This article is fine. The reviewer is misunderstanding it.
It is ENTIRELY true that critics of Calvinist Southern Baptists say that the Calvinist Southern Baptists are fatalistic (only a few saved, why bother?).
That is demonstrably true.
These critics, however, are mistaken. The reviewer of the original Economist article is making the mistake of reviewing the author of the article as if the author were engaged in the debate itself, rather than reporting on the debate.
So the Economist article is actually very accurate.
It is the combatants that the Economist article is reporting on who are making mistakes...namely...in mischaracterizing the end results of the Calvinist engagement with the culture.
Incidentally....and I side with the Calvinist Southern Baptists....Calvinists make the same mistake all too often. They (er, we) say things like, well if the pre-dispensationalists are right, then, why bother reforming the culture? They (we) then mischaracterize all evangelicals as just trying to get as many into the life raft as possible.
While this has been PART of the pre-dispensational legacy, speaking broadly, it is absolutely NOT part of the legacy of the most recent and most engaged pre-dispensationalists.
Look at the life and work of Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye and the many that they inspired. They are DEEPLY engaged in the culture. We Calvinists might say, well, that is in spite of their theological convictions. That is likely not fair at all. They are smart enough to know the full implications of their theology...yet...their theology led them to engage the culture in a way as deep as any Calvinist would ever hope for.
So.
The point being...and this is the point of the Economist article...”our” side of the ledger (conservatives) contain many opportunities for alliance across theological convictions.
It also contains a LOT of potential for misunderstanding among those who are in these alliances. The fault lines identified by the article are real.
Yet, the exceptions are also very real and a full treatment of this phenomenon would give consideration and an account for those exceptions, as well. (ie, what changed with Falwell? Why was he so great in engaging the culture?).
And finally....the Economist author is quite correct. Al Mohler IS the titular head of the Calvinist Southern Baptists. He wasn’t elected and he doesn’t have an official jersey or anything. But....when he speaks, we listen.
BFL
Too bad, he has such a large following but many of us SBC'ers still do NOT accept Calvin's exclusive "elect" even Calvin himself, before his death, backed away from the totally exclusive elect, but that is rarely, if ever, mentioned.
what protestant think the Pope is Gods “vicar?”
where do I find the terms Pope and Vicar in the Bible?
“That is demonstrably true.”
What part of the Reformation, all the way up to the Great Awakening’s Calvinist Preachers, is demonstratively “only a few are saved, so why bother doing anything?”
In any case. Pope Francis would if asked totally agree with Mohler. Catholics have indeed long worked with Muslims to block the pro-abortion agenda in the UN. Even held conferences with them, under no delusion that there is much common ground. Between Catholics and Calvinists, much more common ground. Have read Calvin’s Institutes, I find that many liberal Catholics have less in common with more traditional Catholics than the latter have with Calvinists.