it was Doran who asked the question, “What biblical justification can there be for something like this?”

Now we see some fancydancing with the English language and some whimsical work with the Greek, but curiously very little hard-nosed “biblical justification”.

Strikes me as odd.

Brother Dissidens,

Am I to read your last statement as referring to my posts?

I suppose my English has not been clear (I know my Greek has much to be desired. I apparently have been misunderstanding you from the beginning. I should probably try to work out where I have missed your point with a few questions.

You have said, "I do not honor McCall in the least. I don’t believe I ever said that, and if I ever published anything resembling it, I’d assume my enemies inserted it when my back was turned."

My questions:
What would your definition of "honor" be?

For what reasons would you not honor McCall?

Would you honor any man according to you definition?

For His glory,
Christian Markle

@Baffled -- Yeah, the whole thing was very strange for me. It was like a caricature of fruitless fractiousness. Take what I say with a grain of salt, since I'm hopelessly uneducated and ignorant about much of the situation (apart for having lived in Allen Park for a couple of years without knowing there was a seminary there, and having been stabbed in the arm with a pencil by a guy named David Doran once, nearly 40 years ago, and still carrying the pencil lead in my body to prove it). But from my outsider's perspective, it seemed really surreal:

First, Mohler is simultaneously praised for his good judgment in standing up to McCall, and then rebuked for poor judgment in not standing up to McCall. It's like a paradox. Does Doran's complaint prove that Doran has good judgment for being smarter than Mohler, or perhaps bad judgment for ever thinking Mohler had good judgment in the first place?

Likewise, one wonders what is the process by which the power to name pavilions is delegated within the organization? Is there a paternal leader who is selected based on years of wisdom, who can make such decisions unchallenged by random peanut gallery observers? Or is it a fight to the death amongst any militant "Christian soldier" willing to take up arms? If pavilion-naming can carry such risks of Biblical perversion, why is such a noble task entrusted to a man such as Mohler in the first place? Should the bylaws be changed to avert this threat in the future?

Next, one wonders about the calling out of Mohler on a very public forum. Was Mohler refusing to answer his phone or e-mail, such that a public rebuke was necessary? From the looks of it, Doran doesn't consider Mohler to be apostate, so one wonders what, besides ego, drove

Finally, the dissonance caused by the call for "biblical justification" and "what would Paul have done?" was just downright jarring. I was literally startled out of my seat. For some reason, I had mistakenly considered the naming of a pavilion to be, at best, a matter of no consequence. Perhaps a bit idolatrous and egoistical, but a forgivable offense. Certainly never in a million years would I see such chest-thumping ego-stroking as being *biblical*, let alone something about which the bible would have clear guidelines. I mean, if someone can ambush you with a demand for biblical justification for naming pavilions, what's next?!? Biblical justification for sending your kids to a private school? Biblical justification for using a tooth-whitening toothpaste?

This isn't to knock Dave Doran, since I really liked the Dave Doran who stabbed my arm with a pencil. But I do feel the whole situation was slightly absurd.

I have to wonder whether or not the point is being missed. I don't sense that this was about Mohler, Doran, or McCall. I think (without confirmation from Doran) that Doran was trying to point out a key difference in the way that fundamentalists approach apostasy vs the way that evangelicals do.

"And not only that, it was Doran who asked the question, 'What biblical justification can there be for something like this?'

Now we see some fancydancing with the English language and some whimsical work with the Greek, but curiously very little hard-nosed 'biblical justification'.

Strikes me as odd."

So, Dissidens, let me pose to you the same question Doran rhetorically posed on his blog: What biblical justification is there for giving such public honor to a man that was a clear detriment to the gospel? Please answer that.

I do not see why people are getting so hung up on why Doran would bring this into question. It is obvious from his posts that he has a great amount of respect for Mohler, Dever, and the like. Because of the respect he has for them, he is questioning why they would memorialize a man that was diametrically opposed to Mohler and the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC. As Doran questioned: why would they name a pavillion in "honor of a man whose service at SBTS produced the mess which Mohler is credited for reversing"? Doesn't that seem even the slightest bit ironic?

And Joshua Allen, read Doran's last two posts on the matter. Maybe I'm too simple, but he gives pretty clear reasons as to why he brought it up. First:

"Al Mohler deserves, and has, my genuine respect for what God has used him to do in bringing SBTS back from its apostasy-riddled condition. My post wasn’t about Al Mohler; it was about two different approaches to the matter of response to apostasy and compromise with it. This isn’t about who wears what label. I disagree with the decision that was made, and I wonder if this kind of decision is simply an anomaly or truly representative of a very different approach. I hope it is the former, but I am concerned that it may be the latter."

Second:

"Why make this about Al Mohler? Why not leave it where I put it — what biblical rationale can be offered by a staunch conservative for honoring a man who presided over the liberalization of SBTS? It’s not really about individuals; it’s about ideas and their consequences."

This wasn't about Mohler. This wasn't about Doran's ego, as you suggested. Doran isn't calling for Mohler's resignation or saying that Mohler should have publicly rebuked McCall. Read the quotes above. That's what he was getting at, and that is what he's questioning. No need to fancydance the English language or whimsically work with the Greek. Read Doran's post, and take it at face value.

glr, you are exactly right. You don't need to confirm with Doran -- his posts say exactly that.

Because of the respect he has for them, he is questioning why they would memorialize a man that was diametrically opposed to Mohler and the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC.

"Honey, I only beat you because I love you so much"

I really couldn't care less about Doran's rationalizations for his behavior. Nor yours, for that matter. I am simply pointing out that the whole incident was epic comic opera. If you can't see how ridiculous it was, that's your loss.

"I really couldn't care less about Doran's rationalizations for his behavior. Nor yours, for that matter. I am simply pointing out that the whole incident was epic comic opera. If you can't see how ridiculous it was, that's your loss."

And you're assuming we care that you found this an "epic comic opera"? If that's the case, you need to get out more. No offense.

If you "couldn't care less about Doran's rationalizations," why is this so epically funny? Here we have a respected president of a fundamentalist seminary questioning another president of an evangelical seminary as to why he would honor a man that caused a great mess for the cause of the gospel. That is funny -- Doran questioning why Mohler would honor a man that stood staunchly against what Mohler fought for? This is an "epic comic opera"? Please. Your hyperbole is getting you nowhere, and it is noted by everyone that reads it.

@Observer - I'm a pretty ridiculous guy myself, so you're probably right about hyperbole. And I sometimes fail to heed the admonition in Psalm 1 to "sit not in the seat of mockers". I'll work on that. But this particular case looks like a case of people taking themselves way too seriously, and that always makes good comedy.

"Doran questioning why Mohler would honor a man that stood staunchly against what Mohler fought for"

See what I mean? You make it sound as if it's a matter of grave doctrinal importance. Seriously?

This was someone naming a pavilion after someone else. And then a (very important) guy who claims to respect another (very important) guy launching a public attack questioning this other guy's motives. Are you saying that he did this out of genuine curiosity? The idea never occurred to me; I assumed Doran knows how to use a telephone. Maybe that's what Paul would have done, though, if he had a blog.

Finally, when people cock an eyebrow and say "Huh?" at the whole fracas, very earnest others come to the message board and assure us that it is, indeed, a matter of serious Biblical consequence, and a (very important) big-picture issue for the movement as a whole.

How is this not a caricature of people taking themselves too seriously? Are you telling me that an issue of a man's motives for naming a pavilion could not be resolved more tactfully between the (very important) two men, without having to convince the whole Internet that it is a (very important) matter of grave Biblical concern?

"How is this not a caricature of people taking themselves too seriously? Are you telling me that an issue of a man's motives for naming a pavilion could not be resolved more tactfully between the (very important) two men, without having to convince the whole Internet that it is a (very important) matter of grave Biblical concern?"

You refuse to read. This is not about Mohler or Doran or McCall or motives or important people (BTW, you are the first to use the "very important" term, so feel free to carry on). Read what he wrote! It's as simple as that. If you have a hard time finding the blog, I quoted it, so just scroll up the page.

I think you are taking Doran's posts far more seriously than he or anyone else is. He was not calling out Mohler for an answer or looking to get a response essay from Mohler. As he said (and as I quoted):

"Why not leave it where I put it — what biblical rationale can be offered by a staunch conservative for honoring a man who presided over the liberalization of SBTS? It’s not really about individuals; it’s about ideas and their consequences."

What you don't seem to understand is that McCall was president of SBTS while it grew into the mess that Mohler was credited for having reversed. When Mohler stood against McCall and the rest it was a matter of great importance -- it concerned the purity of the Biblical truth! So does it not seem odd that Mohler would honor McCall in such a way? That's what Doran is saying, and that's all he is saying. At least that how I have interpreted it. Again, maybe I'm being too charitable.

You say that Doran was "launching a public attack" on Mohler. Really? Where do you see that? Please quote one portion of any of Doran's posts where he is "launching an attack" on Mohler. It's not there. He questioned why they would do that. That's it.

The rest of your hyperbole makes no sense. I am glad you find "good humor" in all of this. I just wish I could find those parts that are funny.

Observer:

There is no justification, biblical, rational, cultural, or in any other way I can casually imagine, “for giving such public honor to a man that was a clear detriment to the gospel”.

I didn’t hear anyone say there was, is, or ever should be a justification “for giving such public honor to a man that was a clear detriment to the gospel”.

What is at issue is whether it is “biblical”, since that seems to be Doran’s test, to suggest that someone ought to be dishonored. That doesn’t seem “biblical” either.

There are certain voices which would like to suggest we are somehow misrepresenting what Doran actually said. Now I can’t speak for everyone who has joined this conversation, but I speak for myself when I say that this is very important, and the fact that it is not perceived as important is also indicative.

We are talking here about a people who’ve abused this word “biblical” beyond all reason. Biblical has become as meaningful a word as evangelical. For these people, a principle doesn’t actually have to be found in the Bible for it to be biblical. A principle only has to exist in someone’s mind as similar to or parallel to or suggestive of something they think they read in the Bible somewhere. Or something which, maybe, maybe not, might be inferred from a Greek root.

I know a guy who says that women should not wear pantyhose because they are “split up the crotch” and therefore qualify as men’s clothing. I have been told he also believes girls should not wear pajama pants to bed.

You may call this an extreme view if you like; but then I shall call what fundamentalists regard as “Christ-honoring music” also an extreme view. And I shall also call some fundamentalist’s racial views extreme and not even remotely biblical.

This would be important on its own merits, but it has become critical at a time when young men are being scolded for challenging the kind of goofiness that marks this movement.

"What is at issue is whether it is 'biblical', since that seems to be Doran’s test, to suggest that someone ought to be dishonored. That doesn’t seem 'biblical' either."

When I read the title of Doran's initial post, it caught my eye. As I read through all of the subsequent posts, nowhere did I see Doran calling for Mohler or anyone to dishonor McCall. Maybe I'm naive. I read his title as a pun on the "honor to whom honor is due" adage. As I read all of his responses, he doesn't ask for dishonor to be heaped upon McCall. He is wondering why such honor is given to him.

Maybe I'm alone in my interpretation of a few pretty simple posts. Or maybe you are reading far too much into the title of the original post. I think the latter is true.

There's a huge surprise.

I'm sure it's just a difference of interpretation. Yah, that's it.

What is at issue is whether it is “biblical”, since that seems to be Doran’s test, to suggest that someone ought to be dishonored. That doesn’t seem “biblical” either.

Does Doran's line that "Recognizing him at the event is one thing" sound like "dishonor him at the event"? It doesn't to me. Why does it to you?

As good as you are with rhetoric, I would imagine the play on words in the title would not have been misunderstood by you.

But let's assume for the moment, that your understanding (as I understand it) is correct ... that is, Doran is calling for dishonor to McCall.

Would you consider Paul's comments in a place like Romans 16:17-18 to mark, expose, etc, as dishonoring someone? Or calling out Hymaneaus and Alexander as dishonor? Or what about pronouncing an anathema on anyone who preaches a different gospe?.

That doesn't sound like "honor" and it doesn't sound like neutrality. He is saying (in essence), "Point these guys out and call them out."

How is that different than dishonor?

My theory is that these men are both acting out of a deep sense of tradition, and their traditions just happen to conflict here. Mohler teases his hair and smiles for the photographers while canonizing (SBC equivalent of naming an architectural structure after someone) a fellow opportunist; Doran chooses to throw the "b" word at it as did his forefathers when they were at a loss for words. Has anyone checked the name on the side of the Evangelism Center down there in Louisville lately before recoiling at Mohler's latest actions? Is this really that difficult?

Very few in this life fail to take advantage of opportunism at least at times. When in a position that has a political dimension, such as a seminary president, you will have to be an opportunist now and again. McCall is/was an opportunist but of a different degree than Mohler. McCall took some heat in his tenure, but nothing like Mohler. Mohler is "old looking" 50.
As the online pillow fight is winding down, I agree that it is not that difficult. I have a well-regarded commentary on my shelves which is entitled "Reading Matthew" by David E. Garland. That name would ring a bell at Southern (I wonder why he ended up in Waco?). Garland's work is well-researched and helpful for study though he does play Jedi word games with an essential of the faith. Garland's work is not going in the burn pail anytime soon. I imagine that Doran makes the same distinctions with books as well. Likewise, SBTS was making a distinction about what a man meant to the school rather than a book. How do you honor a man who served the school as president for 30 years, furthered the school academically, but was uneven in challenging the threats to biblical fidelity (there is that "b" word again)? Do you symbolically dig up your predecessors' bones to be burned, or do you recognize their accomplishments while being upfront that you are going in different direction? This is not as if they named some campus street "Molly Marshall Boulevard." Southern's move here is not that hard to figure out.
Even the Billy Graham thing is an example of two movements talking past each other. The SBC of old and the SBC of anew both value label loyalty. Billy Graham is a symbol of successful evangelism to SBCers, but he is something else to the fundamentalist. One movement does not understand the other. But, it is not hard to figure out why the SBC loves Graham.

Blast the movements and their wranglings! Which "side" is demonstrating either symbolic or actual fidelity to the Apostolic faith in this instance?

I understand your book illustration, but 99% of pew-sitters in F or SB churches won't read Garland, or even Thomas Schreiner for that matter. 100% of pew-sitters in F and SB churches are subject to the willy-nillies of the leaders of their respective movements. There are lots of books that the pew-sitters could read which would help them to see right through this puppet show, but if the leaders wrinkle their noses and deride such books and the thinking they promote, what is to be done?