Comments on: Did Al Mohler Just Throw Happiness Overboard?

By: Clark E. Dunlap

Clark E. Dunlap — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:01:00 +0000

I haven’t seen quite so much wrangling over the definition of a word since trying to decide was is, is. But let me just say, that happiness is a warm puppy, a funny movie, buttery popcorn, a sweet kiss at the end of a long hard day. Oh sure its also experiencing God but hey, how often does THAT happen? Especially for the people who were in attendance with Vicky said those crazy words. They may actually experience God from time to time-in His word, but do they discern the difference between true happiness and a happy song from Hillsong? I think you made a couple valid points. I don’t care that you ‘triangulated yourself’ from Mohler and the Osteens. Its not like your life will be judged on one article.
But I will say, it seemed like you had to wade through some significant nasty rotten garbage to get to the ‘good things’. Which makes me wonder if you like to go over the garbage one- more- time- for a little juicy tidbit before dumping it in the compost pile. No, I’m sure you don’t. That’s ridiculous and you are an intelligent person. But that’s what you’re article seems like you did with the quote in question.

By: Today in Blogworld 09.16.14 - Borrowed Light

Today in Blogworld 09.16.14 - Borrowed Light — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:50:41 +0000

[…] Did Al Mohler Just Throw Happiness Overboard? […]

By: Friday Feature 9.12.14 – What Victoria Osteen Got Right and Wrong

Friday Feature 9.12.14 – What Victoria Osteen Got Right and Wrong — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 20:41:35 +0000

[…] Did Al Mohler just throw happiness overboard? […]

By: David Murray

David Murray — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:42:00 +0000

Mark, thanks for your comment which I take in the charitable spirit in which you gave it. As none of us are above correction, I will certainly carefully weigh what you’ve written. I think I’ve probably linked to the majority of posts Dr. Mohler has ever written, favorably reviewed his books, linked to his addresses multiple time, etc. I believe this is the first time I’ve ever written anything critical of his theology. I believe I’ve demonstrated my love and support for Dr. Mohler over many years, so I’m not motivated by animus here. I agree with your characterization of him as a stalwart for orthodoxy and not a reactionary. I think we can make a distinction between reactionary theology (which we are all liable to especially in controversry) and being a reactionary (which I hope we all avoid). I do not know Dr. Mohler personally, having only met him briefly once, but from what I know about humble men of God like him, I know he would not regard himself as above criticism. I expect to continue to link to almost everything he writes!

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:57:00 +0000

Dr. Murray: perhaps all the furor over this controversy is now yesterday’s news (as I see no one is commenting upon your article any longer). But since I respect your work so much, I thought I’d at
least offer a few thoughts in response to your post.
First, I sincerely believe you could have made your same points without having to have set yourself over against Dr. Mohler in such sharp terms as you did. A more nuanced disagreement would have
been more irenic and helpful to your readership. To have said, “What Al Mohler got wrong” immediate sets yourself off in a triangular relationship from him and the Osteens, which creates the suspicion of division and dissent, which I believe doesn’t actually exist between Dr. Mohler and you.
Second, I trust you are familiar enough with Dr. Mohler’s theological commitments to know that in responsibly commenting on the unvarnished and consistent heart-spewings of a heretic such as Mrs.
Osteen recently made does in no way, shape or form make him guilty of fashioning a “reactionary theology”! There is a profound difference between reacting to heresy and building a “reactionary theology” over against the heresies of our age. Dr. Mohler is a solidly committed, consistent Reformed
Baptistic theologian. I believe you know this, and thus challenge your characterization of him as building a theology over against a heretic.
His helpful commentary throughout the years of our age and its sociolgoical, economic, and theological influences—let alone the many books he’s written—surely are enough to demonstrate to anyone (let alone another brother such as yourself with Reformed commitments) that Al Mohler is not a reactionary, but a stalwart for orthodoxy. I would therefore humbly encourage you to stand more with than against a brother who is on the side of Reformational truth and whose broader audience he seeks to instruct to discern the anti-Christian spirits of our age such as was demonstrated in the Prosperity Theology of the Osteens.

By: Bill Noonkesser

Bill Noonkesser — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 15:40:00 +0000

I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

I think we can agree for the most part. I have no problem whatsoever with the statement that we exist for the Glory of God, period. In that sense even the wrath of man praises him. My concern is simply over the seeming disconnectedness of the “and” as if it is one or the other or could be in reality. God made man in his image and likeness and only the entrance of sin has marred the original enjoyment of his creator. But the entire course of history has been a long march back to that enjoyment, the apex (of history) being the suffering Savior restoring to us the access and confidence before the Throne of Grace that was lost to us in the fall. Even bringing us closer and into a more fuller enjoyment than was possible before the fall!

The way I think we sometimes take it is that we must grit our teeth and Glorify God through suffering or hardship. This is not so. Even your statement about “loving” submission would indicate some sense of enjoyment in the person loved would it not? I do not think we are disagreeing fundamentally, I only wished to make the connection between the “Chief end” and “enjoyment of God” stronger. I realize that sin mars that enjoyment but it does not change the end in view does it?

I get what you are saying about Christ in his suffering and I would not dare to enter into the mind of my Savior on that Cross, in those hours of Darkness or even in the Garden beyond what is revealed but it was for the JOY set before him that endured the cross and can we not say that the purpose of it all was to bring us back into the conscious and eternal enjoyment of the Father that he came and died? Could the Son have ceased to enjoy the Father? Could the sinless one have ceased to love and enjoy the thought of his Father even as his Father was pouring out his wrath and JUST indignation on our sins? These are mysteries too deep for me.

Again, I think we are of one heart my brother, I hope this helps to clarify where I am coming from.

Perhaps I would just have broken the question into parts. The first being What is the Chief end of Man. To Glorify God. The second, How is this most beautifully and fully expressed? In the enjoyment of what God is in all his attributes.

I understand that we must submit unconditionally to the Fathers will in our lives but is it not better kiss the rod and not let go of the enjoyment of the Father even when difficulty comes?

So I would ask, why do we feel the need to disconnect the two thoughts is it just too hard for our sinful flesh and contrary to our thinking to imagine that our Savior could actually have been “enjoying God” while suffering for our sins? Would anything less not have been sin?

By: Monday Challenge 9.8.14 – The Osteens, The Bible Matters, What the Culture Can’t Answer

Mon, 08 Sep 2014 11:09:15 +0000

[…] Mohler says happiness can’t bear the weight of the Gospel. David Murray thinks Mohler went overboard. Both articles are good to help you think about the popular Joel and Victoria […]

By: Did Al Mohler Just Throw Happiness Overboard?

Did Al Mohler Just Throw Happiness Overboard? — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 04:05:03 +0000

[…] is Professor of Old Testament & Practical Theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. This article first appeared on his blog, Head Heart Hand, and is used with […]

By: RStarke

RStarke — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 23:36:00 +0000

Not to mention that anyone who dares to say it out loud is getting Twitterbombed for being digitally nigh unto a heretic…. sigh…

So thank you times two, David, for once again going where others a reluctant. Helpful words.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 20:53:00 +0000

I feel like the only way to come to agreement on this subject is to 1) clearly define what people mean by joy and happiness, and honestly, while I appreciate all the scholarly quotes, I’d really just like to see the actual scriptures that support your thesis than quotes-from-the-people-who-read-the-scriptures in your thesis. Isn’t that how all this began anyway? Ms. Osteen spouted a bunch of scripturally, unsupported fluff; in a way (without meaning to I’m sure), this article sounds that way also, even though I think I get the direction you’re coming from. Bottom line, my opinion (for what it’s worth, probably not much), anyone, everyone, preachers, bloggers alike, need to stop preaching what they think the Bible is saying based on a verse here or a verse there, but start explaining the Bible in it’s context–the context of the passage, the culture, etc–and in light of it’s entirety–its entire story that it’s revealing, verse by verse, piecing the meaning together through the revelation of the Holy Spirit. That’s how it was written; that’s the only way it will ever be truthfully interpreted; That’s the only way people will ever here the real truth from anyone here on earth.