More on Founders: Is Tom Ascol owed an apology?

Discussion in 'Theological Forum' started by Santos, Aug 6, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Santos

    Santos Puritan Board Freshman

    I recently read this article on the Federalist:

    Of particular interest was this quote:

    ….Mohler expressed the same sentiment: “I have known Tom for years and he has always been a man of respect and character.” Mohler also unequivocally denied as a possibility that Ascol deceived his interviewees for the documentary or that intentionally meant to harm fellow Southern Baptists....

    Since Al Mohler was interviewed by Matthew Garnett with the Federalist for this article and this sentiment is a direct quote from Al Mohler, should there not be wide spread apologies and repentance from everyone who jumped to the conclusion that Tom Ascol was lying and misrepresenting at the very least Al Mohler? I'm think that Dr. Mohler (and perhaps those on this board who judged Tom Ascol unfairly) owes this brother an apologize and there should be some public repentance.

    Grace and Peace,
  2. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)

    What....did it die down too much for now? So now you need to stir it up again?

    Ascol says "we did not misrepresent anyone"...then a week later half the board (3 of 6) resigns and pretty much state that the trailer misrepresented things.

    "It is with sadness that we announce the resignation of three members of the Founders Ministries board. Drs. Fred Malone, Tom Hicks and Jon English Lee have resigned this week after lengthy conversations about the release of and responses to a trailer for the planned documentary, By What Standard?

    Our conversations led to an impasse regarding the nature of sin, unintentional sin, unwise acts and what faithfulness to Christ requires in the wake of each. Though each of these three men formulated his own arguments, their views led them all to conclude they could not conscientiously continue to serve Founders without agreement on these points as it relates to elements in the trailer. As the statements of Fred Malone and Tom Hicks below indicate, they believe we have sinned in how the trailer portrayed certain people and issues. Tom Nettles, Jared Longshore and I do not believe that. This is the fundamental point of the impasse that we reached.

    Here is an excerpt from Tom Hicks’ resignation.
    However, after the release of the recent trailer, I came to a strong convictional impasse with others on the Founders Board. We disagreed in love. We all tried to accommodate each other’s consciences as much as possible. We labored to work through our differences, but our respective differences remained. I was particularly concerned about the inclusion of Rachael Denhollander in the trailer, whom I did not see when I first watched it. Her presence in the trailer, along with other sexual abuse survivors, seemed to conflate sexual abuse with other problematic views of social justice. Jacob and Rachael communicated to me that her primary concern was not her portrayal as much as the portrayal of sexual abuse survivors and the conflation of sexual abuse with other issues. All the board members agreed that sexual abuse is very different from social justice issues, but we disagreed about how to go forward in light of the trailer."

    So you are calling for apologies on a discussion forum for misrepresentation of Ascol when HALF of the board of the Founders resigned for allegations of misrepresentation. Who needs to apologize for what again? My hope is still that Ascol will realize his trailer was truly a stinker and will change his film editor, take out the spooky effects when portraying his theological foes, and be open to correction. Maybe then they will finally produce a worthy film. As I have said in the previous thread, this is a worthy battle to wage (against Wokeism) but I just don't think he is the right person to champion this cause. And half the board of the Founders did not like the trailer, either. In fact, they disliked it enough to resign. We need better champions.

    The article you linked itself admits:

    In Mohler’s statement, he said, “I am alarmed at how some respected SBC leaders are represented.” “I tried my very best not to denounce anyone,” Mohler said in response to pushback on his statement. “I’ll be glad to denounce anyone who is an enemy of the gospel…but that’s just not the case here on either side.”

    When asked what alarmed him about the promo, Mohler stated, “the cinematography.” Mohler said the trailer seemed to cast certain leaders in the SBC in a poor light and could have been more adequately edited. Ascol publicly agreed the editing could have been improved."

    So, considering Mohler's statement above, are you calling him a liar? Or that he contradicted his earlier statement that, yes, the trailer did cast people in a bad light (i.e. misrepresented them)?
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Sad Sad x 1
    • List
  3. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

    Is it really too much to ask for us—all of us—to wait for the full film to make further judgment? We have all heard and/or shared grievances; we all know how each of us feels. I am sure I am not the only one here who thinks this discussion has already gotten wearisome.

    The Puritan Board is not a church court, and I personally think it’s time we stop discussing this subject as if it is.
    • Amen Amen x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  4. Santos

    Santos Puritan Board Freshman

    So it's stirring things up to show where an inconsistency lies?

    No, I'm not calling Dr. Mohler a liar. I am saying that his double talk and word play have caused folks such as yourself to imply that Tom Ascol is lying.

    "Portrayed in a bad light" does not mean misrepresented. ( Or liar/lying)
    For example my post is portraying Al Mohler in a bad light for allowing people to believe that his friend misrepresented him. However, I don't believe that I am misrepresenting the facts. It is a bad light though.

    It is interesting that you would site the 3 that left Founders to validate your point considering two of those three are elders in the ARBCA. Was that not a part of your disqualifying criteria previously?
  5. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)

    You say you're not calling him a liar and then immediately accuse him of double-talk and word play?
  6. Seeking_Thy_Kingdom

    Seeking_Thy_Kingdom Puritan Board Freshman

    If only people were are as riled up for the Puritan documentary....
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Amen Amen x 1
    • List
  7. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    An administrator closed the last thread on this. Closing for review.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page