Albert Mohler is at it Again

Yes, Albert Mohler is at it again, saying that delay of marriage is a sin. However, you won’t believe the just really bad logic that he is using this time! Here is his argument in a nutshell:

1. Where we see secularism on the rise, we also see delay of marriage.

2. Therefore, delay of marriage is, inherently, secular.

Now, let us use this logic on something else, and see if it works out:

1. Where we see secularism on the rise, you also see a rise in the amount of sexual activity.

2. Therefore, sexual activity is inherently secular.

Or, could we not also say this:

1. With a rise in sexual promiscuity comes a rise in sexual fidelity from people who see the harm that stds and divorce can cause cause.

2. Therefore, sexual fidelity is inherently sexually promiscuious.

Now, we have an out in out self-contradiction.

This is a logical fallacy known as guilt by association. Yes, it is true that delay of marriage can be caused by sin, but that does not mean that the delay of marriage is, in and of itself, sin. Yes, those who live together out of wedlock, and engage in sexual promiscuity will be very unlikely to wed at all, and if they do wed, it will be very late, because they think that they do not need to be married in order to live a married lifestyle.

However, is it not possible to delay marriage, and not engage in these behaviors? Dr. Mohler offers no Biblical or evidence to the contrary, and, thus, the whole article is built on a logical fallacy.

What is annoying is that Voddie Baucham has come under the same kind of attack because he is promoted by Vision Forum. Ted Slater rightly criticized this kind of guilt by association that is used against Voddie Baucham. Yet, here you have Albert Mohler engaging in the same logical fallacy that is used to dismiss Voddie Baucham as a racist, in order to dismiss those who delay marriage as not being real men. It is amazing to see this kind of utter irrationality in defense of an unbiblical tradition.


6 Responses to “Albert Mohler is at it Again”

  1. Amir Larijani Says:

    The issue boils down to one word: causation. Mohler, unfortunately, has committed an error that many freshman statistics students commit: he has confused correlation with causation. In economics, we think in terms of leading indicators versus lagging indicators. The difference is hardly trivial.

    The Biblical case would seem to be one of a culture of godliness leading to an abandonment of traditional family. Jesus, speaking of such times, warned that “because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold”.

    To suggest that the decline of the family has led to the decline of the Church is a train of thought that logically borders on idolatry of family. In effect, he is saying, “Put family first, and God will follow”.

    I doubt he believes that, but I’d suggest that he needs to get off his high horse and look at the implications of what he is saying.

  2. Amir Larijani Says:

    I meant to say “a culture of godlessness in the Church leading to an abandonment of traditional family.

  3. Kevin ( Says:

    Nothing brings women and especially men into the pews like marriage and parenthood, as they seek out the religious, moral and social support provided by a congregation upon starting a family of their own. But because growing numbers of young adults are now postponing or avoiding marriage and childbearing, they are also much less likely to end up in church on any given Sunday.

    I think there’s something to this: I’ve often wondered if we are losing 20-somethings in church because many of them are delaying marriage. But I’ll need to put a little more thought into it.

    Regardless, I think we have to be very cautious about:
    1. calling singleness a sin (it isn’t)
    2. blaming men for “delayed marriage”

    These are complex issues and we have to be VERY careful about assigning simple “solutions.” Such “solutions” often end up putting guilt trips on singles, as if they are the cause of society’s problems.

  4. Anakin Niceguy Says:


    You need to be a better steward of your body. Reading Al Mohler is not good for your health. It raises your heartbeat and blood pressure. 🙂 (Or at least, I think it does that for me).

  5. Peter Says:

    Do you think if we just ignored him he might go away?

  6. otrmin Says:


    I wish. Now, because they have not been able to shame men, or push it on them as a fad, they are now trying to go to the parents. I don’t think that will work either [mostly because most 27-28 year olds do not live at home, or have a job and an apartment of their own], but we need to understand that these folks don’t go after people who can answer them; they are trying, instead, to use sociological manipulation. I have come to the point where I just simply let that speak for itself.

    God Bless,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: