Here is it, folks.
You can watch the entire exchange and make your minds up.
Fair warning, emotions are running high on this issue. This site will not be hosting a “bash-a-thon” for either participant in this exchange.
Let’s deal with the content of the discussion (well, the question and the answer.)
Dave Miller (75)
Debbie Kaufman (63)
Rick Patrick (41)
Chris Roberts (37)
Bob Hadley (33)
Frank (33)
Greg Harvey (31)
Bart Barber (30)
dr. james willingham (30)
cb scott (29)
Dave, I was going to take issue with you for some of your words above.
When you say, “Here is it, folks.” I wonder what exactly you mean by “it” and “folks.” If you are referring to Mohler’s response isn’t calling the response an “it” a little disrespectful?
Of course, I “can” watch the exchange. I think you mean “may” watch the exchange. How can anyone know what yo mean when you use words in such an unclear manner?
As for the “fair warning” is there a such thing as an “unfair warning?” C’mon, Dave is that really fair?
“Let’s deal with the content of the discussion?” But aren’t we Southern Baptists?
And what do you mean by “deal with?” Are you alleging the contents have not been dealt with?
Anyway, I won’t take issue like I could have in my words above. Thanks for the chance to dialogue.
(/sarcasm off)
lol- that was awesome.
I have to admit, this kinda confused me until I saw the comment about parsing words on the other post.
This is one of those things that only the Baptist blogosphere could over blow this bad…
You got the dudes acting as if Mohler triumphed over a great enemy of the Kingdom and you have the people that act as if they cant figure out Mohlers position on homosexuality. While Lumpkins might not have had pure motives(probably didnt) and while Mohler might have painted with too broad of a brush(probably did)- this whole thing is stupid. Both sides seem pathetic, in my opinion…
Let’s move on SBCers- there are much more important things out there.
Matt, I agree… not much to see here… let’s move one.
From Mohler’s response, it sure seems he believes this to be an important discussion that deserves more attention not less, not a “move on” mindset.
Aside from some bickering, there have been some folks having a serious dialogue. Dave was the first person to do so with his comments about there being at least some division re: homosexuality among SBCers.
It’s clearly settled that the SBC including Mohler believes same-sex behavior to be sin. Mohler has certainly never failed to make that clear.
If Mohler’s remarks have any implications (and I think they clearly do), then one worthy of discussion is: here in your Southern Baptist context where same-sex behavior=sin (always, that’s an absolute) then how is “homophobia” to be defined? And what are the implications of Mohler’s assertion that Southern Baptists have “lied”
Those two words (“lied” and “homophobia”) are worthy discussions especially given the emphasis that Southern Baptists have put in recent decades on sex/gender questions (as they are all related – as Denny Burk has pointed out on numerous occasions in his references to feminist/queer theory)
BDW – in my mind at least, overblown is focused on the “Mohler-Lumpkins” confrontation, not the issues themselves.
I agree about that.
Yes, I was saying move on from the confrontation with Mohler-Lumpkins… Certainly not the issue itself.
I commented on the last post that “lied” and “homophobia” were the only objections I had, and my objections were not with the explanations that Mohler gave, but with his use of those terms. With his longer explanation (I did not read the original article), I understood what he meant. But I still think that “lied” and “homophobia” are not the appropriate words to use in describing what Mohler was talking about.
The great thing about the SBC is that someone like Al Mohler is not above answering question from someone like Peter Lumpkins.
The tragic thing about the SBC is that someone like Peter Lumpkins thinks he is Al Mohler’s peer in some way.
That video looks like the death throws of the old school of SBC politics. Let’s hope that’s what it turns out to be.
Frank,
Those are some very “insightful” observations.
Peers? He’s the head of an SBC agency, not Lord Albert of Louisville. This is precisely the time and place to raise a concern about the viewpoint of an agency head, if you’ve got a concern. The “Convention” is Dr. Mohler’s peer, and messengers have the right to ask about the direction of their agencies.
I didn’t think the question, or the response were unusual for an SBC meeting. Is anyone really scandalized by this level of public disagreement? No effective organization seizes up when “the little people” asking tough questions of leaders.
Open letter???
Peter Lumpkins is Al Mohler’s peer as (1) a brother in Christ, (2) a fellow Southern Baptist, and (3) a duly elected messenger whose vote counts just as much as Mohler’s, not to mention a soul made in Christ’s image for whom Jesus died.
What do we possibly gain in terms of gospel truthfulness by creating a system where Peter and Al are not peers?
“Peter Lumpkins is Al Mohler’s peer as (1) a brother in Christ, (2) a fellow Southern Baptist, and (3) a duly elected messenger whose vote counts just as much as Mohler’s, not to mention a soul made in Christ’s image for whom Jesus died.”
Yes! And Mohler is also an employee of the SBC.
By reminding folks of that, I am not siding with Peter. But as some have pointed out this whole situation runs deeper than just the exchange on the floor.
I am still wondering who the homophobes and liars are. How can someone make such a vague blanket statement about “some” people. Who is he talking about?
I suppose after signing a document about “unity” and cooperation, he cannot elaborate.But if there are liars and homophobes (with clear examples) in the SBC should they not be lovingly confronted?
Frank:
The only thing about now versus another time in the SBC is that here we have two brothers who basically agree on this issue, and the debate is on the margins.
In other religious denominations where this stuff is discussed, and in previous SBC days, (and similar issues like views of biblical inspiration and doctrinal issues) there is, and was, a lot of dishonest dialogue that is often smoked out by a confrontational question.
In this situation there is no “there” there.
Agreed, Matt. This is perhaps the most overblown thing ever. Peter asked a question – granted, a little prosecutorial in tone, but a legitimate question.
Mohler gave a biblical answer. You don’t have to agree with everything in the answer, but it was based in scriptural interpretations and gospel applications.
Personally, I think Mohler was 100% biblical. But that’s just me.
Dave:
You said:”Agreed, Matt. This is perhaps the most overblown thing ever. Peter asked a question – granted, a little prosecutorial in tone, but a legitimate question.
Mohler gave a biblical answer. You don’t have to agree with everything in the answer, but it was based in scriptural interpretations and gospel applications.
Personally, I think Mohler was 100% biblical. But that’s just me.”
Then what in the world is going on in your opinion, as this exchange and dialogue is all over the place?
Two things:
1) Peter Lumpkins is a polarizing and controversial figure. (As, for that matter, is Mohler).
2) Homosexuality is the key moral issue of our day.
Dave:
Thanks. I believe you are on to something with the two items you listed.
Funny, I’ve never had him described as polarizing.
Dave, I think the issue is found in your words, “a little prosecutorial in tone.” Simply inserting words like grace, brother, blessings, etc. does not absolve one’s words from being overall prosecutorial which has been a problem in blogging.
The problem now faced with this issue is that no matter how legitimate the questions may be they seem to be out of a “gotcha” perspective rather than a “brother help me understand” perspective. It’s as if some of Mohler’s accusers are not even trying to understand his position or atleast give him some grace.
Matt –
Let me know if you honestly think that the SBC’s track record in delivering the Gospel to homosexuals is even a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being best case).
You didn’t ask me, but that has never stopped me from letting my opinion be known.
1) As to homosexuality, we have done well at holding to the biblical truth that homosexuality is a sin.
2) As to homosexuals, we have done a POOR job of ministering to those trapped in this sin – 3 would be a generous number there.
Frank, is this a good time to bring up the eight year Disney boycott in reply?
Anything that gives me an excuse not to go to Disney is a good thing.
Frank,
I would put it at a 1.5.
I personally agree with every word Mohler said… I’ve actually read most of those 200 articles he has written on the issue and I dont know one thing I disagree with.
While SBCers/evangelicals have delivered the gospel to homosexuals in an exceedingly poor manner- I do understand why some of his statements(the broad brushing) are getting this much attention.
Here’s my question: Did Mohler have some idea this question was coming?
His answer was unbelievably erudite. I know he’s smart, but if that was off the cuff, wow.
I think a few years of radio help you be able to think on your feet like that. Plus it’s an issue in which he’s incredibly well-versed. It was like a hanging curve ball.
I was going to say the same thing Brent! When I used to listen to his radio show he dropped bombs like this quite often! Especially on Wedesdays(ask anything)!!!
I still miss “Ask Anything Wednesdays”…
Squirrel
DAVID, in order to make the original statements that Peter wanted confirmed and clarified, Dr. Mohler must have been deeply convicted from the sacred writings . . .
note that he speaks of 1 Cor. 6
. . . ‘ but such were some of you . . . but you were washed ‘;
and Dr. Mohler calls on the Church of today to have a place for those who can also say ‘ I once was THAT’ . . .
I think Dr. Mohler was deeply convicted in order to give that impassioned response. The ‘spirit’ of his words comes through like a fresh wind. He WAS ‘prompted’. But not in the usual way.
I believe Peter told him that if he didn’t answer the questions posted on his (Peter’s) blog, that he would raise them on the convention floor. It may be that Mohler does not read Peter’s blog but I believe Peter also tried to question him directly. So he knew this might be coming.
I’ve seen Dr. Mohler in many settings and he seems prepared for any and every question. Amazing to say the least.
I have a friend who worked on Mohler’s radio show for a short time. He told me that as soon as Mohler began asking the question the soundtrack to his radio show began playing in his head. What he was suggesting was that he had heard Mohler answer questions like this off the cuff dozens of times during his time at the show. It was nothing new.
It very well could be that Mohler knew the question was coming, but I am doubtful that he had to craft a preliminary response in his head. Any guy who’s read 40,000 books and can give you quotes from any of them won’t have a problem answering an impromptu question like that. He’s just that wicked smart.
Here’s the thing about the exchange in my view—especially now that Lumpkins is playing the victim. The whole “I’m just asking a question….” bit really won’t fly.
Lumpkins clearly thinks he’s caught Mohler in a quote that would make most Southern Baptists gasp. In fact, it’s so unbelievable for someone whose “normal, clear articulation” on “socio-ehtical issues” that Lumpkins graciously gives Mohler the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t actually say those words! (How gracious of Peter.)
Read some excerpts:
“He cites you, Dr. Mother, as… your words… as evidence…”
“Merritt quotes words he alleges you spoke in an interview…”
“Further, Merritt alleges you said in the interview…”
“Those words that, allegedly, have come uh, uh, from you, Dr. Mohler…”
“I’m especially uh, interested in how, if in fact, these words were spoken in an interview…”
“And if they were not spoken, uh, was Jonathan Merritt mistaken?”
“… was the, the words, uh, taken out of context?”
Peter’s point was not to ask a question and get a response. It was to read aloud, in front of the entire convention, words that he thought would cause a firestorm of controversy for Dr. Mohler.
Brent,
Exactly!!!
P-Lump intended to start a firestorm of controversy for Dr. Mohler… but only managed to burn himself.
I think the idea was to catch a little fish and they think they’ve now caught a big fish. I think Peter and co were certain that Mohler would throw Merritt under the bus. He did not, and now they think, inexplicably, that Mohler threw himself under the bus.
I understand the kick back at the word “lied”. But we have all used the “royal we” at times when trying to make a general point. I just did it in that sentence. Mohler’s critics have also used the “royal we” any number of times, so kicking at that seems pretty disingenuous.
This is the main premise they think they’ve caught Mohler on: Evidently the only acceptable view of the source of same-sex attraction is rebellion and choice. There CANNOT be any hint of a biological source that even remotely contributes to same-sex attraction. Everyone is born heterosexual. All gay people, at some point, consciously choose stop being attracted to the opposite sex and force themselves to suddenly be attracted to the same sex. Is really the SBC party line? What about all the gay people who have hid in shame, gone into depression, or even killed themselves because of this unwanted attraction? Doesn’t sound like choice to me. (that doesn’t mean that it is biological. There’s a lot that can go on in our lives to shape (or warp) us between conception and puberty).
Frankly, I get tired of Peter making accusations with no accountability. This time, he put himself out there in public, and was answered in such a way to eradicate his accusation. This is why I’ve pointed to it on my blog. I just grow tired of Lumpkins saying whatever he wants about whoever he wants without anyone responding. Mohler responded, and left little room for doubt in my mind. Peter however is skewing Mohler’s words as much as possible though. I agree with Dave and Mohler though, 100%.
Jared,
I agree… No one skews words more than Lumpkins. I know he is a smart guy, which is why it is funn when his obvious skewing of words makes himself look like a moron at times.
His tactics are exactly what make him and Mohler NOT peers on many levels.
Matt, the biggest thing that bothers is me is that those who support Peter, support him to the death. They don’t call him on his skewing, but instead respond in approval. It blows my mind. If a Calvinist southern baptist used the same tactics as Peter, I’d call him on it, regardless how good his content was.
Agree 100%. Im always in amazement when people come and defend his obvious skewing… Just reminds us that many people dont care about truth as much as they care about their agenda.
Hummmmm…same thing could be said about a lot of people defending calvinist guru’s and anyone else who goes along with what they believe….ie, Mohler, Ascol, Nettles, etc., etc., etc…..
oh, the hypocrisy, or short sightedness….
Vol: That may be true of some, but not all. I for one am not at all a fan of Mohler the culture warrior. I also don’t appreciate him telling Christians how soon to marry and how many children to have. (yoga? Good grief)
Vol,
Peter goes out of his way to character assassinate anyone who he wants.
During the Caner fiasco, he turned it into a crusade against James White.
It’s not uncommon for dissenting posts to find themselves deleted, especially if they bring things commonly known as facts or reasoning or logic.
He only attacks. He’s not interested in debate or discussion. He attacks.
Well, Mohler launched back with a well-reasoned, well presented “defense” which would be the first round of discussion between most people. Judging from Lumpkins’ blog since, he attacks yet again.
Lumpkins’ has no interest in having a discussion.
Vol,
When someone skews they skew. Blanket statements like yours are unhelpful. If you have a specific instance of one of those people being defended to the grave by someone on here, then by all means post it.
Vague generalizations tend to be all you have, though.
Oh, the irony…
Vol: I have been a critic of Al Mohler’s for the same reasons that Bill has given plus a few more. But on this I am in full agreement. He said it well.
And when someone does call him out on the what he says, he does not allow their posts to go “public” on his blog as he moderates every post. And quickly after that, he bans you from posting. Thus the “no accountability” is oh so true in regards to Peter.
it is such a wonder so many people are either banned from his blog or are constantly threatened about their comments.
The comments following mine are laughable…. Do yall really believe what you’re saying? Or, is it just a debating tactic to try to win an arguement?
lol
Translation: I cannot answer the comments, so if I laugh them off maybe they will go away.
Is that a debating tactic? Avoidance?
No one is doing what you are accusing them of doing. Your vague attacks are meaningless. As I said, make a specific reference to prove what you are saying has happened. Shouldn’t be hard to do if this is happening all the time, right?
There are lots of things that are natural for me, inclinations I was born with, that are opposed to God and sinful. I think we don’t like the “biological” argument re: homosexuality because we think that means we must give homosexuality a pass. Well, I’m naturally inclined to shoot my mouth off with cutting remarks. I might even claim that I was born that way. But I make a huge mistake if I use that as an excuse to let myself off the hook. I’m still responsible and my “natural inclinations” are not excusable. Mohler was right that the gospel is the only remedy for that sort of thing.
So we have lied [using the "royal we"] when we’ve claimed that homosexuality is only a matter of choice. Bill Mac put it better than I can. We are also guilty of a good measure of homophobia. I was once asked by a church member what we would do when one of “those” people (homosexuals) came to our church. It was made very clear that what we should do is to refuse them entrance at the doors. Later I would have a guest preacher come who challenged us to open our doors to the homosexual just as we would to the adulterer, thief, liar or sinner of another sort. I’ve never gotten more concerned calls in a Sunday afternoon in all my life. That’s homophobia. Of course, that is only anecdotal evidence from one context, but I’d be floored to discover that those are truly isolated responses in one church.
I’d also say that calling homosexuality the key issue of our day means that we have a long, long way to go in understanding key issues (in my opinion). When the church focuses more on issues that are predominantly matters of sinfulness outside the church and so consistently ignores (or at least minimizes) so many sinful issues within the church (consumerism, self-idolatry, selfishness, greed, adultery, etc.), we’ve lost our way. At least that’s how I read 1 Cor. 5:9-13.
“When the church focuses more on issues that are predominantly matters of sinfulness outside the church and so consistently ignores (or at least minimizes) so many sinful issues within the church (consumerism, self-idolatry, selfishness, greed, adultery, etc.), we’ve lost our way.”
Great answer. I’m not sure I could agree more or put it more succinctly.
My issues with Dr Mohlers point.
1. His contention that we as a Church have not done well with with dealing with this issue. Show me the facts do not make blanket statements not substantiated! Does he mean that we have failed because the homosexuals dont give us a group hug.
I just disagree that we have failed in our outreach. I especially found this strange considering that Dr Mohler holds to the Reformed understanding of regeneration?
2.His contention that we have told not the truth but half the truth.
Another word for that is a lie. Personal I do not allow my conversations with homosexuals to EVER vear off into this direction. Notice that Dr Wright did the same when Wayne Besen tried to steer that conversation in that direction with his comment about throwing out his humanity.
secondly and this is to fellow believers… I do not believe that the science has successfully shown that it is not a choice alone which Dr Mohler seemed to reject.
3. His contention that we have have practiced a form of homophobia is pure nonsense. It is not a Gospel word….the Bible knows nothing of the modern secular term homophobia.
How would one know if others practiced “homophobia”. It seems Dr Mohler is judging the heart of sbc members. Not a recommended practice according to Matt 7. I find that offensive and ungodly.
Lastly and this is not a point that he addressed in his speech but I passionately believe that Southern Baptist must reclaim the cultural mandate as a Biblical mandate. Without Biblical law the moral foundations of our society will crumble and even these discussions will not happen.
Remember the twin mandates of Scripture.
Redeem the culture
Proclaim the Gospel
Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
1. I think Mohler is speaking from a denominational perspective about doing a poor job (this was the annual meeting after all). The evidence doesn’t need to be supplied (boycott of Disney… anyone remember that).
2. Again, denomination, not individually, we (the SBC) have consistently let it be known that it is merely a sin of choice, period. We expect homosexuals to repent and THEN come to church… please don’t bring your ex-partner. That is the message we (corporately) project.
3. Homophobia is present when we boycott Disney rather than schedule our vacations to FL so that we can minister to and love on the people who come during gay-pride day/week @ Disney. Jesus didn’t avoid or boycott sinners (thank God for that) and neither should we.
The cultural mandate is a self-aggrandizing myth. The cultures of the world are redeemed when the people within them are redeemed by Jesus. Don’t make a mountain out of the mole-hill that is the American experiment in a federal republic.
Greg,
You said, “Homophobia is present when we boycott Disney rather than schedule our vacations to FL so that we can minister to and love on the people who come during gay-pride day/week @ Disney.”
Sorry, I strongly disagree with that. You are not homophobic in the least if you chose not to take your family to a gay pride parade. You are welcome to do so with your family, but that in no way demonstrates who loves the lost and who doesn’t.
David R. Brumbelow
David, I’m sorry for my misleading statement; I shouldn’t have used the word “vacation” since that implies a relaxing family visit rather than a goal oriented mission trip. My oldest child understands the human sexuality on a very basic level, but I’m not inclined to clue-in my 9yo yet.
I mean that, when the SBC would see gay-pride day @ Disney as a threat rather than as an opportunity to show the love of Christ, then it is an expression of homophobia: being scared of gays and their agenda.
As a tool of the political liberals in this country, there is clearly a gay-agenda (as though all homosexuals are clones of each other). I don’t think we should be afraid (He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world) of the gay-agenda or the dissolution of our country. I don’t think we should react in this way as though a boycott will lead to repentance & salvation. For the record, I’m not for ignoring politics in this country, just not that our peace of mind and spirit should be ruled by what happens in the political realm.
I’m just wondering how we are all doing so poorly on ministering to homosexuals. Are we then doing better with ministering to widows and orphans — which is a clear mandate in Scripture.
How many resources should a church put into ministering to a 1% segment of society? What do homosexuals really need? There per capita income is among the highest in the land.
Are homosexuals begging for help from the church that we are not giving?
Or, is the primary complaint of the homosexual community that we as evangelicals keep calling their practice a “sin?”
The more I think about Mohler’s statement, the more I think he was further off base than I thought at first. Then, to see all this “bandwagon” mentality seems odd to me.
Somebody tell me what “we” are not doing for the homosexual community that they want “us” as the Church to provide? I may be missing something.
I’ve had more than one opportunity to minister to homosexuals that were in fact in need of food or shelter. When the topic of sexuality came up, I told them clearly what I felt the Scriptures taught, but I did not hold back ministry?
I’d like to know what (short of changing our view on homosexuality) “we” should be doing for the homosexual community. What are they asking for from the church that we are not giving them?
His point about homophobia wasn’t so much about what we’re doing to engage the homosexual community.
His point was based on 1 Corinthians 6, where we actively and openly embrace those into our fellowship who can stand up and claim, “I once was but now I am washed…” and feel the love of the church even if they still struggle.
The problem is (and Mohler’s point here was not that this is true of every church but it seems to be the general attitude of Southern Baptists) we talk (scream?) about the subject in such a way that those coming out of such a lifestyle or dealing with such struggles feel shame upon shame and guilt so they feel they must deal with it secretly and not openly.
Hence our homophobia–we’re afraid to warmly, strongly, and openly embrace those Christians struggling with same-sex desire or a former same-sex lifestyle, and thus we do not show the world the meaning of the Gospel’s transforming work through the family of the church in this circumstance.
Now Frank, maybe your church and where you are at are different, but Mohler’s point very much describes the majority of (southern baptist) churches I’ve seen…
I don’t think he was talking about serving them physically when mentions ministry. I think he is talking about what they all need, which is the gospel. His remarks were nothing about serving them food or clothing. I totally believe Mohler was talking about us getting out there and sharing the gospel with them.
Good grief Frank. How plain do you want it? I’m sure you believe he was off base, I believe he was right on target. He is talking about Grace. Showing Grace as God showed his grace to us. It’s not difficult. And to say we(and I use the collective word we), have not done well in this. We are not going to get anywhere until we as a denomination humble ourselves and admit we have failed in this and other area by being militant to homosexuals. As militant as we say they are. To deny this is to deny the truth.
Debbie,
True to your style you just rant. You never answer any question or offer any substance. As far as I remember, Mohler never mentioned grace once.
If what he said was so clear, then why the discussion. Just make an attempt at answering one of my questions. Or, just move on by.
Remember how you said in another post: “That’s why I NEVER respond to Frank.” OK, don’t respond.
If it is all about grace, tell me where “we” have said otherwise. Frankly, I don’t think you have a clue as to what it means to actually engage the homosexual community. I’m not sure Dr. Mohler has any real field experience in that regard.
Therefore, I asked my questions. I am in the field and I have ministered in the middle of a very large homosexual community in the Bay Area. I’d like to know what more “we” could have done.
What I think you really object to is anybody saying “sin is sin. . . period.” Or, you resent anybody saying “If you persist in choosing your homosexual behavior over surrendering to Christ you will spend eternity in hell.
You are probably also mistaken in believing that most homosexuals actually want what only grace can provide. I’m sure some do, but not most by my experience. What most homosexuals I engage want is “acceptance” of their lifestyle and an assurance that it is indeed compatible with God’s Law. I cannot give that assurance or that acceptance.
So, I don’t think the issue is as clear as you think it is.
I’ve probably wasted my breath on you, but at least I’ve tried to make my position clearer rather than simply attack yours.
Frankly, I don’t think you have a clue as to what it means to actually engage the homosexual community
You are very, very wrong.
Then offer some suggestions or show the rest of “us” where we are doing it all wrong according to Dr. Mohler.
Mohler spoke for me (and the entire SBC) and you are taking up his fight. So, tell me exactly what it is I am doing wrong in ministry involving people who openly embrace the homosexual lifestyle.
I’m open to gaining greater insight.
However, right now I’m going to go to bed.
A man from mars would view the video and wonder exactly why all the rancor, insults, and name calling.
Peter asked a question (OK, it was a looooooooooong time coming). Mohler took the opportunity to give an answer. Reactions seem far out of scale with what I see on the video.
Peter has the right to zero in on public pronouncements of our employees and to ask a question. Mohler is the SBC’s most visible spokesperson on culture issues and he is a big boy capable of articulating a position and defending it. He feels a need to engage in exhortatory rhetoric on the issue.
I am not a Mohler fan, but apart from his, also, wordy response, complete with irrelevant and questionable assertions, he came out ahead in the exchange, with Peter looking like he needed to get back to cleaning his mother’s basement.
Peter, known in the SBC blogosphere, playing gotcha, rambled, did not get to the point forever organizing his words, was called for time. Being a highly educated professional with a serious perspective for one of his theological stripe, he did not present himself or his perspective well. Professional meetings for professional ministers are business casual at the least, not Saturday morning to do list. His presence was as loose as his qustion. In contrast, Mohler, known in the mainstream media, dressed to the nines, having written on the subject a number of times fielded the question like a catcher awaiting an easy pop-up behind the plate. No, it did not help that he caught the ball with his glove behind his back, but given the fence pointing that Peter made when he walked into the batter’s box pretty much invited Mohler’s fanciful response. Mohler was verbose, articulate, on-time, but overly dramatic and questionable. But, in the end, neither person heard the other, nor despite calls for dialogue, there is not likely to be one of much substance. Too much posturing.
BH,
Nice analysis. Very witty. Especially liked the idea of “playing gotcha.” That always looks bad to me. It also backfires as many times as it works it seems to me.
Also liked the “batter’s box” and catcher analogy.
Thanks.
A test of one’s maturity is how we respond to criticism or rebuke.When Paul rebuked Peter as we read in Galatians,Peter never mentioned it again.Even though Peter had been saved longer than Paul,he refused to defend himself or write posts on his blog sight implying that he was a victim and Paul was a bully.This is a lesson that all of us would do well to heed.
There is a distinct difference between saying “homosexuality is a sin that must be laid at the foot of the cross, and saying “homosexuality is the way God made me, hence, it is not sin”. The latter is what the Episcopals and other denominations seem to be embracing. If Baptists seem to be contrary, it is only because we affirm that the scriptures teach the former.
Dr. Mohler is crystal clear that he believes homosexuality is a sin. He did not equivocate. His argument is the ‘way’ we affirm the teaching. To the unbelieving world we come across as mean spirited and self-righteous. Take a look around. I’ve seen so-called Pastors saying that homosexuality is a sin that automatically makes one reprobate and thus deserving of the death penalty. Whether we agree or not, isn’t the issue. The gay community perceives that is our stand.
We can’t seem to make the case that the sin of homosexuality falls under the same grace as lying, stealing, adultery, etc. When we do attempt to teach the whole gospel to homosexuals, people such as Peter Lumpkins sees it as some kind of compromise of the scriptures or perhaps fears that the SBC will go the way of the Episcopals, Presbyterians USA, CofC, etc.
However, let’s be fair. Activist homosexuals are demanding that we stop calling sin, sin. They completely reject the idea that what they are doing is sin. They have made it their mission in life to distort truth in an effort to FORCE people to accept their sexual practices as ‘normal’. So, when we push back to set the scriptural record straight, they aren’t interested in hearing what we have to say. Thus, we can’t get our message out in the way we’d like and we end up falling back to the default position of… homosexuals are evil and surely hell-bound. In effect, we are seen in the same light at the Westboro Vipers. That’s completely untrue, but it is the perception.
Dr. Mohler is completely on target. We aren’t doing a good job. We’ll never be able to improve if the very mention of the word homosexual sends people to their polarizing corners where they plot their next attack.
Finally, if Peter Lumpkins has a better idea, let him make his case instead of, yet again, misrepresenting what others say (with alarming frequency). If he wants to be part of the solution, then I’m sure he is more than capable of doing so.
My 2 centavos.
I believe that a distinction is now being made that did not exist before:
Prior, the word ‘homosexuality’ included those with same-sex attraction AND those with it who ‘acted’ on it,
and called both ‘sin’ equally.
Now, if I am understanding the ‘change’,
people with ‘same-sex attraction’ are not being looked at in the same way as homosexuals who live the lifestyle.
That term, SSA (same-sex attraction) does not have the same implications as the term ‘homosexual’;
and this new perspective (new in the SBC) opens the door for the Southern Baptists to relate to SSA people as members of a Christian Church family, to encourage a chaste life-style if need be.
That’s a big change.
I’m getting it that not all Southern Baptists agree with it, or use the term SSA to distinguish its difference from a ‘homosexual’ who practices the lifestyle.
But the opportunities for ministry to SSA people have opened up for the SBC . . . as I believe it permits them to have an outreach that would have been impossible before when the lock-step perception was that ‘SSA is always chosen’.
Chief,
Far be it from me to go against a fellow sailor, but I kind of disagree with your assertion that the homosexual community believes that all Christians, or even most, believe that homosexuals should be put to death.
That is propaganda from the militant homosexual movement. What I hear many saying on this thread comes right out of their playbook.
Do some preachers come down too hard on homosexuals? Maybe. But, the perception “we” have of the homosexual community is given to us in large part by the homosexual activists.
We must be careful not to play into their hands, while at the same time do all we can for those in this community that are open to our help — which are a minority in a minority.
Frank,
We can agree to disagreee. On most things, I’m quite happy to hear the views of others. I don’t lose any respect for someone who has a different view unless they do it the way Peter Lumpkins proceeds.
I’m loathe to use words like ‘everyone’, ‘all’, ‘never’. Although sometimes I do, I try to avoid it. I don’t think we can accurately lump all homosexuals into one camp, but I think we can tell from the culture, that in general, they do not see their sin as sin. Instead, folks like the Metropolitan church, dismantle scripture, to justify their actions and if they can justify it by their own view of scripture, then they feel that they can rightly say that they are not sinning. I can’t account for what every sinning Christian actually believes.
Militant homosexuals (whether we like it or not, or recognize it or not) are changing the views that many have on homosexuality and it taints every part of the world. For goodness sakes, they are teaching this nonsense to our children in the public schools and the government is standing firmly with the gay community.
Although sin is sin, this particular sin has permeated everything Christians hold dear and our response to it, does make us look like bigots, whether that is our intention or not.
It’s no more fair to label us as bigots as it is for us to say that homosexuals are reprobate. But I stand by my assertion that most probably think we believe they are so far from grace, they they will indeed be falling into the category of Romans 1. I don’t know where the tipping point is.
No matter what they believe about Christians, the Christian community isn’t doing a good job presenting what we actualy believe. It doesn’t help that some of the denominations are playing fast and loose with scripture.
I would guess that Dr. Mohler believes that if we are only reaching a minority of the minority, then we need to do better.
Chief,
Let’s say we agree on Mohler’s point being, “we need to do better.” One, he only stated his case in the negative, “we are all homophobic liars.”
That’s not going to get much done in my way of thinking.
So often leaders point out the problems, but offer little solutions. We disagree perhaps in whether he even got the problems right, but do we agree he did not offer in real solutions?
That’s my beef. Don’t just tell me I’m a “liar and a homophobe.” Give me some clear-cut objectives to march toward.
Frank,
We agree that he didn’t offer any tangible solutions. On the other hand, the setting did not lend itself to a sermon on how to reach the lost homosexual. Mohler articulated that we have a problem and that we need to start dealing with it in a Biblical manner instead of slamming our doors and ignoring the problem to our peril.
Personally, I think that Mohler is correct. On the whole, we’ve not responded well. I didn’t hear Mohler calling me personally a liar or a homophobe. I heard that in a collective sense, we aren’t being completely honest about dealing with this very important issue.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
God Bless
Chief Katie:
Great observations.
I think that the SBC should simply be loyal to Christ and probably not make such a big deal of the issue.
Of course, we have to recognize that evangelicals are usually responding to issues that the homosexual activists and their fellow travelers are pushing. So-called Gay Marriage is the classic example. The activists have a long term strategy that revolves around the courts. Selecting friendly states, bringing test cases, all to subvert popular opinion.
This results, as it should, in some push back, which has been amazingly successful. Every state that has had this issue on the ballot has come out in favor of marriage. Even California.
So, while I wish the issue would die down, that may not be something we can control. And as is the case, we are often forced to deal with the issue.
I frankly don’t think that we can do anything that is going to make the activist community like us. They will respect us more for not trying.
But it is ashamed there is so much polarization.
One thing we can do, however, is speak accurately about the matter, and not venture into things we don’t know.
Mohler did a good job on that front.
For the record, did Mohler say “Every Southern Baptist has lied?” Someone ask Peter this question! Mohler said, “We’ve lied.” Does Peter really want to suggest that Mohler meant every single southern baptist? How ridiculous. How could Mohler know every single Southern Baptist? It’s obvious to anyone, anyone without an agenda, to see that Mohler was making a general, not an exhaustive statement.
Peter, either represent Mohler accurately or be quiet. When you intentionally misrepresent, you do not bring glory to God. When you intentionally misrepresent, you lie.
Jared,
We if not qualified certainly qualified has to include “all,” or at least “most.”
The statement certainly was overly general without any consideration that anybody was doing anything right. I think that is a fair characterization of his statements.
Again, I’ve said, “Peter being wrong does not equate to Mohler being right.” I am only addressing Mohler’s statements that I think were inconsiderate, overly broad, and inaccurate. That made them also incendiary.
I have mispoken in such a way so I cannot be overly harsh on Dr. Mohler personally. We will see how he clarifies or extends his remarks in the days to come.
I do think his response looked a bit arrogant (which I think Mohler has a tendency to look in my opinion), but it may have been because Peter looked so bad.
I just don’t think it was the “best” answer that could have been given.
For the record, did Mohler say “Every Southern Baptist has lied?” Someone ask Peter this question! Mohler said, “We’ve lied.” Does Peter really want to suggest that Mohler meant every single southern baptist? How ridiculous. How could Mohler know every single Southern Baptist? It’s obvious to anyone, anyone without an agenda, to see that Mohler was making a general, not an exhaustive statement.
And if you listen to his response, he didn’t even use the “we” so much in terms of Southern Baptists but in terms of the broader scope of evangelicals.
Of course, those mad he said “we” might be more mad since that’s a “we” inclusive of even more people…but again, its been accurate in my general experience of church life…
Mike:
I’m not sure that Peter is open to questions about his actions. Try posting something that he does not agree with at his blog. He gets really testy and your are very likely to not get published.
Tom… it took me a moment to figure out what you were talking about… that italics part was quoting Jared…
Jared, is that the royal “we”?
)
Seriously, who are the “we” who have lied and been homophobes on this issue?
BTW: Peter has no credibility with me at all…especially since his big defense of Caner’s lies and his attacks on James White who asked “legitimate” questions. I
Lydia, the “we” are the southern baptists that have lied. Those that haven’t lied, the “we” doesn’t apply to them. As a whole however, I believe Mohler’s statement is generally true.
Jared:
I think some are just taking the word “we” as an opportunity to be offended when they have no cause to be.
When Mohler says “we”, does he mean himself, too? if not, then why use “we”?
Who do you think of when he says ‘we’ lied and have been homophobes if it is generally true? See, it gets uncomfortable when we have to back up a general statement. That is why it is unfortuanate he made a general statement concerning a very serious charge.
Is he speaking of Westboro who claim to be Baptists? Wiley Drake who pray imprecatory prayers? Who?
You are suggesting above that those who lied and practiced homophobia know who they are. How can you be so sure?
BTW: Lying and homophobia are serious charges for a believer. I think such serious charges deserve at least one example. Those who are the “we” need repentance that can come from a loving rebuke with clear examples.
We can do better as a group ministering to homosexuals, I agree with that. But Mohler said we have lied and practiced homophobia. Serious charges.
Yes, when Dr. Mohler says we, I believe he is including himself.
If I were Peter, I would say something to the effect that he feels badly that Dr. Mohler has admitted to lying to the public and being a homophobe all these years. I, Peter, have not lied and an am not homophobic, but apparently Dr. Mohler believes otherwise of himself. I will be praying for Dr. Mohler in this regard, and will covet his and others prayers for me in my ministry, as well.
Lydia, First, I’ve seen the homophobia first hand. Others in southern baptist churches have already responded in agreement with Mohler, for they’ve seen the lies and homophobia as well. Even in this comment thread, examples have been given. You can hear those examples or ignore them. Second, Mohler was asked a question that he was not prepared for; expecting specific examples in answering an unplanned question isn’t fair. Also, what if he had pointed to specific churches; do you think that would have been helpful?
Concerning the “lies” and “homophobia,” Mohler explained what he meant by those terms. If you want further clarifications, read his 200+ articles on the subject.
The “we” is a corporate we that is very commonly used. I’m not sure why this is such a mystery. “We” (Southern Baptists) passed a resolution apologizing for our heritage on slavery saying, “That we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27).” Of course, no one believes that every messenger present in 1995 was guilty of racism, but the word “we” was used repeatedly. Mohler did nothing different. Why anyone thinks that because a person or group uses the word “we” means that every individual in the group is implicated is beyond the way every one of us commonly uses language. He should probably be given the same break that “we” give “ourselves.”
Allow me to stir up something a little more…
May I suggest that the people who are now asking for clarification on what Dr. Mohler said, namely the “we have lied” and “we have been homophobic”, because they do not like the idea of Dr. Mohler speaking for them, are acting a bit prideful? People keep saying that as an employee of the SBC, Dr Mohler is open to questions from the floor like what Peter Lumpkins gave him. As an employee and representative of the SBC and one of the SBC seminaries, when Dr. Mohler uses language like “we”, he then is not saying each and every individual and each and every church are, in this case, guilty of lies and homophobia. But rather that the SBC as a whole are guilty of these. Numerous people have come and pointed out that they personally have seen the “lies” and the “homophobia” that Dr. Mohler is referring to, practiced in SBC churches around the country. May I say it is also like racism in the SBC. Most churches are not racists and would have no problem with people of a different ethnic background attending their churches. But to say that ALL SBC chruches are like that would be silly and short-sighted. And I would say that “WE” as an SBC are still struggling with racism and lies related to racism today (though we took a big step this year with the election of Bro. Luter). Likewise I would argue that while most individual churches in the SBC are not guilty of homophobia and lies related to homosexuality, there are a startling amount of churches who ARE guilty of those crimes.
Now back to the “pride”. In stead of getting upset with Dr. Mohler including “you” in his comments about the SBC as a whole, if your church truly is friendly and open to homosexual so as you can help lead them out of their sin, if that is the case why dont you work to help OTHER churches reach the same level of maturity that you have? I contend that puffing yourself up and saying “Look at us, WE are not homophobic” has an aura of pride mixed in. I believe this to be especially true in light of the amount of churches who ARE homophobic and lie about the nature of homosexuality.
To ignore that such homophobia is present in the SBC as a whole would be ignorant to say the least. Thus what Dr. Mohler said, that the SBC as a WHOLE has lied, and has been at times homophobic is true. As a whole we have, just as in the past as a whole the SBC has been racist. Again this does not mean that ALL churches in the SBC are, but rather that there ARE churches, and the SBC as a whole needs to deal with and overcome those churches.
Smuschany,
Also, if southern baptists, including Peter, have NOT lied in the way Mohler suggests, then Mohler was NOT talking about them. It’s a general statement that applies to the guilty parties; and there are many that are guilty in the SBC. I’ve seen it in southern baptist churches first hand, as many others have already shared.
So, now “questioning” and/or wanting clarification of his general statement concerning a very serious charge of sin and lying is the sin of pride? You guys have all the bases covered. Sheesh!
Ok…….. We (the SBC) have been racists and have lied about our hatred for African Americans.
Now, I am not the great Mohler but should I not back that statement up with clear examples? Would it be “prideful” (which is a sin) for you to question what I mean and ask me to clarify and give examples?
Can you come up with clear examples in an extemporaneous speech during a Q/A session like which took place during the convention? Do you expect anyone, Dr. Mohler included to be able to do so at the spur-of-the-moment?
I remember in my Speech/Debate class in Highschool we had to memorize dozens of cases which we could refer to during the debate. But that was only one ONE topic. Each year only dealt with one topic, so we only had to have case studies and references to that specific topic. Dr. Mohler is head of SBTS, has a talk show, goes around the country to speaking engagements. I am sorry, but demanding that he be able to on the fly come up with examples during the convention is a bit too much to ask as he has so much on his plate, so much that he talks about, homophobia in the SBC is just one small part of that.
Furthermore, I again point out that we have multiple people posting on this thread and other threads giving such examples of cases that they have seen where SBC churches have engaged in homophobic behavior.
The “great Al Mohler?” Lydia even when I wrote about Paige Patterson I showed respect by never calling him anything but Dr. Patterson or Paige Patterson. We are Christians first and foremost. Using language like this is not productive nor is it right. It’s cynical and demeaning.
lol
Vol:
Your little lol’s sure get might old at least to me.
lol….wow!
Amen! Thanks for this response.
That amen was for smuschany
Having gone and watched the video and processed a bit, had I known nothing of Peter or Dr. Mohler, I would say that a concerned SBCer asked a clarifying question about statements in a news article to an entity head, received a gracious, Biblical and comprehensive answer to clarify what the quotes had meant, and that the person’s answers were well received by those in attendance. Question clarified, move on.
I typically disagree with about 87% of what Peter writes, but if he was concerned about that quote, he had a right to ask. Why Dr. Mohler’s office hadn’t sent him any replies previously, I don’t know. Unfortunately, Peter was not satisfied with this answer at the Convention and I think it will only get uglier in the weeks ahead.
I do think it’s odd that the “majoritarian grassroots Southern Baptists” who applauded Dr. Mohler’s response are now being accused of being too ignorant to know they’ve been insulted and being viewed as mindless lemmings. Dr. Mohler was clearly speaking in generalities about the poor job we (and myself included) have done to share the good news of the redemption of Jesus for them, apparently people in the audience took it that way, and to continue to suggest otherwise is beyond me.
But Josh, we do know Peter, his articles since this exchange tell the tale well.
To look at this video and not see Peter’s agenda is somewhat denying. Peter’s articles since show exactly why Mohler’s office did not respond to him. Some here have articulated well what Peter does on his blog. It’s not worth responding to Peter Lumpkins on anything.
Josh C:
You said:”Unfortunately, Peter was not satisfied with this answer at the Convention and I think it will only get uglier in the weeks ahead.”
My prediction is Peter will still be blathering about this two months from now even when most of us have moved on.
Peter has the right to ask whatever he wants to ask…as a messenger of the SBC. As an entity head, Dr. Mohler has the responsiblity of answering whatever is asked….
I dont know all the motives of Peter asking the question. I dont know the intent of his heart…only he and God knows that. But, I’m still scratching my head over Dr. Mohler’s meaning about SB’s lying about homosexuality and being homophobes…I dont understand such a blanket statement being made. I could understand if he’d said that some SB’s had been lying about homosexuality…and that some SB’s had been homophobes in the past…but ALL SB’s?????
What’s he talking about?
David
David,
He never said “ALL SB’s.” He said, “we.” Sort-of like when you say, “We’re having church again tonight at 6 so ya’ll be sure and come back this evening.” Then you show up at 6 and see how many are really a part of the “we.” Now, ALL SB’s know that “we,” in that case, doesn’t mean every single person in the group. But you’re not going to change and say, “Now some of you come back tonight,” or even “Now, somewhere around a quarter to a third of you come back this evening,” even though that might be more accurate.
So when so many of us use this sort of language each week I remain mystified as to how you can continue to miss Mohler’s meaning when he does the same thing.
So, it’s okay to make such blanket statements? and, to make them when you’re the leader of an SBC entity?
David
PS. I used to get buried in these blogs whenever I would make such blanket statements….but, I guess if you’re the MOHLER, then you get a pass with some groups of people.
Yes, it’s ok for him to make such statements because he doesn’t mean by it what guys like you and Peter say he means. He’s clarified it already in articles he’s written. Whenever someone asks a guy like Peter his opinion on a subject Peter is more than ready to tell them to go wade through his past posts and find what he’s said. I’ve never heard you object to that. If you would read what Mohler has written you would see that he already has clarified these issues. In fact, I believe he clarified them as recently as an article from October of last year. You guys continuing to say he hasn’t clarified himself and that he needs to are using a double standard (Peter especially). But the problem is you’re just too lazy to go read what Mohler has written before you form an opinion and lay it out there for the world to read.
But in the end, yes, it is ok for Al Mohler to use language in the precise way SBC pastors do every Sunday morning. This is a common way for people to use the American language. It is done on the news, in local social clubs, in our schools and in churches every week. I suspect if you’ve every said to an Alabama football fan, “We’re going to beat you this year,” that you’ve done it yourself (unless you actually suited up and played in the game that year).
Just so you don’t have to do the hard work, here’s a quote from an article where he gets specific about how we’ve lied and how we’ve been homophobic:
Of course, Christians committed to biblical truth will recognize this as a demand to lie to sinners about their sin. The church cannot change its understanding of the sinfulness of homosexual acts unless it willfully disobeys the Scripture and rejects the authority of the Bible to reveal the truth about sin and sinfulness.
In other words, the believing church cannot surrender to the demand that we disobey and reject biblical truth. That much is clear. We cannot lie to persons about the sinfulness of their sin, nor comfort them with falsehood about their moral accountability before God. The rush of the liberal churches and denominations to normalize homosexuality is now a hallmark of their disobedience to the Bible.
But this is not the end of the matter, and we know it. When gay activists accuse conservative Christians of homophobia, they are wrong. Our concern about the sinfulness of homosexuality is not rooted in fear, but in faithfulness to the Bible — and faithfulness means telling the truth.
Yet, when gay activists accuse conservative Christians of homophobia, they are also right. Much of our response to homosexuality is rooted in ignorance and fear. We speak of homosexuals as a particular class of especially depraved sinners and we lie about how homosexuals experience their own struggle. Far too many evangelical pastors talk about sexual orientation with a crude dismissal or with glib assurances that gay persons simply choose to be gay. While most evangelicals know that the Bible condemns homosexuality, far too many find comfort in their own moralism, consigning homosexuals to a theological or moral category all their own.
So, to clarify: 1) we lie by talking about homosexuality as if it were only a matter of choice. and 2) we are homophobic when we consign homosexuals to a theological or moral category all their own or speak of them as an especially depraved class of sinners.
Now, plenty of people here in this thread have given plenty of anecdotal evidence. If you’re really asking Dr. Mohler to list every example he’s ever seen then you are simply being unreasonable. I’m not saying that every Southern Baptist is a liar and homophobic nor that every one of us claims that homosexuality is nothing more than a choice and places homosexuals in their own category. Neither is Al Mohler. But when most of us could probably come up with our own stories and examples I think it is sufficient to warrant the use of “we.”
For clarification, I guess the quote tag doesn’t work, so paragraphs 2 – 5 should be in quotation marks. A link to the full article can be found here.
Debbie,
Just for the record, I have said I don’t think Peter’s motives were as pure as they sounded.
For the record, I don’t think Dr. Mohler is without his agenda.
This a problem we have as a body of believers: trying to escape our egocentric predicament. It affects us all.
Frank, how dare you say “It affects US all.” Speak for yourself
. How dare you group every single southern baptist into your “egocentric predicament.” Just how has each and every southern baptist revealed their “egocentric predicament”? Give examples for every southern baptist on earth!
Jared,
But the difference: “I’m right”
The Bible says “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God”.
What do you mean using the word all. I haven’t sinned. I have been good, I call others to repent from sin, but not me. I am not a sinner who has come short of the glory of God. Man…the nerve and it is not helpful to pain with so broad a brush.
This exchange merely amplifies why I stopped reading Peter’s blog years ago and why I continue to read Mohler’s consistently.
“This exchange merely amplifies why I stopped reading Peter’s blog years ago and why I continue to read Mohler’s consistently.”
I am not a follower of either one of them. Nor a fan of either.
I think this becomes a problem when discussing these issues…people tend to have sides (issues) or leaders they support or sides they cannot stand so they have a hard time seeing the nuances and problems on either side of the issues/personalities. Some want to defend Mohler and others want to get Peter. It only clouds the deeper problems:
1. Yes Peter is allowed to ask a question from the floor. The peasants are allowed to ask dumb questions. Several times if they want…year after year.
2. His question had some good points even though Peter is tiresome and does some of the same things he accuses Mohler of doing to others. such as his intimidation of people over Caner and his attacks on James White.
3. Mohler gave a brilliant answer that had litte to do with the original question. (An astute political strategy…change the focus of the question and make it what you want it to be about)
And finally, what is up with Jonathan Merritt, the Younger Merritt. Isn’t he the young guy that had that environmental manifesto for the SBC he got some big wigs to sign before it was presented to the convention? And that did not go over wel with some people in the SBC?
So, Mohler gave him an interview. Anyone know the backstory? Seeing the original interview might help. Does MOhler give examples of our mass lying and homophobia in that interview?
My respect for the one and not the other has less to do with the content of their positions than it does the demeanor of their approach (both on the blogosphere and in person).
Mohler tackles issues head on, but he does so in a matter that shows respect for his opponents. For this reason, I enjoy hearing his position on a whole host of issues, even on those that I disagree. As for Peter, watch the video again and then read his blog and I’ll let you come to your own opinion of his contributions.
Lydia:
Good question about Merritt the Younger. Don’t know him. But the only referenced to him are this bit and the environmental bit.
Sounds like a young guy with a megaphone who keeps stepping in it.
I hope the younger crowd in the SBC isn’t looking to him for steady, consistent leadership.
2 swings, 2 misses from where I sit.
Louis:
You said –Merritt the Younger–”Don’t know him. But the only referenced to him are this bit and the environmental bit.”
Sounds like a young guy with a megaphone who keeps stepping in it.
I hope the younger crowd in the SBC isn’t looking to him for steady, consistent leadership.
2 swings, 2 misses from where I sit.”
Wow!–with so little knowledge of a christian brother you basically write him off.
That does not seem very charitable of you.
Tom:
Good point.
ALL I know about him is his foray into these 2 matters.
I suspect that if and when I get to know him and hear him say more, there will be a lot of good things to say.
If Dr. Mohler addresses or clarifies his remarks, he will continue to be castigated by many and every word “scrutinized.” Thanks Debbie for your remarks about showing respect.
“Can you come up with clear examples in an extemporaneous speech during a Q/A session like which took place during the convention? Do you expect anyone, Dr. Mohler included to be able to do so at the spur-of-the-moment? ”
First, I think Mohler was expecting the question and secondly, I think he totally ignored the “liar and homophobe” part on purpose.
I certainly hope that if I ever claim a group are liars and homophobes that I have clear examples to share before I dare say it.
He could have said, my vote to Boycott Disney is an example of my own past homophobia. Or something to that effect. He might have been thinking of Disney when he made the homophobia statement. And he would be right…it was ridiculous.
Blowing this off as well, “we all sin” so it is wrong to expect examples FROM Mohler (not this thread) when he says we are liars and homophobes is about the most pedantic argument I have heard yet on many levels. And from pastors!
Not the least of which is how do we repent if we do not know exactly what we have lied about and been homophobic about…. according to Mohler?
Lydia: First of all it was at the Convention which is allotted so much time for any one person. Al Mohler’s statement was given using the exact amount of time. It wouldn’t matter if he knew the question was coming, doesn’t matter at all. His answer was great. You already know of an example with the Disney boycott, so do most other Southern Baptists. You answered your own question so no example was necessary. We don’t need examples, if we are honest and look at ourselves in that way, we already know the examples.
Debbie:
Peter has attended many SBC conventions so he knew well how the Q & A works. No surprises in what happened. He asked the Q and Dr. Mohler gave the A.
I will go so far as to say that Al Mohler and his office may not have answered Peter’s question in order for him to bring it as a question on the floor of the Convention. I knew he would do that, I’m sure Dr. Mohler is much smarter than I.
By “he” I mean Peter. I knew that was going to be Peter’s next move. So predictable.
Debbie:
Maybe it can be said that Peter got outsmarted on this one. Maybe after all is said and done he will learn something from all of this.
We–there is that word again–can hope that for Peter.
Peter Lumpkins is a provoker. He has been a past master of the slap and slide, making outrageous, unfair statements and then sliding away from them. He is not interested in dialog. He does not seem to have a track record of accomplishment.
We should not allow him to put anyone on trial or to dominate our conversations.
That was the collective we, not the imperial one.
Good point Peaches, P-Lump is a “master of the slap and slide”.
Is this the a quality/attribute that we as Southern Baptist should admire, encourage, and even tolerate in those who serve as pastors among us? I think not.
To take someones words and twist them in an attempt to make it appear to others that they support, or hold a position, that they do in fact not hold… is to bring a “False Accusation” against a Brother in Christ. Is this what P-Lump has done?
After reading his comments and the comments of some of those posting on his blogs I believe that he has. That is just my personal opinion on this issue, you may disagree if you wish… But in my opinion this conduct should be rejected and censured by all Southern Baptist as shameful and unacceptable.
Just my opinion,
Could we not use the “P-Lump” designation? Peter is a public figure and has made himself so. I think that discussing his opinions and actions is fair game.
But whatever anyone thinks of Peter, let us use his name, Peter Lumpkins.
Okay?
On an unrelated topic: I hate the tweets on the sidebar. The heretofore best additional feature of Voices was being able to see recent comments as soon as the page loads.
Thanks Dave,
One of the things that troubles me in the blogging world is the overall lack of respect for people. We can all be guilty of it from time to time. I appreciate the reminder.
Dave,
I agree too. Thanks.
David R. Brumbelow
May I ask a question? If in this discussion you could substitute “pedophilia” for homosexuality and “child molestor” for homosexual, would we be having the same reactions and if not, why not?
Wouldn’t that be like failing to see a difference between adultery and rape?
I think, David, that yours is a genuinely misplaced comparison.
I do not intend a comparison, other than to draw attention to the fact they are both sexualized sins and elicit different levels of reactions. Some sins are worse than others, some sins contradict “nature” the Apostle Paul said. My question is meant to make us think logically about the charges of “phobia” and the challenge of “welcoming” sinners.
Good question. I think the answer is “yes,” we would have the same reactions. I would think that to be honest and fair with scripture, all sins have at their root desires that are self-centered (idolatry) and not God-centered.
That means that what one person sinfully desires may not be the same sinful desire of another: some are gossips, some are liars, some are blasphemers, some are fornicators (I believe that homosexuals and pedophiles are sub-sets of fornication), some are drunkards (drug abuse is a sub-set of this, being that both are destructive), etc.
Either all sins originate in our sinfully disjointed and corrupted flesh and nature (not an excuse, just a diagnosis) and can only be corrected/cleansed by Jesus OR all of them are just random choices with no original source.
Buchanan,
And some are Willful Slanders of Christine Brethren…
David Pitman,
Have you read ‘A Queer thing happened to America’ by Dr. Michael Brown? In the book he shows that the arguments for normalizing homosexuality are now being used to normalize ‘intergenerational love’!!!! Pedophilia by any other name.
Your question is fair since the tactics being used are exactly the same. It’s also why those in the homosexual community will not consider answering any questions about pedophilia. They know all too well that we see the slippery slope of denying that sin is indeed sin. Both homosexuals and pedophiles claim they are born that way.
Total depravity, aye!
Chief,
Thanks for the update. This is why I am so concerned that Dr. Mohler’s statements play right into the homosexual agenda. I know that is certainly not his intent (as far as I can know someone else’s heart).
Total Depravity, for sure.
Frank,
“This is why I am so concerned that Dr. Mohler’s statements play right into the homosexual agenda.” (SLAP)
“I know that is certainly not his intent (as far as I can know someone else’s heart).” (SLIDE)
Did you learn this from __________?
Good point. I do know that we encounter legal complications when convicted child molesters want to attend church services where children are present. I am not suggesting that we do not witness to them or welcome them into the family of God if they are saved. I know that parents and grandparents of children who have been sexually molested are very protective of those children and very careful about accepting former child molestors into their neighborhoods and churches. I know the children also have a difficult future ahead of them; grace saves indeed but sin’s scars can linger in this life. I think pedophilia still generates outrage from most communities.
Well, where Al Mohler has worked tirelessly to bring this issue to the forefront for discussion and possibly begin the turning of the ship in regards to how we minister to and interact with homosexuals, Peter has now sabotaged that effort and is trying to make this into an issue of institutional intimidation and strong armed tactics.
Nevermind that he was gladly on the side of the intimidation tactics when it was something he agreed with last year…
Mohler wants this to be something out there and discussed. So now, instead of us taking a long hard look at just how we’ve interacted with homosexuals, we’re now parsing words like “we”, “us”, “lied” and many other simple words.
And guys, let us not forget that at the convention, everything is “world class”, “trend setting”, “vanguard”, “cutting edge”, “hard hitting” or any other word that is demonstrably hyperbole or designed to get a reaction. Mohler used those words intentionally to catapult ministering to homosexuals into the collective consciousness of the convention. Now, with a second rate blogger, we’re looking at something that really isn’t there rather than a relevant issue staring at us in the face.
Bill,
Thank you for your insight.
I simply disagree with it.
Frank,
Okay, where do you disagree with me and let’s talk about it. I’m very open to debate here and I do love interacting with you since you do often present very well reasoned responses.
Thanks,
Bill
Bill,
My big disagreement with Mohler’s words are that they have not basis in fact–at least no fact offered by Mohler.
He did not substantiate his claim to widespread homophobia among the pastors and people of the SBC. Is there any instance of such? I believe there most certainly is, but it is certainly not limited to the SBC. For years, the public in general rejected the militant homosexual agenda–but not anymore. So, I think Mohler has been overly influenced by the homosexual propaganda machine. That is my perception and opinion from what he said in that one speech at the convention.
Secondly, his use of the word “lie” is problematic for me when juxtaposed with the idea of “choice.” Where is the lie? There is no evidence that homosexual behavior is anything less than a choice. Recall, he made no distinction between addressing homosexual temptation (not in itself a sin) and homosexual practice. So, at the very least he was imprecise in his speech (which was something less than impromptu in my opinion).
Thirdly, his lack of precision in regard to “choice” and “sin” can be interpreted many different ways–and most certainly will be used by the militant homosexual lobby. I do not think Mohler believes that even a “gay gene” justifies homosexual behavior, but his lack of precision will certainly be used by the militant homosexual lobby to promote that part of their agenda.
Mohler’s speech was not “impromptu.” He had been forewarned by Peter (even if unintentionally) that the question could come up. It did, and Mohler was loaded for bear.
Therefore, I would expect that Mohler would have at least tried to be a bit more precise; or, it is possible, Mohler believes something other than what everyone seems to think he believes.
His lack of precision and incendiary language make it a problematic speech for me.
Now, I agree with you and others that it does open a dialogue that I think can be helpful in reminding us all to choose carefully how we preach about this issue.
Every Sunday I have a mother of a practicing homosexual sitting near the front when I preach. She is not a believer and she is a constant reminder that I must address this issue with both “grace” and “truth” mixed with a large portion of “love.”
I’m willing to walk that tight rope and I try to be very precise in my preaching when the issue comes up.
I have not read the volume of articles written by Mohler (I’m into double digits now) so I don’t know what criteria would be in place to call homophobia or practicing homophobia as a convention would be or look like. I could only go anecdotal in my own experience but like you apparently, I’m also very close to a situation where it can affect unbelievers. However, if we were allowed to use anecdotal evidence, I could certainly fire off some stories where I’ve seen “You’re going to hell, don’t talk to me.” used more often than “You’re going to hell because of your sin. Let me tell you why I was going to hell as well…” I would imagine that this is probably what some of the homophobia Mohler is talking about within the convention. I’m open to being wrong in my conclusion, but that’s where I’m at right now.
As for the word “lie” being used at the convention, I’m dealing with that one too. Allow me to get back on this one because though I’m uncomfortable with using that word, I’m inclined to tie that into my first point and what I perceive to be horrible methodology in sharing the gospel with homosexuals.
As for your third point, I’m operating under the assumption that Mohler is expecting people to peruse his articles on homosexuality rather than his response to a question at the convention. I would imagine that given just a few minutes to answer this type of question would invite some broad strokes in the response. I would be willing to concede that he could have been precise, but I’m betting that he’s banking on people reading his body of work now too. Even if he was forewarned, I highly doubt that Peter Lumpkins emailed his question is its final form so he could formulate the proper response.
As for incendiary language, it’s the convention, incendiary language is the rule, not the exception. Well, in my opinion it is the rule.
And thank you for sharing your desire to be sensitive in your preaching, please know that I’ll be praying that God grant you wisdom there. I trust that you had a good weekend and tried to stay cool.
Bill,
Thanks for your response. I don’t have any major issues with what you said. I still think Dr. Mohler was “more than ready” to answer Peter’s accusation.
He was as precise as he wanted to be, in my opinion, and it was not very precise. It certainly was not the “height of statesmanship and erudition” some of assessed it to be.
If his point was to change the minds of the Convention, I think he probably failed. If his point was to rebuke a small segment of the Convention guilty of what he asserted, I think he failed to distinguish that group enough. If he wished to give ammo to the militant homosexual lobby — he probably succeeded.
That’s how I see it. It is just my opinion. I’m not planning to mention it in my sermons. It will be what it will be.
Those that love Mohler and sit to catch every word that drips from his mouth, will be fired up. Those that already suspect Mohler is “not one of us,” will probably be fired up as well.
For me . . . I think I’ll yawn and enjoy a beautiful, sunny day.
Frank,
Please explain the following comment you made…
“Those that already suspect Mohler is “not one of us,”
EXCUSE ME!
Alford,
This is hardly a statement worth making a big deal out of because as a diverse group, I’m pretty sure it’d be impossible not to have some group in the Southern Baptist Convention hacked off at you. It’s the danger of being a public figure. I read this statement and really thought nothing inflammatory about it. Go try to incite Frank somewhere else.
Bill,
I have gotten after Dr. Patterson pretty hard on the blogs in the past over one thing or another… BUT, I NEVER accused him of “NOT BEING ONE OF US”.
That is the sort of ABSURD statements that keep coming from Frank and the gang, and they are starting to wear a little thin with me…
It is really unfair and unchristian to bash Peter Lumpkins here. The anonymous commenter above, Peaches, who assailed Peter for lack of accomplishment should identify him/herself.
Agree or disagree, Peter Lumpkins puts his name on what he writes. Wade Burleson put his name on his criticism of PL, as did most others. It is the cheapest of cheapshots to have an anonymous commenter take a gratuitous slap at Peter.
I recognize that Dave Miller and others here attempt to moderate conversations and appreciate that.
This whole issue is being blown out of proportion by those who wish to make an issue where there is none. I was there in Phoenix, and I have watched the video over again (2x) to be sure about how I feel about the exchange. Mr. Lumpkins asked a legitimate question. He was not disrespectful and did not appear to be driven by an agenda. He praised Dr. Mohler and respected the decorum of the convention and its rules. He was not at all out of order. Dr. Mohler answered his question. His answer was respectful and on-target. I think he sought to address the issue that Mr. Lumpkins raised and articulate a well-rounded response that left no question in the minds of the messengers. Was Dr. Mohler passionate? Of course he was, and it is likely that passion that has led some to assume that he was “out of line” or “angry” in his response. I disagree. I have been a student at SBTS since 2002 (first as MDiv student, now as a PHD candidate) and have heard Dr. Mohler address perhaps hundreds of issues and he often does so with passion similar to that displayed in PHX. I thank God for his passion and intensity as he speaks the truth in a hostile world. He ended charitably and with decorum and with a smile on his face. I just don’t think there is a real story here.
The real story, if there is one, should be the unnecessary string of tweets that followed in which some attempted to make this into a “confrontation” or “battle” when that wasn’t necessary. I knew when I was in that convention hall (as I do every year) that every one of those messengers at the convention were my brethren (and sisters of course). We may disagree on some issues (my own wife disagrees with me on a host of issues!) but we are drawn together by our love for the Lord Jesus Christ, His gospel, the BFM, and our love for the SBC. We need to put an end to this “us -vs- them” mentality that is on the rise in the SBC. Tweets and comments pitting brethren against each other, while they may get some laughs, are not helpful. We are fulfilling the prophecy set forth by the moderates that left the SBC years ago when they predicted that conservatives would turn on one another once the “liberals” were gone. We have the potential and momentum to accomplish some great things for the glory of Christ and his gospel if we will just work together and overlook the fact that while we may not be all just alike, we can work together for God’s glory through our convention. There are no real, true “liberals” left at the SBC annual meeting and the things that are dividing us now are petty, regional, secondary, and semantic.
I am thankful for Mr. Lumpkins asking the question. I am glad that we have a system whereby we can hold one another accountable. And I am glad for Dr. Mohler’s response, through which he made his position more clear. I pray that, perhaps through a phone-call or an email, reconciliation might be made (if it is necessary) between the parties involved. However, I don’t think there is really a story here.
Now, can we exert half as much energy to reaching our neighbors and the nations as we have on this (and so many other) silly distraction?
Terry Leap:
You said:”However, I don’t think there is really a story here.”
Uh, Peter Lumpkins is on his I believe 5th blog topic related to this item.
Ad nasuem seems to be Mr. Lumpkins mantra.
Well, the exchanges could be worse i.e. Peter exposed? Thoughts? http://t.co/uG1mPMp
Mark:
I glanced through these items pretty quickly and it is the Mr. Lumpkins I know in action.
He deserves to be exposed.
AMEN Tom… AMEN!
Okay, Tom, we get it. You don’t like Peter. Let’s discuss the issue, not Peter’s personality.
Dave:
Where did I say anything about Peter’s personality?
You said:”You don’t like Peter.”
How do you know that I do not like Peter?
Peter Lumpkins has been blogging for a long time and the flavor of his posts can be determined by just reading a few of them.
I’m upset that the SBC was trying to find some unity at the 2011 SBC convention and Mr. Lumpkins has attempted to derail this.
I am just trying to encourage people to keep their comments focused on the issue of our response toward homosexuals, and not on Peter Lumpkins.
Can you help me with that?
Dave:
Sure.
Norm: Concerning the Lumpkins-Mohler dialogue, did you enjoy taking a shot at me, William, at BL, thus leaving me no way to respond? Encounter me here, brother, where I can respond. You might learn that there is a literature behind said observations.
If it is questionable for one to make comments anonymously as you have asserted in this thread, then it is just as concerning to question one in a forum in which the one has no way to respond.
Norm, what are you talking about?
Norm: Dave, our friend William criticizes those that post without using their names, thus attenuating accountability, as he would suggest, but on the other hand, he has taken a shot at me concerning this thread’s contents on a forum in which I am unable to reply. In the scheme of things this is not very important, but it is the only way I have of stating, “OK, but I have the measure of your words.”
Sorry for the bother.
Sorry for the bother.
Well, you are a bother so it’s good that you are willing to apologize. My question is: How are you not able to get onto Baptist Life? Someone of your theological persuasion would be welcomed and embraced there. You’d fit right in with that ilk.
Joe B:
You said to Norm:”My question is: How are you not able to get onto Baptist Life? Someone of your theological persuasion would be welcomed and embraced there. You’d fit right in with that ilk.”
Why the use of the word ilk?
Why the constant name calling of others?
How do you know the theological persuasion of someone else? As someone recently said on this blog:”t’s amazing to me that someone can judge another’s motives and intentions, when they’re not God.”
Why the use of the word ilk?
I like the sound of it. It sounds filthy which, when you’re talking about a moderate or a liberal, is fitting.
Why the constant name calling of others?
Ah, yes, but you’re so respectful of everybody. If only we could be more like you.
How do you know the theological persuasion of someone else?
By reading what he has written on mulitple blogs over the years.
Norm, I mentioned that some had even criticized PL for his attire but I had forgotten it was you who did such.
Since you reminded me, if you wish to email me your explanation for that criticism, I will happily post it in that other place where you cannot respond.
William,
“I mentioned that some had even criticized PL for his attire…”
______ _________ looked like he had come off a Three Day Binge! I mean really! watch the video, ______ ________ looks ROUGH.
This is actually the only post I really understood. Well done, William.
wow, now we’re gonna put down a man for his clothes….
David,
Watch the video… It’s not just his cloths…
I’m trying to be generous here, but honestly ______ _________ looks like he just rolled out of bed.
I honestly don’t understand the slaps over the man’s dress and appearance. Is this what we are to expect of each other?
Someone call up Stacey and Clinton. Maybe Nick Arojo can help out too. (/sarcasm)
I don’t think anybody there could be accused of having too much fashion sense.
End of discussion of Peter’s appearance. I have never been mistaken for Tom Selleck (age-dating myself here, I guess).
Some church history describes the Apostle Paul in the most unflattering terms – he had something to say.
Last warning to all.
Sorry Dave, I meant no offence…
http://gritsgrace.blogspot.com/2011/06/dr-mohler-vs-peter-lumpkins-do-cloths.html
It’s amazing to me that someone can judge another’s motives and intentions, when they’re not God.
David
David:
You said:”It’s amazing to me that someone can judge another’s motives and intentions, when they’re not God.”
That’s just silly.
So, Tom, you think you’re qualified to judge the intentions and motives of others? I thought only the Holy Spirit could do that.
I dont think you’re name is Holy Spirit…is it?
David
PS. I can judge others actions….I can see them…hear them. I can judge whether someone is a false teacher, or not…by the things they say and do. I can judge whether a person is walking with God, or not…by the fruit they’re bearing…but, how can I see into the heart of a man, and judge what his motives and intentions are? I can see that….
that last line should read…”I CANT see that…”
LOL
Greg,
What’s so funny?
David,
Never mind me… I’m just enjoying the view…
Greg:
I am LOL this morning too with Vol up to his usual protocol.
Vol:
Thanks for providing the humor I needed this morning.
I agree wholeheartedly. Now please go and post this on Peter Lumpkins’ blog as often as you find him doing it. Better get started soon – it might take months or even years to post them all.
[Like]
I think if some of yall truly want to see Peter’s motives, then you should read his new post..over at his place.
David
But how can we TRULY know a man’s motives? We are not God.
Let me see if I can decipher this:
If you agree with someone, you can truly know their motives.
If you disagree with someone, you cannot truly know their motives.
I hope you can see the inconsistency of your argument.
You can READ motive and intent. You can HEAR motive and intent. Look at HOW someone asks a question. Listen to where they place emphasis. Understand the context from which someone asks a question – and then their tone when asking a question. Motive can be obvious at times. It is untrue to say that man cannot rightly determine another man’s motives. That is simply untrue.
Jason,
Obviously, many in this comment thread have misread Peter’s motives for asking Dr. Mohler this question. Have you read his latest post?
And, I can judge anothers words and actions….yes. I can see that. I can hear what they say. But, for example, when I put my offering in the plate on Sunday….can you really judge whether I’m doing it as praise to the Lord, cheerfully, willingly; or that I’m doing it to just show off to people…to show them that I’m a big shot, putting an offering in the plate? Listen, all you can do is see that I’ve put an offering in the plate. Only God and I know WHY I put the offering in the plate. Only God and I know my motives and intent.
It’s the same with Peter’s question. Now, you can say that you think he had impure motives….trying to “get” Dr. Mohler. You could say that you suspect it. Just like I suspect that that fella, who asked Dr. Akin about Calvinism was a set up deal, but I dont know. I cant know. Unless, I have strong evidence from a reliable source. Because, I’m not God. I cant look down into the heart of that young man, who asked Dr. Akin that question. I cant look down into the heart of Dr. Akin to see if he had really set that up, or not. I dont know.
Do you see the difference?
David
Yes, I see what you are saying. But I don’t fully agree.
I think you are right that it is hard to determine someone’s GOOD motives. But not impossible.
It is not always hard to determine someone’s BAD motives. Though it sometimes is.
For example, I can tell the difference between when one of my sons gives a toy to his brother because he wants to do so and when he is told to do so. Same action: giving of a toy. Different motive: desire to love, required out of obedience. His motivation is all over his face. It is in his words. It is in his tone.
Yes, it is true that he cannot always know motivation. Yes, it is true we may not ever know perfectly. But it is NOT true that we are unable to discern motivation simply because we are not God.
Vol:
One last question of you as I’m sure your are busy. How many Blog topics do you think Peter can get out of his question he asked of Dr. Mohler?
who cares? what does it really matter? It’s his blog…he can do what he wants to with it.
Which is real funny coming from you when bloggers were making very well informed accusations against Caner, you were among the most vocal critics of those bloggers.
PLEASE, let’s not open that Caner-worms, folks!
I think this comment stream has reached a point of no return. Unless someone says something productive and insightful pretty soon, I will feel it necessary to shut down the comments on this post.
Either address the exchange between Lumpkins and Mohler or move on. This is not the place to wage our personal wars.
Well, when you have the most polarizing blogsite owner taking on one of the most polarizing figures in the Southern Baptist Convention, then what do you expect to happen?
Besides, it’s not hard to discern that this most polarizing blogsite owner happens to be one who has flung far too many rocks in a glass house that past grievances are going to come flying to the surface.
Shut this thread down. We’ve given him enough free publicity.
Dave Miller:
I will try and ask something insightful. What do you believe will be the results of the Q & A between Dr. Mohler and Peter Lumpkins?
Will this pass away into the night or will this be long and drawn out?
Tom, as I have said above, I think the church’s response to homosexuality and to homosexuals is one of the key issues of our day.
Most have gone in one of two directions. There are churches/denoms/etc that have denied the clear teaching of scripture and have said that homosexuality is not a sin, but an acceptable lifestyle. When I was in Boston recently, there were little rainbows on many church doors, designating them as culturally-acceptable “welcoming and affirming” churches. They deny God to please culture – an affirmation approach.
Many conservative churches have gone the other direction and in my mind at least, the idea that there has been homophobia in the conservative church should not be debated. Every one of us denies it, but it has been a reality. We have treated homosexuality as a separate class of sin and have treated homosexuals with disdain and ridicule – a condemnation approach.
I am hoping that new middle ground can emerge in which we hold the line on the sinfulness of the conduct while also welcoming and affirming homosexuals as people. I see this as a gospel-centered approach.
My hope is that the gospel-centered approach will win out over both the affirmation approach and the condemnation approach.
Dave . . . I’m really late to this party and you may well have shut down the comments. As you said, it gets a little old.
I did want to say that the response we received in the Dare To Care exhibit at the SBC Convention showed an increased desire on the part of Messengers to cut through all the cultural clatter and come to Biblical conclusions regarding not just homosexuality but brotherhood and the command to love each other as people made in the image of God, regardless of the sexual issues thrust upon us through contact with the world.
Homophobia is a difficult word to use and is used poorly by both sides. While we may have reasons to fear some of the cultural changes thrust upon us by homosexual activists, there is no more reason to fear a homosexual as there is to fear each other. We’re all way off course somewhere in our lives. The church has mis-stepped on this issue and has done so from the position of guidance. We’ve taken a particular sin — forgivable and redeemable — and elevated it in our minds as being something God cannot somehow handle of we walk alongside the person who struggles with it.
I am convinced from my interactions at the SBC Convention in Phoenix, that the compassion meter is rising without compromising truth. I think Mohler probably sees that and Lumpkins probably wishes it and may yet experience it.
My wife enjoyed meeting the fellas at the Dare to Care exhibit. We had a very good conversation with the ones, who were there, when we came by.
I’ve tried to lead my church to be more accepting of reaching out to gays and lesbians. I’ve made the statement many times that I wish that every gay and lesbian in our county would come to our church next Sunday and sit in the front. I’ve told them that I also wish that every drug addict and drunk would come, as well. I’ve tried to lead my people to love homosexual people.
I also preach that homosexuality is a sin against God, just as adultery and fornication and drunkeness are sins against God.
Peter Lumpkins would probably agree with what I just said above 100%.
I agree with what Mohler said…about 99%….which Peter would agree, too. But, what we could not understand is Dr. Mohler saying that the SBC has “lied,” and has been “homophobic.” My question is….when did the SBC lie about homosexuality? and, when was it homophobic?
I love you in the Lord, Bro….and, I appreciate yall’s ministry.
David
David,
How comfortable would most people in SBC churches be with open homosexuals coming to their churches? How would they respond toward them? How do people in churches discuss homosexuals? In a loving and caring way – or a mocking tone?
Obviously, we are speaking in generalities…but how do most believers (most SBC people) talk and respond to homosexuals? Not “in theory” but “in reality”?
BTW, Mohler explained precisely what he meant when he said that we (SBC, and other believers) have lied about homosexuality. He said we have taught a “half-truth” about the nature of homosexuality saying that it is “merely a choice” when it is clear it is more deep-rooted than “merely a choice”.
We have spoken a “half-truth”….which in most people’s understanding is a lie.
Maybe we can call it a “factual statement that is self-contradictory”…then we can all KNOW it is a lie, but we can pretend like it isn’t.
Jason,
The problem I have with Mohler’s words, is that he’s saying that the SBC has lied….how has the SBC lied? Where did we lie? When did we lie? How did we lie?
How were SB’s homophobic?
Now, if he’d said that a lot of SB’s had lied…or, that a lot of SB’s were homophobic…then, I would’ve amen-ed everything that Dr. Mohler said.
But, he didnt.
David
PS. But, even though other factors might lead someone down that path..to homosexuality….it’s still ultimately a choice.
Obviously he was speaking in generalities when he said the SBC. Obviously he did not man every single one of us. You know that. You know he was speaking in generalities. you know he was speaking of the overall tone and position from the majority of Christians and majority of churches and a majority of the SBC people and churches. General statement. He said “we as the SBC”, including himself, in the generality…this is a pretty obvious one.
Come on, man.
You may wish he said something different…but you KNOW what he was saying….and I think you KNOW what he is saying is true.
PS – Yes! Totally true. Mohler has not and will not deny it is a choice. That is why it is ignorant for people to spin it that way. He simply said it is more complex than JUST that.
PS2 – You didn’t respond to my questions raised about how your church or the majority of churches respond to homosexuals. I would love to get your thoughts.
This is the crux of the matter: Will the SBC fight to keep as its foundational doctrine regarding homosexuality, the notion that homosexuals simply and freely chose their same-sex attraction, or will they come around to the idea that same-sex attraction is something far more complex, possibly stemming from developmental experiences that we may never be able to pinpoint.
Adherents of the former seem to be presupposing a false dichotomy: Either same sex attraction is freely and consciously “chosen” or else it is a genetic condition. Since they have, a priori, rejected the latter, the former is the only option. They see no middle ground.
I think the idea that Mohler is embracing the gay-gene hypothesis is deliberate misrepresentation. He has done no such thing. What he has done, wisely I think, is preemptively stake out a position that EVEN if scientists discover some type of genetic predisposition to homosexuality, that the bible’s clear prohibition of homosexual intimacy remains intact.
Bill,
“I think the idea that Mohler is embracing the gay-gene hypothesis is deliberate misrepresentation. He has done no such thing.”
I think you are absolutely correct here… What is sad is that there appear to be no consequences to deliberate misrepresentation in the SBC???
Bill Mac wrote: “Adherents of the former seem to be presupposing a false dichotomy: Either same sex attraction is freely and consciously “chosen” or else it is a genetic condition. Since they have, a priori, rejected the latter, the former is the only option. They see no middle ground.
I think the idea that Mohler is embracing the gay-gene hypothesis is deliberate misrepresentation. He has done no such thing. What he has done, wisely I think, is preemptively stake out a position that EVEN if scientists discover some type of genetic predisposition to homosexuality, that the bible’s clear prohibition of homosexual intimacy remains intact.”
Right on.
This is a complex issue. Mohler, in his typical fashion, has addressed it in a very complex way. But many people cannot think through those complexities, so they react against a strawman, and tear it to shreds…never really touching on the real issues.
This can be seen in the Lumpkins’ blog posts and in the comments of some on this site.
It is why I said the key is on how Mohler explains the word “merely” when he said it is “not merely a matter of choice” (paraphrase). He did not say, as some erroneously charged, that it was not a choice. He said it wasn’t merely a choice. That is a huge issue. When I brought that up, one commentator on the comment stream said I was picking it apart too much. I think that person is unable to understand Mohler’s argument (and maybe basic logic – considering that is a huge qualifying term). He also qualified his use of the term “homophobia” by saying “a FORM of homophobia”. His explanation of that form of homophobia is key. Again, he has written extensively on the subject…it isn’t hard to find out what he means. If you REALLy want to know his views on the issue.
Complex issue. Mohler’s view is careful and precise, and deserves consideration. Unfortunately, the knee jerk reaction has been uninformed and overwhelming.
Anyone read the ‘Manifesto’ by John Shelby Spong concerning homosexuality?
http://secure.agoramedia.com/spong/34674.asp
His disdain of the gospel shines through and through. But we can’t expect anything different from a man who claims the Apostle Paul was a homosexual!
I bring this up, because this is the mentality that we are clearly set apart from. The problem is of course, that we will not abandon the clear teaching of scripture. Nor… will we ‘read into’ scripture what the Episcopals, Presbyterians USA), Methodists, etc have. These denominations, at least in my mind, have abandoned scripture to make an attempt at being politically correct. It seems they delight in trying to make us look like bigots.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself. I know that there are certain sins in my life that I am constantly trying to overcome. Was I born this way? No doubt I was. But I don’t try to change the teaching of scripture so I can justify the sin. I don’t think homosexuality is any different. It’s pure and simple sin. What we need to do is to be CLEAR about our beliefs instead of compromising them. We don’t need to feel shame that we believe what scripture teaches, but neither do we need to make this sin into the unpardonable sin, or to portray the homosexual as evil incarnate. It is a sin that can be laid at the foot of the cross. It falls under the grace of Jesus.
I pray that as a denomination, we can formulate a clear teaching that is rooted in the Gospel.
Jason,
I agree with you that a lot of SB’s dont respond to homosexuals like they should. Yes, I agree. I agree that some people in SB Churches…and some SB Churches….dont deal with gays and lesbians like they should.
I also would have to confess that some people in my church would not respond to gays and lesbians like they should.
And, Dr. Mohler’s generalities sounded a lot like he was speaking about the SBC…as a whole….not about individuals and some churches in the SBC.
David
Yes, he was speaking “as a whole” because while you say “some people” I would say “most people”. In fact I would say “most pastors”.
Are there some individuals, and some pastors, and some churches that are doing well on this issue? Of course. Praise God. But not many…and definitely not most.
Jason,
The point is..he said that the SBC lied….okay, where did the SBC lie? What was the lie?
He said that the SBC was homophobic? The SBC? How are we homophobic..as a convention?
David
This has been explained repeatedly.
He was speaking of the SBC in general. Kind of like when we say “we (SBC) are doing a poor job in evangelism or baptisms or CP giving”. He was making a general statement.
I think that was obvious.
I’m not sure if you are being purposefully antagonistic or if you are obtuse as to this point. This has been stated and re-stated…and I think people speaking in generalities is an accepted practice, especially at the SBC.
Given that we can accept he was speaking in generalities…
1. The SBC has lied. Mohler explained this and I re-explained it here earlier today…we have been speaking a half-truth on the issue of homosexuality. A half-truth is a lie. The half truth, as Mohler explained, is that we have said it is ONLY a choice or it is MERELY a choice without considering or discussing the other factors involved. Of course, it is a choice, but it is more than that as well when you consider the issues regarding attraction.
You may disagree with that, but to be honest…when you keep saying “it is only a choice”…you are kind of proving his point to be true.
2. The SBC has practiced a form of homophobia. Clearly the way that many in our churches (again, he is speaking “in general” – an accepted practice in the SBC) have spoken to and about homosexuals and homosexuality has not perpetuated a love of those people, but rather a denigrating them to “lesser human” status. That is “a form of” homophobia. No question. you may not like the language or term, but the concept is legit.
You may disagree with him…but he has been very clear. The explanation is rather obvious.
My question is: do you REALLY not get it?
Jason,
How can the SBC lie, when calling homosexuality a choice, when it is a choice? How are SBC people lying?????? A lie is when you purposely say something that you know to be false, and tell the thing as truth. So, again, how are we…the SBC….lying????
Also, homophobic means to be scared of homosexuality…that’s what phobic means. So, how has the SBC been phobic about homosexuality?
He said it was a ‘HALF-TRUTH”.
Now, most of us recognize a half-truth as a lie. Is it not? We have stated clearly that homosexuality is a sin. It is. We have said it is a choice. That is true. We have been conveniently silent on the issue of attraction and have not stated that the issue is clearly more complex than “merely a choice.” We have not dealt with that issue honestly. It appears many still are not willing to deal with that issue honestly. Thus the half-truth statement.
As for homophobia, I explained that in the last post.
David, I am not sure if you are ignoring the MULTIPLE explanations that I (and others) have given…but it is difficult to have a conversation with someone who either ignores your comments or disregards them to ask the same questions over and over again. If we were in a courtroom, I would object to your statement because it has been “asked and answered”…repeatedly.
Do you not understand the explanation, or, do you just disagree with the explanation?
I think I have answered everything asked…in fact, I have answered the same question multiple times. So, what are you not getting? Are you unwilling to understand, or are you unable to understand? Or do you disagree? If you disagree, then say that and stop asking the same question over and over again.
So, everyone in the SBC, who believes that homosexuality is a choice, is lying…is that what you and Dr. Mohler are saying? That everyone in the SBC, who believes that homosexuality is purely a choice, is intentionally deceiving people? intentionally telling something that aint true? That’s what a lie is.
Now, he might’ve said that many in the SBC dont understand homosexuality, or same sex attraction….but lying?
Also, it’s not homophobic to not be willing to deal with gays in the right way, in a way that pleases Christ. Homophobia means that you’re scared of them, or you’re scared of homosexuality. How have we been scared of homosexuals?
David:
You’re just not going to get it what Dr. Mohler said, cause your just not even trying to.
But, I would love to compliment you on your ability to keep stirring the pot.
I can’t tell if he is unable or unwilling to get it.
It is mind boggling, that is for sure. It’s pretty simple and straightforward. It has been explained repeatedly.
If it is just to stir the pot, then that is unhelpful and very disingenuous.
I dare not speak for Dr. Mohler, nor would I think he wants or needs me to defend his words.
I have sought to explain to you what I understand to be a pretty simple statement from him. I explained the terms the way he did, the best I could.
He was straightforward, and it appears most people are not having a hard time understanding: (a) the use of generalization, (b) the concept of a half-truth being a lie, and (c) the use of the phrase “a form of homophobia”.
You fail to understand these basic concepts, or you choose to reject them. (I will save the “your inability to understand is not MERELY a choice” jokes for a later time.)
He explained his position well in the video clip. Watch it until you understand it. If you still don’t get it, read his articles explaining his position. He’s written a bunch of them.
If you are going to misrepresent his views, at least read his views.
I will attempt AGAIN, to explain this to you…though I fear this is a losing battle, for multiple reasons. I will try yet another approach.
If we (on the whole) fail to address the issue of attraction and keep yelling “it is only a choice” over and over again, then we have failed to speak to the issue. If we fail to speak to an issue that we KNOW is an issue (the attraction issue), except to speak PAST it by still saying “it is only a choice” and ignoring the deeper issues. Then he half spoken a HALF-TRUTH to the issue. We have not addressed the issue truthfully. We have intentionally avoided an issue. That half-truth is a lie.
Moreover, if we tell those struggling with that sin that they can simply choose to stop, then we have not brought the Gospel to shine on the issue, simply moralism. The Gospel speaks to not only the choice, but also desire. This needs to be fleshed out. But when we simply say “it’s only a choice”…we fail to address the deeper issue that sin has roots deeper than “MERELY a choice”.
As for homophobia….Mohler said “a form of homophobia”. Why you (and others) can’t seem to grasp that qualifying word, I’m not sure. (Is it purposeful?) The way that many believers deal with homosexuality is to demonize them. That is a FORM of homphobia. Not that anyone is scared of them, but they are USED as a scare tactic. They are ignored or marginalized or talked about (or joked about) as sub-human degenerates. They are not spoken of as sinful human beings in need of the Gospel, except to portray them in ways that make them WAY worse off than all kinds of other people who are rebel sinners scoffing at God (which they clearly are).
if you think that churches/believers do not think of homosexuals as worse than every other type of sinner, then you simply have not been paying attention.
Mohler may nuance that differently, and I am sure much more eloquently, but I think I got the general gist about right.
Am I wrong in my assessment?
David/Vol,
I noticed you did not respond to this post.
Joe Blackmon:
You said to my questions:”Why the use of the word ilk?
I like the sound of it. It sounds filthy which, when you’re talking about a moderate or a liberal, is fitting.
Why the constant name calling of others?
Ah, yes, but you’re so respectful of everybody. If only we could be more like you.
How do you know the theological persuasion of someone else?
By reading what he has written on mulitple blogs over the years.”
So let me see you think it is fitting to use the word ilk–because it sounds filthy in relationship to other fellow believers. Really?
I did not ask that anyone be like me. I would strongly encourage them not to be.
Thirdly, even if you read what people write on blogs you can not know their theological persuasion.
A half-truth isn’t necessarily a lie either…
You can just tell part of the story and leave out important elements.
We were real quick to tell homosexuals that they’re going to hell. What we didn’t say is that is grace and forgiveness of sin to be had…
We were real quick to condemn the sin of homosexuality.
However, we have largely ignored the sins of adultery, lust, and the evils of pornography…
We weren’t lying when we told people that homosexuality is a sin and our sin condemns us to hell.
We forgot the part where there is redemption and forgiveness in Christ.
We also aren’t consistent in how we treat those in sin. We’ll gladly kick out homosexuals. However, we won’t remove the deacon cheating on his wife nor will we confront him since it’s none of our business. We’ll give the pastor mired in various sins severance packages and references to their next church just to sweep it all under rug.
If you want to find a place where the SBC lied, it’s the lie that we say all sin is sin but our actions don’t back up what we say since we’re grossly inconsistent in how we treat various sins.
“”A half-truth isn’t necessarily a lie either…”"
I disagree. Please see the Devil’s use of Scripture (truth) in Matthew 4.
Also, every half-truth I ever marked “TRUE” in college and seminary was marked, “WRONG!”
I’m defining a half truth as not necessarily telling the entire story.
Half-truth: Don Larsen pitched a shut out in 1956.
Truth: Don Larsen pitched a perfect game for the New York Yankees in the 1956 World Series.
I didn’t lie, but I certainly didn’t paint the entire picture. And on a multiple choice, my half truth would certainly be wrong because my truth was more right.
This is where I’m coming from to better elaborate on my position.
If someone knowingly tells a half-truth, they are attempting to hide something, which is a kind of deception. There are many ‘new’ less-than-ethical varieties of communication out there these days, but Christian people should understand not to get drawn into them. One example is calling telling an untruth the same as ‘mis-speaking’. It doesn’t fool anyone.
What you call a “half-truth” I call an “incomplete truth.” There is a difference for me.
A half-truth, for me, means a half-lie. An “incomplete” truth would contain a full measure of truth that would not be contradicted when the “full” truth was acquired.
So, using your qualification, I see your point, but still do not agree with how you view the video statement — at least I don’t agree entirely.
I do think I understand where you are coming from.
Frank,
My half-truth is your incomplete truth. At least we now know each other’s interpretation of what we’re looking at here. Now that I know where you’re coming from, I also agree with your premise of what you call a half-truth also being a half-lie. I just call it a lie, but I tend to be more absolute there.
Thanks for the back and forth, this was helpful for me.
Jason,
You are simply obnoxious toward David!
Why dont you and your ilk explain to me why the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, the AFA, the Associated Baptist Press, and even BDW seem to get the same impression that David is saying re Dr Mohlers statement.
So is Bryan Fisher dumb?
Inquiring minds want to know who the homophobes are in the SBC?
I’ll just say that where I live the majority of Christians could be described as “practicing a form of homophobia” and if those of us living her took an objective look at our attitudes towards homosexuals we would have to agree with that assessment.
Also, read the latest article on Dr. Mohler’s website. He’s pretty clear on what he believes regarding homosexuality. Same-sex attraction may not be a choice, but homosexual acts are a choice and are sinful. You can read the updated BP article about Bryant Wright’s meeting with the homosexual activists at the Convention meeting and see that he basically says the same thing.
Link to Dr. Mohler’s latest article: http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/06/22/when-the-church-bows-to-the-state-gay-bishops-in-the-church-of-england/
Link to BP article: http://bpnews.org/BPnews.asp?ID=35600
Robert Masters:
That word ilk is just not very nice. One recent poster explained that he used this word because he thinks it is a filthy word.
And you think Jason is obnoxious. As one poster loves to say LOL.
So a prominent, previously untouchable Calvinist has been found guilty of: hyperbole! The result? The entire BI blogosphere up in arms. ( “we’ve got him now”) Conspiracy theories about Baptist news reporting and muzzling free press. A 200 article paper trail dismissed in the blink of an eye.
And these are largely the people who vociferously defended a prominent rabid anti-Calvinist in the face of years of repeated exaggerations and falsehoods (facts that are self-contradictory). Wisdom is truly justified by her children.
No one in the BI crowd has a “got him now” mentality. They are simply saying that those words being used by a SBC entity head is disturbing, and it’s confusing, and it’s concerning.
How has the SBC lied? How has the SBC been homophobic? I mean, this just seems to fit right into the crowd that wants to be accepting to homosexuality as an okay lifestyle. This is not what Dr. Mohler has said in the past…many times, and in many venues… I’ve seen him being interviewed on TV and applauded him…in the past.
Anyway, like I said, I agreed with about 99.5% of what Dr. Mohler said in his answer to Peter…but…
You have been told repeatedly HOW the SBC has “lied” and been “homophobic”.
Why are you still asking that question as if you don’t know the explanation?
Bill,
You may be onto something. Many of Mohler’s words are being questioned. Even in this thread his words seem to be taken out of context so they may be questioned.
I wonder why no one questioned the general statement from the 1995 resolution that said:
Mark,
It was questioned…by many of the people I know…but, the SBC was started due to the issue of slavery…so, you can see it a little better, as being needed….and, as being more true of the SBC!
David
David,
Did you not notice the phrase “in our lifetime?” Slavery hasn’t existed in our lifetime, so this was obviously dealing with the issues of our own day (circa 1995 for this resolution). So are you saying that racism is “more true of the SBC” today (or in 1995)? Are you saying that “we” is an appropriate word to use of the SBC in regards to racism “in our lifetime” (circa 1995)?
Do you really not see the parallel here?
Paul,
That was just on “resolve” of many in that resolution.
David
But it is there!! You can’t simply dismiss it because it’s not the only “resolved” there! That resolution, which included that particular “resolved” was passed by the messengers of the 1995 convention using “we” in precisely the same way Al Mohler used it. Yes, there were people afterwards who objected and they all looked terribly out of touch doing so.
Honestly, from my own perspective, those who protest the loudest often seem to have the biggest issues with whatever the topic is. If I had been there in 1995 I would have voted for the resolution even though I don’t consider myself a racist. In fact, I, as a white man, have an adopted black son. I have cousins who have adopted black children. We treat them just like our own. But I still think we were right to pass that resolution because I’m a part of a larger group that hasn’t done so well historically in regards to race. I am also part of a larger group that hasn’t done well historically (or even currently) in regards to how we view and minister to homosexuals.
By your standards God must have been wrong to tell Israel “Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged” when good old Isaiah was sitting right there not guilty of any of those things.
Mark,
I wasn’t a fan of that resolution, but I don’t think it was a “spirited and inflammatory as Mohler’s” for one.
For another, it was a vetted statement not a blanket, general, unquestionable accusation.
There’s a difference.
Frank,
I’m getting lost in all of these threaded comments. It seems you are more speaking to the “tone” of Dr. Mohler’s presentation vs. the racism resolution’s. I was more attempting to compare the content.
I disagree with you (see my breaking down of the racism resolution below).
Mark,
Not really. I’m basically making a distinction between the individual nature of Mohler’s speech compared to the body response of the resolution.
I don’t think Dr. Mohler’s “tone” was particularly a problem. He sounded like he always sounds to me. I’ve already said, I’m not much of a fan of his approach to SBC life — as I know it from a limited distance from the platform.
I personally wouldn’t walk across the street to hear him speak, but that was not my issue with his statement.
Bill Mac,
I would not get too worried about these BI guys… they have a far greater opinion of themselves than the convention has. Just go back a watch the Video again and notice the response from the convention to ________ _________ (crickets, crickets, crickets). Now, notice the response from the convention to Dr. Mohler… (applause, applause, applause). These guys couldn’t touch Dr. Mohler in a WWE cage match…
Greg,
Yea, all 2,000 people in the convention hall…lol…
Greg, many, many people, who are not into the extreme Calvinists and emerging, ecumenical movements chose to not attend this SBC. Many.
4800 total messengers….only half voted for the SBC President…only approx. 2100 were there to vote for the VP…and only 1500 were ther to vote on the immigration resolution….
More than likely, a lot of the messengers were there, because they’re SBC employees, and were expected to be there….SBC entity heads, and their entourages…Lifeway workers,….booth workers for colleges, seminaries, etc….So, when you factor them in the equation…the attendance in Phoenix was extra pitiful….
It was pitiful for a reason.
David
David:
You said:”It was pitiful for a reason.”
And the reason is _____________________?
Tom,
Read my comment above again….you will find the answer there if you’ll read it.
David
This is the first time I’ve heard that the messengers at the SBC were largely extreme Calvinists or emergent churchers.
David:
I did not find the reason in your answer.
Please give me and others the reason. Notice you used the word reason–so does that not imply one reason.
So I will ask you again–And the reason is______________?
Me too, Bill. Extreme Calvinists, emergents, ecumenical types and convention employees. And all, apparently, on the same page! That must have been one interesting convention.
And all those convention employees left their booths in the exhibition area to go applaud Mohler’s response to Peter. Amazing!
One reason the attendance was down could be people such as myself who are content with the direction of the Convention. It was in Phoenix. And those who stayed away who think as you do only furthered the direction of the SBC, which is a good thing in my opinion. Very good thing. If there were still as many as you claimed David who stayed away out of protest, that was silly, they could have voted for another direction. I think there are not many of you left.
Paul:
No, all 20 in the convention hall.
I for one am thankful you stayed home.
Debbie:
I really believe that David does not get it that those of his persuasion are a very small number in the SBC and I for one am very thankful.
I was there, Debbie. I’m talking about a lot of Pastors that I personally know….they looked at the Pastors Conf. line up…they see the direction of some of the SBC leaders…and they chose to not spend the money and the time to attend….
I’m just telling you what I’ve heard, and what I think…
Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Incomplete truth?? Its either the truth or its not. Are not both statements true? One is just more descriptive than the other. Its kind of sounds like you are justifying being able to tell half truths to me. If it is not truth it is a lie. I could be wrong but propaganda comes to mind when trying to understand your position. Forgive me if I am way off base here.
Parish, Propaganda sounds about right…
I would break down and ask about the racism apology line like so. (Emphasis mine.)
That we apologize to all African-Americans
Is it proper that the “we” unequivocally include all Southern Baptists? Is everyone okay with that? Why?
for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism
The “we” is further expanded to include “individual” and even “systematic” racism. Is everyone okay with admitting they are or have been guilty of such racism?
in our lifetime;
And is everyone comfortable admitting they’ve done this in their own lifetime, no questions asked?
and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27);
Another “we” indicating the guilt and repentance of all Southern Baptists. Further, it is claimed that all SB’s are admitting they may have committed racism “unconsciously” or without being aware of it.
Could it be the Southern Baptists have been guilty, whether consciously or unconsciously a form of homophobia or of lying about homosexuality?
Also note that the “we” that Mohler spoke of were things like “We as Christian churches” and “we as Evangelicals” but not “we Southern Baptists.”
Mark, The SBC was FOUNDED because of the slavery issue. A clear example that is a historical fact.
As one who does not make my living in the ministry bubble, I have worked along side homosexuals and even reported to several over the course of my career. I doubt Mohler can make the same claim. Perhaps more non clergy messengers who work in the real world, as we had in the past, would bring some reality to the situation. Some of us live in that world everyday as believers and know what he said about lying and homophobia is a crock of hooey. Too bad more pew sitters who do work in the real world were not there.
Again, I would like to know how the collective “we” have lied about homosexuals and practiced homophobic. (Fear of homosexuals). Now you are implying that we are guilty of such things unconsciously.
A few examples would have helped so that we could repent of such lies and homophobic behavior.
I agree with Frank that it was inflammatory language with no specific examples of such behavior. Perhaps he could have stated that his vote to boycott Disney was homophobic….or somethng to that effect….so we would know what he is referring to specfically.
Lydia,
I’m not implying anything. I’m asking questions as we talk through these issues.
Question for you. How have you been guilty of unconsciously committing racism?
I was very proud of our SBC President when I read this article in BP Press…
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=35556
David
I thought he ran a marvelous convention.
Hey, folks, check out the link that David provided. Fantastic. Thanks for putting that up, Vol. Good stuff.
Egads! Did you see how many times Wright used the words “we” and “our” in his discussion? This is getting out of hand!
Paul,
It is not the “we” that is the problem. That comes up many times in speeches to Conventions.
It is the “liars” and “homophobes” connected with the “we” that is a problem for some, including myself.
Mohler made a speech that nobody was allowed to address (which is why this blog is important). In that speech (well-prepared) he made an inflammatory accusation, as a opposed to Peter who asked a question.
Now, I will not argue that Peter did not have an ulterior motive. But, he did in fact not accuse Dr. Mohler of anything–certainly not of being a liar.
It is well documented in this blog that Peter = bad, Mohler = good, so I don’t see anyway to resolve this short of a humbler acknowledgment from Mohler that he might have possibly, in the heat of the moment, without thinking it through, used language he might not use again.
Interestingly, no such statement has been forthcoming. That does make one wonder, “why?”
Frank,
My guess is that he believes he’s already addressed your concerns. I’ve already linked to it once, but let me do it one more time here. I would imagine the problem is both his use of “lied” and “homophobic” and “we.” To give it proper context “we” should probably keep in mind that Mohler’s comments under question were not (originally, nor at the SBC meeting) restricted to the SBC. He was speaking of evangelical churches generally. I don’t know if that makes the problem better or worse for you, but I think it’s important.
I guess, to help answer the questions of Mohler’s critics it might be helpful to ask a few questions in return:
1) Has the evangelical church (or for that matter, the churches of the SBC) preached/taught that homosexuality is a matter of choice almost exclusively in our discussions on that topic? If we have taught/preached that it is more than just a choice, where are some examples of that that are both clear and prominent?
2) Has the evangelical church treated homosexuality/homosexuals as if that particular sin or group of people is/are worse than other sins, either intentionally or inadvertently? Do we preach/teach as often against couples who cohabitate prior to marriage, commit fornication outside of marriage and/or adultery within the bounds of marriage? Have we written articles and preached sermons as frequently and with as much force about how sexual sins such as these are “destroying the fabric of the family” and are having a negative impact on “family values?” If there are any churches that “turn the other way” in regards to unmarried cohabitating couples and/or members who are involved in pornography, adultery or fornication have we (as Southern Baptists) made any moves to disfellowship them from the convention, like we did Broadway in Ft Worth? Are there any statements in our organizing documents specifically naming any sexual sin outside of homosexuality for which we would disfellowship a church from the convention? How many resolutions has the SBC passed on homosexuality (23) compared to adultery (12), fornication (3) or lust (3)?
You see, to some of us we look at those sort of things and it’s really not a stretch to say that, yes, we have almost exclusively approached homosexuality as a matter of choice and, yes, we treat the sexual sin of homosexuality as uniquely grievous and sinful compared to other sexual sins.
Frank,
NO… no matter how many times you try in vain to make out that Dr. Mohler made “an inflammatory accusation”… That simply is NOT TRUE!
________, _________ made the inflammatory accusation… so run along and try and sell that snake oil elsewhere. Judging from the applause that Dr. Mohler received at the convention, and the silence that old ________, _________ received I would say that not many in the Southern Baptist Convention are buying your snake oil either.
By the way do people normally applaud when they are offended by one’s inflammatory accusations?
Frank,
I’m not saying “Peter=bad”. I am saying Peter, and evidently others here, do not grasp Mohler’s point.
If they got it, they wouldn’t make ridiculous statements that he has “capitulated to the homosexuals” or that he made “an inflammatory accusation”. Those are ignorant comments.
“”run along”"
Greg,
Just a note to let you know that if you think your opinion matters to me, you have a higher opinion of yourself than I do.
You consistently use this type of condescending language against anyone who disagrees with you.
I won’t be “running along.”
Jason,
I understand your point of view though I disagree with it in large part, but not totally.
You may consider me ignorant for disagreeing with you, but I have been taught that words like “liar” are highly inflammatory. In fact, I administer a school with a large preschool and we teach the “little ones” the same lesson about using words like “liar.”
Quite frankly, I would say in disagreement with your point of view that someone that uses the word, “liar,” in the context it was used is the ignorant one — position in academia not withstanding.
Just for the record, I do not (and have not stated such) that this is some fatal flaw in Dr. Mohler’s character. I have stated that what he said is not as significant as what militant homosexuals will say he meant.
I will stand on Dr. Mohler’s side in that regard, again not withstanding my ignorance in your opinion.
Frank,
I suggest you look up the word “ignorant”…and then read the context of my usage.
I did NOT call you ignorant. I said those 2 comments were ignorant. Huge difference.
Quite honestly, it is that type of failure to read what people are saying and jumping to conclusions that have led you astray in the Mohler issue.
BTW, I stand by my words…those statements are ignorant. They are uninformed on the subject. They show a lack of knowledge and discernment on the subject. They are, by definition, ignorant.
Mohler has NOT capitulated on the homosexual issue and he did not make inflammatory accusations against anyone. Those comments are wrong and, as I said, are ignorant.
I agree david. I was very proud of our SBC President too.
Also, Paul….maybe you didnt notice that I said all 2,000 people in the convention hall at that time…out of 4,800….people didnt leave thier booths and Lifeway spots…how silly and stupid to even say that…
there was only about half, or less, of the registered messengers even in the hall to applaud Dr. Mohler….and, not all of them applauded…
good grief….are we reading and comprehending? or, are we just seeing what we want to see as we read David’s comments?
hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??
David,
One word: hyperbole.
Nuance is evidently incomprehensible to a few.
Oh, and I would like some evidence. You wrote, “not all of them applauded.” Can you tell me which ones did applaud and which ones did not? I mean, that seems to be the standard you are demanding of Dr. Mohler, so I don’t figure you’ll object to the request. And what do you mean by “all?”
Paul:
Maybe David will determine the exact number who did applaud and the exact number who did not applaud. LOL.
David is just being silly.
Well…..those “few” that applauded were awful noisy then. It was pretty resounding according to the video.
1,500 people clapping can be loud.
1 Cor. 6:9-11 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Amen.
David:
So you can copy and paste scripture. What is your point?
I just noticed something for the very fist time in the text that David posted…
The text actually says “nor men who practice homosexuality,” It does not say men who struggle with same sex attraction… but “men who practice homosexuality. Could it be that same sex attraction is simply one of many manifestation of man’s fallen, corrupt, sinful nature?
Sounds like Dr. Mohler was absolutely correct in his response?
Greg,
Yes, it is simply one manifestation of man’s, fallen, corrupt nature. We’re all sinners, and our sins just ooze out of us in all kinds of ways….
As I’ve said before…and as Peter says over on his blog….we agree with Dr. Mohler on 99.5% of what he said…BUT, when he implied that the SBC has been lying about homosexuality, and that the SBC has been homophobic???? Well, that caused concerns and questions.
Now, I hear what many of you have said that Dr. Mohler actually meant. I’ve heard your explanations and defenses, etc. etc, etc. And, if what he meant is what some of you have said…then, amen. But, we dont know what he meant….
He explained what he meant.
He has written about what he meant.
You REFUSE to see it. Go read his articles on the subject.
And heaven forbid we give him the benefit of the doubt, right? See, this is why some feel like there’s a “gotcha” spirit at work in this. Love “believes all things” and “hopes all things,” which I take, at least in some measure, to mean that it gives the benefit of the doubt. But the crusade that Peter has going, and that some of you guys seem more than happy to join him in, even if vicariously, is that he is guilty until proven innocent (even in the face of his 200+ articles, of which Peter says, “bin [sic] there, done that,” and that his words are to be taken in the most skeptical light possible until he proves to your satisfaction otherwise.
Yes, “if” we take his words in the best possible light you can say, “amen.” If we don’t, then you can keep this thing going and milk it far beyond its reasonable value.
Don’t you find it ironic that Peter (and David and others) were STAUNCH in their defense of one former Liberty Dean (who must not be named, evidently) despite the evidence of clear wrongdoing, but are equally as staunch in their attack of Mohler.
To one, they offer the benefit of the doubt, to the other they go on the offensive. Lest we think the scenarios similar, one was accused/guilty of blatant lying, the other was guilty of nothing except people not liking his words. Benefit of the doubt given to the sin issue, attacks given to the disagreement issue. Seems odd.
Certainly the theological positions of these 2 men have no bearing on these scenarios at all.
“Certainly the theological positions of these 2 men have no bearing on these scenarios at all.”
Absolutely not! I’m horrified anyone would even think that!
AMEN to Al Mohler! I wholeheartedly concur.
Alan Chambers
President, Exodus International
Jason,
I don’t speak for David but I for one am still a supporter of Ergun Caner, and I oppose the paradigm shift that Al Mohler is attempting to foist on the SBC . he has/is capitulated to the homosexual movement by falsely accusing his fellow Christian brothers.
My own Sunday School teacher slandered Dr Caner publically several weeks ago. He could not even get the fact right that Dr White is from Ariz not California.
It was wrong for a Seminary President to publically slander fellow
Southern Baptists by accusing them of being homophobic.
He NEEDS to publically apologize.
Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
No he doesn’t, because we are homophobic.
RI Masters,
That is the most ridiculous comment made here in a long time…
Robert I Masters,
Is Brett Shipp of WFAA News 8 in Dallas/Ft. Worth slandering EC? http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Controversy-follows-Baptist-theologian-to-north-Texas-124318149.html
Or is the Arlington Baptist College faculty member who told News 8, “I find it reprehensible that the leadership of the Arlington Baptist College would hire a man who is very clearly profiteering from the tragedy of September 11″ slandering EC?
Robert,
I don’t know how to say this in any other way than you are wrong, on multiple accounts.
Mohler is not foisting a new paradigm shift.
Mohler is not and has not capitulated to the homosexual movement.
Those accusations are ridiculous. (Speaking of slanderous.)
He did not slander SBCers, he made a general statement about the way Christians have spoken toward the issue (he even said “we” including himself in there).
Unreal that you don’t get it.
Of course you support Caner. Heck, I support Caner. I do not support his obvious lies. But I support and pray for him.
I don’t know how to explain how you can give Caner the benefit of the doubt despite numerous lies and an unwillingness to even admit what is obvious to everyone but a select few with their heads in the sand…and at the same time attack Mohler and completely misrepresent his views while doing so.
Is there an agenda here, brother? Certainly it isn’t their respective views on calvinism, is it?
Jason,
He has capitulated just read all the homosexual leaders who quote him.
Read the comments on last two articles from the Tennessean that lustily quote Al Mohler to support the agenda.
Yes my agenda has always been clear……read my other comments concerning this topic.
Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert:
You said to Jason:”He has capitulated just read all the homosexual leaders who quote him.
Read the comments on last two articles from the Tennessean that lustily quote Al Mohler to support the agenda.”
Please name names and give us facts. The above is nothing but generalities.
But you surely believe the sky is falling for the SBC!
I don’t read commentators to understand Mohler’s comments. I read Mohler’s comments to understand Mohler’s comments.
I suggest you do the same.
Robert,
Please explain PRECISELY why you believe he has capitulated.
He is not saying that homosexuality is not a sin. He is not saying it is not a choice. he is saying that we have not spoken well to the attraction issue, and have thus spoken a half-truth on homosexuality.
That is FAR from capitulation.
I’m starting to think that some people don’t even realize how they are proving his point with their constant misrepresentation of him and the issue. This is exactly what he is talking about.
Paul,
You have a irrational fear of homosexuals? If thats true then you and the Lord need to straighten that out.
As for me and my house we are not homophobic!
Robert I Masters
from the Southern Baptist Geneva
Mohler said “a form of homophobia”….not sure why you continue to reject the phrase “a form of” which is a huge qualifying term.
Seems that the anti-Mohler-ites continue to make the same misrepresentations and the same misquotes.
No, Robert, I don’t have an irrational fear of homosexuals. Firstly, I’m allowing Al Mohler to define “homophobic” as he uses it. In other words, as he has stated, it is not homophobic to call homosexuality a sin. It is homophobic to “speak of homosexuals as a particular class of especially depraved sinners” and “find comfort in [our] own moralism, consigning homosexuals to a theological or moral category all their own.” That we have done that is really beyond questioning at this point, unless someone’s been under a rock for the last 30 years. Secondly, I am applying his definition to our own SBC as reflected in our organizing documents and our publicly approved resolutions. Those are the things that speak to “who we are” as Southern Baptists. That we have passed 23 resolutions related to homosexuality and only 18 resolutions related to adultery, fornication and lust combined says that we Southern Baptists, in our public pronouncements, put homosexuality in a category of its own. That we have codified this in our own constitution, specifically stating that, “Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are
churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior” while ignoring every other sexual sin that goes on in the church, only further proves that we have placed homosexuality into a particularly heinous category all its own.
That is how we, as the Southern Baptist Convention, in our organizing documents and public pronouncements, have shown our homophobia according to how Dr. Mohler has defined it. If you don’t like his definition, that’s fine, but then you are not permitted to force his own usage of his own words into your definition.
Paul wrote: “I’m allowing Al Mohler to define “homophobic” as he uses it. In other words, as he has stated, it is not homophobic to call homosexuality a sin. It is homophobic to “speak of homosexuals as a particular class of especially depraved sinners” and “find comfort in [our] own moralism, consigning homosexuals to a theological or moral category all their own.” That we have done that is really beyond questioning at this point, unless someone’s been under a rock for the last 30 years. ”
BINGO.
Paul,
1). Homophobia is a secular term….do you agree with that fact?
2) Society defines the term homopobia. …do you disagree with that fact?
3).The Church seems to address homosexuality a lot lately because society increasingly rejects the Bible as the moral standards of our law….agree or disagree?
BTW—You also have your own personal agenda , which is okay,
but Dr Mohler would and has spoken to the second part of your argument and does reject it.
Robert,
1) and 2) Yes and no. Obviously Dr. Mohler has used the term as well and has offered something of a definition of how he is using it. I don’t believe Dr. Mohler is doing so in a secular way as I think you are implying. It’s like the word “love.” There certainly is a secular way of using that word, though it doesn’t have much to do with the way that, say, St. Paul used it. But I don’t judge St. Paul by Roman Empire definitions of “love” so I won’t judge Dr. Mohler by secular definitions of homophobia when he has offered his own definition of the term and how he is using it.
3) I think it’s much more complicated than that. Yes, society rejects the Bible as the moral standard, which means that society is at odds with the church on a multitude of issues. Society is at issue with the church on the issues of adultery and fornication as well, but the church (at least the SBC as reflected in its resolutions) doesn’t speak to those sexual sins nearly with the same frequency nor in the same way as it does with the issue of homosexuality.
Finally, we all have agendas, but I’m not sure what your talking about or what your point is with that last comment. It may not be important.
Robert Masters:
You said:”As for me and my house we are not homophobic!”
Who told you all that you were?
Jason,
His contention that we have have practiced a form of homophobia is pure nonsense. It is not a Gospel word….the Bible knows nothing of the modern secular term homophobia.
How would one know if others practiced “homophobia”. It seems Dr Mohler is judging the heart of sbc members. Not a recommended practice according to Matt 7. I find that offensive and ungodly.
maybe an analogy is due here ….Dr Mohler caling SBCers homophobic is like calling Mel Gibson Anti-Semitic for producing the Passion of the Christ
For you to deem it as nonsense, you would need to understand what he is saying…considering your misrepresentation of his view, you do not understand his view.
(If you understand it, and still misrepresent it, then that is much more sinister.)
So, now you are saying that he cannot use a non-biblical word to describe something that is going on?
I would hope you see the inconsistency of your view.
Is it a biblical concept to love unbelievers? (Yes.) So, would you say that not loving those unbelievers is a sin? (Yes.) Does us describing that failure to love unbelievers with the term “x” make it any less a sin? (No.)
This whole discussion is amazing to me. It is hard to believe we have guys that are leaders in our churches who cannot grasp Mohler’s argument. Amazing.
Jason,
At this point, I think its just time to move on. No amount of further explanation is going to help when there is an obvious inability or outright refusal here to understand Dr. Mohler and actually be challenged by what he has to say.
Yeah, I think you are right.
I possess a character flaw that draws me into these discussions and keeps me there.
They draw Robert I. Masters and keep him there too. Believe me I know. *sigh.
Robert I Masters, it seems clear to me that Dr. Mohler was judging actions.
Tom Parker,
Paul above, Dr Mohler, Elijah Friedman at AFA, locally in Nashville Chris Sanders of the TN equality project, Mike Curb nd the list goes on and on and on
Jason,
Is it a biblical concept to love unbelievers? (Yes.) So, would you say that not loving those unbelievers is a sin? (Yes.) Does us describing that failure to love unbelievers with the term “x” make it any less a sin? (No.)
The rub for me comes in the last line. I have seen incredible amounts of love displayed for that particular community. I just disagree that we have failed to love them.
Remember this is 1.4 percent of the population. I have spent huge amounts of time to love this community.
THAT is a fair disagreement. You and Mohler disagree on THAT point, and that is a reasonable thing over which to disagree?
I have seen love, from some. I have seen the opposite, from many. I have seen misrepresentation from many.
Can’t you narrow in and discuss THAT point without making slanderous accusations against Mohler – that he is guilty of capitulation and slander?
Todd B
plan and simply your argument is ad hominem
“inability or outright refusal here to understand Dr. Mohler”
Is it not possible that I understand and disagree that “we” as a Convention have failed to love those who are SSA or homosexuals in a Christlike manner.
I think the “inability or outright refusal” comment came because you have continually accused him of capitulating to the homosexuals and slanderously attacking the SBC.
Neither of which is true….and it thus, an “inability or outright refusal here to understand Dr. Mohler”.
We could also add in a failure to understand he is speaking in generalities about “we as the SBC”, that he never denied the choice of homosexuality, and the constant misrepresentation of his use of the word “homophobia”.
I might also add that what Todd did was not “ad hominem” at all. Perhaps you should look up the definition of that term. What he did was evaluate your responses to the issue, and since you misrepresented the issue at several turns, he suggested you were unable to understand or refused to understand. He did not attack you personally or make an assessment on your mental faculties in general, just an observation on this particular issue, based off your posts.
BTW, he did not say “we as the SBC”, I typed that in error.
He said: “we as Christian churches” and “we as evangelicals”.
I am not attacking you to further my argument. I am, however, suggesting that further discussion is fruitless. I do not believe that Mohler’s argument is difficult to understand, and yet here we are 300 comments into this discussion and still arguing about what his words mean. How can we have a discussion about the merits of his words if we can’t even agree what he meant when he said them? We can’t — and since we cannot even come to this basis for discussion — this will be my last comment on this stream.
Jason,
Al Mohler should not have used the term homophobic period. Its a politically charged leftist term. For him to use that as a charge against any fellow believer is pandering and capitulation in the culture war.
So, you don’t like the term he used…it doesn’t make his point wrong.
Very petty argument. Very weak argument.
Robert,
You should not have used the term “politically charged leftist term.” To use that as a charge against any believer is pandering to right-wing nut jobs.
Paul,
I am proud of the fact that I am right wing
vote for Herman Cain for President
Not all right wingers are redeemed but all left wingers by virtue of their worldview are ungodly.
Robert, you forgot “nut-job.” I mean, “right wing nut-job” without the “nut-job” is like “homophobic” without the “phobic.”
Did anyone on here even notice Alan Chambers comment 1:48 pm???
AMEN to Al Mohler! I wholeheartedly concur.
Alan Chambers
President, Exodus International
Southern Baptist may not as a whole be “Homophobic”… But from their reaction here and on ___________, __________’s blog there are a few out there on the fringe of Southern Baptist life who are certainly “Mohler-phobic”
It is amazing to me that someone would so idolize a SBC celebrity as to suggest that anyone who does not is “phobic.”
LOL that you think this is what he is doing.
Amazing.
I post a comment about those on the “Fringe of Southern Baptist life” and guess who responds? … … Look out Frank “The Mohler” is gonna get you!!!
ROF… LOL…
Jason,
It is your opinion I have been led astray on Mohler but the numerous posts on this matter seem to prove me correct. I am by far not the only one that thinks a different choice of words would have changed the tone of his presentation.
I also am not the only one who believes that the SBC–as a whole–is NOT full of liars and homophobes.
I could say the same thing about you in regard to this matter: you are led astray. However, I think the more correct way to say would be: you are led to a different conclusion. Because I think words matter, I think that says something quite different.
In regard to the “ignorant” thing, it was because in my reading of your post in response to me you were lumping me in with those making those statements which I have said I do not agree with.
So, while we will continue to disagree on the status of Dr. Mohler as a Great White Knight in that moment of verbal battle, I do respect your right to disagree and can at least see your point.
Frank: Is the SBC full of racists?
Bill Mac
You’d have to ask Dr. Mohler
I cant believe I was so lucky to come upon this thread. I am amazed at all of the intellectual mumbo jumbo and the lack of common sense.
Here is a simple challenge to all of you. Dont just watch the video but take notes and outline every sentence the man speaks. It took me about 15 minutes to pause and write it all down. After all of that Im sure there is no question as to which side of the issue you fall and will leave you with no doubts about where he stands.
There is only one thing I would question Dr. Mohler about and that is he said “homosexuality is more than a choice”. That leads me to believe that alcoholism is more than a choice and that using narcotics is more than a choice and perhaps pornography will become more than a choice.
Just a side note: Sin is sin and it is all equal in God’s eyes and unless I am mistaken homosexuality is the only sin ever described as an “abomination”. Perhaps this is why the “militant community” is at such adversity with God.
Bless you all in the name of Lord!
I pointed this out in the comments on another recent thread where a similar statement was made, but there are other things that God refers to as an “abomination” besides homosexual behavior.
Coveting the gold and silver from idolatry gets that tag in Dt. 7:25 as do the idols themselves. In fact, the term in Leviticus 18 is plural which means that it probably includes all of the sexual perversions given in that chapter. Deuteronomy 12:31 places child sacrifice in that same category also. Deuteronomy 14 refers to unclean foods as an abomination. There are more but I don’t think it is necessary to list them all. Homosexuality is certainly a sin, but it is by no means “singled out” among other sins in that way.
True. Eating shrimp is also an abomination.
Thanks for pointing this out. I was mistaken and now stand corrected.
Parrish: It is. After a while both alcohol and narcotics can become a need to survive, a struggle. It’s not just something you put down and quit. We need to be sensitive to that too.
Thanks for your comment Debbie.
While you have to be very sensitive in these issues it does not alter the truth about the situation. The truth is that they have lived a life of open rebellion against God to the point that they cant recognize who they are anymore. It is also true that it was a series of choices that led them there. We are not born with alcohol problems or drug problems or homosexual problems. (although government and science work to persuade us otherwise) We are born with a sin problem and choose whether or not follow God’s standards. I am paraphrasing here: we give ourselves over to these things willingly and freely. I totally agree with you that most people can’t put it down and its a struggle. However, it becomes that way only after they have tricked their bodies with substances.
I have a brother who is alcoholic and I have a sister who is “bi-sexual” and another sister who has severe drug problems. I can assure that there was a time when my siblings and I learned that alcohol, drugs, and promiscuity were lifestyles that would always lead to destruction. And this came from parents who were not Christian parents and still are not Christians.
But the great truth for them and us all is that God can change all of that with a whisper.
“We are not born with alcohol problems”
I guess you haven’t heard about fetal alcohol syndrome. Or the drug-withdrawal than innocent newborns must undergo because their mothers were addicts while they were ‘in utero’. Or the problems that are lasting because these babies were affected ‘for life’ with difficulties (‘crack baby’ syndrome is one example).
As for ‘genetic’ predisposition to alcoholism . . . you can explore that from data and decide for yourself if there is some validity to it, but I can tell you that there is a reason that alcoholism is called a ‘disease’, and the reason is a medical one.
Christiane,
As for ‘genetic’ predisposition to alcoholism . . . you can explore that from data and decide for yourself if there is some validity to it, but I can tell you that there is a reason that alcoholism is called a ‘disease’, and the reason is a medical one.
What you refer to as a “genetic predisposition to ______” (fill in the blank), the Bible refers to as the Sinful/Fallen nature of man. Alcoholism, drug addiction, homosexuality, are not diseases… they are merely symptoms of the disease that effects all mankind. The disease is called “Total Depravity or Corruption”. the effects of this disease can be seen in the multitude of ways that mankind rebels in sin against God.
To the dismay of some… There is no cure for this diseased flesh in which we now find ourselves. Thus the Apostle Paul cried out in (Romans 7:24) “O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”
Notice that Paul did not say “O wretched man that I was” But, “O wretched man that I am
This is also why we find Paul saying in (1 Cor.15: 51-53)
“Behold , I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep , but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound , and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”
Do they (the drunkard, the alcoholic, the homosexual) suffer from a disease? Yes! And so do you and I… “As it is written , There is none righteous, no, not one:” (Rom.3:10)
Please don’t read any of this as me preaching at you… but preaching “with you”.
Grace for the Journey,
Very well spoken Parish!
AFA’s Bryan Fischer accuses SBC of pandering to gays, illegal aliens
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6505/53/
Wow. Glad this was an opinion piece because a real journalist would probably have to answer for this gross of a misrepresentation.
I can’t wait for libel laws to apply to bloggers as well.
Anyone who would knowingly publishes such a “bald face LIE!” has absolutely “NO INTEGRITY!”… Ok, now I can mark AFA & ABP off my list of organizations to support!
That is nothing less than “Trash Journalism!” They ought to be Ashamed!
Google Bryan Fischer and see what you get. He is the AFA’s Wiley Drake.
U.K.: Albert Mohler to Address Homophobia in Sports
http://tinyurl.com/6e8s7ld
I guess this must be a mistake on your part or an attempt at humor. The article has nothing to do with Mohler.
The link below is an article exposing as liberal (1) Mohler’s remarks on homosexuality, and (2) the “non-amnesty” amnesty resolution. For most of my ministry, Southern Baptists have been criticized for being too far to the right. We clearly have entered a “new day” in the life of the SBC when, in the noble if misguided interest of contextualizing so as to better evangelize, we are now criticized for being too far to the left.
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6505/53/
I stopped about halfway through reading that article. All it did was show a failure at simple comprehension.
Here is a complete transcript of what Mohler said between his admission to making those statements and his thanking “Mr. Chairman” for the opporutnity to answer:
So…
1. Mohler absolutely affirms the sinfulness of homosexuality and makes a case that a moral acceptance and rationalization of it is equivalent to the moral acceptance and rationalization of any sin.
2. We (evangelicals as a whole, not Southern Baptists in particular) have done well at standing firm on the sinfulness of homosexuality.
3. We (again, evangelicals as a whole) have not done well at applying the gospel truth to those caught in the sin of homosexuality. Our half-truth, or our “lie”, is that we do not emphasize the gospel as the sole means of escape. This is evidenced by our focus on “choice” and ignoring the more complex issues with it. In other words, our focus on “it is a lifestyle choice” implies that we all deep down feel heterosexual and that change can happen without the gospel. He does not imply that the complex issues mean they are born that way and unable to change or find freedom. He clearly means the answer is not, “Shut your feelings off and chose heterosexuality” but “freedom is found in Jesus alone.” So basically, we need to deemphasize our propensity to throw the word “choice” out there and more strongly emphasize the gospel.
4. If you read what he says after the use of the term “homophobia” it is clear what he meant: 1) We do not intentionally foster an environment where sins and struggles (especially this sin and struggle) are clearly articulated among the congregation in the vein of “such were some of you”; and 2) given the lack of many ex-homosexuals sitting among us we have shown reticence to actually engage the “homosexual community” with the gospel.
Now on the one hand a person might disagree with Dr. Mohler and have reasons to say that the evangelical community as a whole has focused more on the freedom of the gospel than droning on about lifestyle choice, and that we have done a great job of sharing the gospel with the “homosexual community” and accepting into our churches those struggling with and/or coming out of that sin. (of course I’d actually like to see the proof of that)
But to claim that Mohler’s statement was even somewhat liberal or pandering to the homosexual lobby?!?!? That shows a total lack of comprehension…
Mike, I will grant that perhaps we are being misunderstood with regard to a liberal shift on social issues. (Read all the way to the end and you will find a shorter discussion on the immigration issue that you probably also will consider misguided.)
My point is simply that, whereas we USED to be misunderstood as catering to the CONSERVATIVE side of moral issues on the American political scene, we are now just beginning to be misunderstood as catering to the LIBERAL side — whether the issue is (1) choosing sexual orientation, or (2) accepting rather than exporting illegal immigrants.
One other thought that just occurred to me regarding this “choice” issue: Does Mohler believe that souls “choose” the gospel when they accept Christ, or does he believe that God chooses us and we have no choice but to yield? Perhaps our theological disagreements on free will are at work both in our soteriology and in our view of homosexual tendencies.
That’s a false dichotomy and mis-representation of “calvinism”, and also misses the point.
Yes, Mohler’s a calvinist and as such believes in the monergestic sovereignty of God in salvation, but that doesn’t preclude people from making willful choices according to their nature. Of course, a person with an unredeemed sin-nature is going to choose sinful actions or choose to do good things from sinful motives and not choose God–that’s enslavement to sin, as well as John 8, Romans 3, 6, and 8.
And Mohler didn’t say that choice wasn’t involved in homosexuality but that it is, to quote his words “more than a choice.” There is more complexity involved than choice alone. That’s what Mohler said. Why is that hard to understand?
Thought a little bit more about this.
Why are we even worried about whether or not we are seen as coming down on the conservative or liberal side of a moral issue?
We’re supposed to be speaking the truth, not worried about or caring about what the american political spectrum from either side thinks about us…
Have yall seen this note to Dr. Mohler from Brian McLaren?
http://brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/a-quick-note-to-dr-albert-mohler.html
And?
So Brian McLaren has offered support and prayers for Dr. Mohler…
If you’re going to try and turn this into something substantial, let me go ahead and laugh now.
McLaren offers his empathy not total agreement which is implicit when McLaren said that Mohler’s “comments are a step in the right direction.”
Have y’all seen this report on the KKK where they protested Westboro Baptist and called homosexuality is an abomination? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/06/kkk-westboro-baptist-church_n_871841.html
007:
You sure are trying to help Peter Lumpkins keep this one alive. I’m sure he appreciates your “help.”
See, this is why, although I have no problem with what Mohler said as far as the substance, I really, REALLY wish he had worded it differently because I knew enemies of the gospel like Mclauren, David Goshee, and others who profess Christ but deny the gospel would take it that he was leaning toward their position.
Joe Blackmon:
You said:”See, this is why, although I have no problem with what Mohler said as far as the substance, I really, REALLY wish he had worded it differently because I knew enemies of the gospel like Mclauren, David Goshee, and others who profess Christ but deny the gospel would take it that he was leaning toward their position.”
How do you know who the enemies of the Gospel are?
Are they going to Hell according to you and would you Joe say” they don’t truly believe the gospel and are not a Christian.”
What do you say, Joe?
” The reality is that we as Christian churches have not done well on this issue. And I think if we’re unwilling to admit that it is further to our shame.
For instance, evangelicals, thankfully, have failed to take the liberal trajectory of lying about homosexuality and its sinfulness. We know the Bible clearly declares, not only in isolated verses but in the totality of its comprehensive presentation the fact that homosexuality is not only not God’s best for us as some try to say but it is sin, it is particularly identified, for instance, in Romans chapter one as a sin indicative of the total wickedness and sinfulness of humanity as a whole. The point of Paul in Romans chapter one is if people will do this and rationalized it then human beings are able to do anything in terms of sin and come to terms with it.
But we as evangelicals have a very sad history of dealing with this issue. We have told not the truth but we have told about half the truth. We’ve told the biblical truth, and that’s important, but we haven’t applied it in a biblical way. For instance we have said to people that homosexuality is just a choice, well it’s clear that it’s more than a choice—that doesn’t mean that it’s any less sinful, but it does mean that it’s not something people can just turn on and turn off. We are not a gospel people unless we understand that only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality. The gospel is what we stand for and the gospel is the only remedy for sin.
And we have also exhibited a certain form of homophobia of which we must, absolutely must, in gospel terms repent precisely because we believe in all the Scripture teaches about homosexuality and all the Scripture teaches about sin. We must recognize that our job isn’t done until our churches look exactly like the church described in First Corinthians six where those very sins are articulated and then it says “but such were some of you but you were washed.” Our job is not done until sitting in the pews among us are those of whom it was said, “I once was that.” As we say, “I once was something else. We are sinners saved by grace.” Until there are those who have been trapped in that sin sitting among us, we know we’ve got a gospel job to do.”
Mohler’s words.
Now, highlight the parts you have problems with here.
Tell me where he used the words “We lied.” Not your interpretation, but the actual words. Personal bias can reflect in an interpretation. Since many of you want to use absolutes, then here we go. Where are the words, “We lied”?
One of the blessings of being a blog administrator is the ability to shut down comments on a post when you get tired of them.
I think we have had some good discussion (and perhaps quite a bit of silly personal stuff).
This issue is not going away – for the SBC or for any of us. But this comment stream IS going away, at least for now.
If you would like to complain, please feel free to do so at daveis ajerk@hotmail.com, or you can try pastordave@cableone.net if the first one doesn’t work.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }