There is a protest going on here by pro-homosexual groups. It’s not much of one – I haven’t even seen it, except on twitter. They say that we are purveyors of hate and discrimination, oppressing homosexuals out of hatred, fear and bigotry.
On the other hand, there are those who claim that key leaders in the SBC are compromising in their views on homosexuality.
Yesterday, a homosexual recovery group (which our friend Thom Hunter works with) was given time on the stage to describe their ministry. I can’t flesh this out much, but I think that there is a new approach developing. Here is what I see.
1) We continue to believe that homosexual behavior is a sin. We cannot compromise that without compromising truth and righteousness. Even those who have been chastised by bloggers for their homosexuality views have affirmed that homosexuality is wrong.
2) We want to change the perception that we are “anti-homosexual.” We are anti-homosexuality. We love homosexuals and want to minister to them in the name of Christ. We want to focus on ministry, not on angry denunciations.
3) Perhaps we need to change the focus on the origins of homosexuality. Evangelicals have made a big issue of the fact that homosexuality is a choice, not a natural orientation. But the origins of homosexuality defy easy categorization. The best research I have seen indicates that homosexuality probably roots in emotional issues in early childhood. If that is true, it would seem to the homosexual that he was “born this way.” It was not a choice he made but something that was built into him at an early age.
Besides, nature is fallen and what is natural is not necessarily good. In fact, Paul uses the phrase “natural man” to describe the unregenerate sinner. Lots of sinful things come naturally to me. I am naturally selfish, naturally proud, naturally lustful, naturally materialistic. That these are natural does not make them good.
The point is that we need to focus on dealing with sinful behavior, not trying to force a view of the origins of homosexuality that seems to be contrary to reality.
4) We must not put the cart before the horse. It is redemption that frees us from the power of sin. We do not free ourselves from the power of sin so we can be redeemed. While we need to stand against homosexuality and even the so-called “homosexual agenda”, we need to realize that the only hope of redemption for both homosexuals and heterosexuals is the gospel of Christ. We need to preach grace and love to people who need to be loved by Christ so that they can be freed from their sinful lives.
Thom Hunter has a great article in the queue about a biblical response to homosexuality. I am not an expert by any means, but I see a new approach beginning to develop that I think may incorporate both a biblical view of homosexuality and a biblical approach to homosexuals.
“Perhaps we need to change the focus on the origins of homosexuality. Evangelicals have made a big issue of the fact that homosexuality is a choice, not a natural orientation. But the origins of homosexuality defy easy categorization. The best research I have seen indicates that homosexuality probably roots in emotional issues in early childhood. If that is true, it would seem to the homosexual that he was “born this way.” It was not a choice he made but something that was built into him at an early age.”
All I can say is ‘thank God’ with all my heart that this is being considered . . . it is so true that we do not understand fully what has caused this ‘disorder’, as we call it in my faith . . . but to assume it is ‘chosen’, when so many have suffered who are very young is something that I think was wrong to do
. . . way too many suicides among young people to be able to comfortably assume that first they chose their same-sex attraction;
and then they chose to end their lives because they have this same-sex attraction . . . it never ‘added-up’, did it?
L’s
The fact is you do not believe homosexual behavior is a sin. The proof of that was in your reaction to the kicking out of Broadway Baptist–a church that affirms homosexuality. The church has homosexual couples* that it would not call to repent or bring church discipline against. You would have no problem with someone who is engaging in homosexual behavior* being a member of a church and you could afifrm them as being Christian. In contrast, Christians would plead with that person to repent and forsake that sin because a person that lives in open, unrepentant sin proves by doing so that they are not a Christian.
*Notice I didn’t say “having homosexual attractions”. Both examples I cited were of people actually engaged in homosexual sex. You didn’t, and won’t, agree that kicking Broadway out for actively affirming homosexuals was a good thing. Therefore, you do not believe that homosexuality is a sin.
Hi JOE,
the following is consistent with my beliefs:
http://www.usccb.org/laity/always.shtml
I think that most of the teaching represented in this document expresses what many Christian people can say both honestly AND compassionately, so as to fill the requirements of speaking ‘truth in love’, without ‘love’ being the lesser of the two.
It took a long time for my own Church to ‘understand’ enough to be able to come to this position . . . and it is one that I can support, because the Church expresses a desire to embrace and to care for our own who have special needs for ministry. And yet it, being the Church, it encourages a chaste life for those who experiences a same-sex attraction.
encourages a chaste life
That’s not the same thing as saying someone who engages in homosexual sex is in sin and must repent. Notice again, I’m not saying someone with a homosexual attraction, I’m saying Theodore and Mark, for instance, living together as a couple are in a sinful lifestyle and should not be permitted to become members of a church.
JOE, my Church encourages all single people to live a chaste life. So does yours. Essentially, all Christian Churches do this.
‘Encouragement’ means to want for someone to be strong in heart . . . and in our faith, is the Holy Spirit who does the strengthening of hearts by turning them towards Christ the Lord. Then we can do what would be sometimes too difficult to do on our own.
Our burdens become lighter, not because they are easier to bear, but because the great strength needed to bear these trials is found only in Him.
We must encourage one another, as we are commanded by Royal Law to help ‘bear one another’s burdens’ . .
For Christian people, expressing ‘encouragement’, especially for someone who suffers that which we may not understand ourselves, is not an ‘empty blessing’, Joe.
Far from it.
The person is encouraged to embrace the trial,
not the sin.
We ‘encourage’, knowing in faith that Our Lord will freely give the strength that is the one needful thing to bear that trial.
Dave,
I wrote a piece yesterday about a hopeful response to this petition. Tell me what you think?
http://www.mikeleake.net/2011/06/tomorrows-lgbt-petition-and-hopeful.html
I think your point #3 is sorely needed in our church culture.
Maybe it’s just that they’re more vocal and don’t represent the majority view, but it sure seems that a lot of conservative Christians balk at the very notion that homosexuality can be anything other than a choice. Granted some will allow for psychological deviation… but it seems like many take the idea “God made me this way” and go the complete opposite direction “God wouldn’t make a person homosexual, therefore it can only be a choice.”
But what about “My sin nature made me this way” which covers a whole lot of issues like you mentioned, not just our sexuality.
Plus if we take the implications of the fall seriously–reality is sin and its curse corrupted our genetics…we truly are totally depraved from our spirits to our minds to our bodies to our DNA.
After all how many diseases are caused by genetic mutation, how many birth defects exist, how many psychological problems flow from chemical imbalance, etc.?
In terms of sexuality, perhaps for some it is a choice of experimentation, perhaps for others it is a complex set of environmental factors in their formative years, and perhaps for others it is some sort of genetic/bio-chemical issue.
The source doesn’t matter. Sin is all-corrosive. But as both the biblical record and human experience show us: though we might not “choose” how we feel/our desires and temptations, we (especially as Spirit-empowered Christians) do not have to choose to live in our desires and temptations…
As a pastor with a homosexual brother, I too differentiate between homosexuals as persons and homosexuality as a behavior. Even if one were to definitively determine that homosexuality is genetic, we must remember that biology does not determine morality. Heterosexuals must constrain their lusts to the biblical standard. So must homosexuals. Heterosexuals complain that conservative evangelicals are sexual prudes and must modernize our morality to fit the times. As faithful followers of Jesus, we say that all must allow the Holy Spirit to conquerer sin within, whatever the source.
Did Al Mohler just deny that homosexuality was a choice? Did he say that we have lied about it? Very unusual exchange with our “Georgia hoot” friend. Once Mohler gets started with his verbiage, it’s sometimes hard to follow, but something just didn’t quite sound right.
My battery is dying on both my phone and my computer, so this might be the end for me until I get back to the hotel.
But if you want to hear what a redemptive, gospel-centered response to homosexuality should be, get a copy or a transcript of Dr. Mohler’s response to Peter Lumpkin’s question.
Mohler stated that homosexuality is clearly a sin but that the church must take a redemptive approach to ministry with homosexuals. I hope someone can make a transcript of that.
It was brilliant. It was biblical. It was redemptive. It condemned attitudes that needed to be condemned.
Mohler’s brilliance and biblical knowledge was clearly on display during those moments.
Please, some of you young whippersnappers who are so technologically gifted, get an mp3 copy or a transcript and send it to me so I can post it. We all need to hear that.
So you want us to pirate what the SBC will be selling in a few weeks at inflated prices on obsolete media alternatives?
It sounded like he said we had not spoken “truth” but only “half-truth” by not emphasizing redemption sufficiently. If that is his clarification, I’m fine with that.
It also seemed like he was saying they didn’t simply “choose” same sex attraction, but are really struggling with it in their identity. Again, not what I’m used to hearing, but I’ll consider it further. I’m all for redemptive attitudes. The phrasing sort of threw me off, to say the least.
I think what he was saying, Rick, is that we have hammered on the fact that homosexuality is a sin, but in that effort, and especially in the political discussions, have failed to act redemptively toward homosexuals.
so, yes, we have spoken half the truth – proclaiming the sin but failing to proclaim redemption.
That is how I understood it.
Dave,
You are very generous.
I was present when Peter Lumpkins asked his homosexuality question. In no way did I interpret that Peter was simply asking a question. He seemed determined to attempt to embarrass Al Mohler with innuendo. While he didn’t come right out and make an accusation, he did everything but. Shameful on his part.
I’ve not commented on the convention as yet, because I felt strongly that observations should come from Pastors.
I’ve enjoyed your thoughts on the entire event.
Right on, Katie. Reading Peter’s take on the situation, you would believe that he was a victim who got railroaded whilst trying to ask an honest question.
The reality is: that was NOT an honest question. He was trying to trap and embarrass Mohler. But in the end, he was the one embarrassed.
Jason,
I went by a took at look at Peter’s blog today. Surprise, surprise, now he’s claiming intimidation. **sigh**
I didn’t see everything that happened at the convention. There was much to see, people to talk to, vendors to preview. All in all, I sensed an urgency about getting our dysfunctional family off the couch and at the very least enjoying a Sunday dinner together once again as an SBC family. I made me feel hopeful.
I long for the day when we won’t spend so much time following Cephas or Apollo, but “keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith”.
“” an SBC family.”"
I wonder if such a family still exists. I am not as hopeful (though I see some hope) as you. There were less than 5000 in attendance.
The President gave his excuses, but I think that perhaps apathy has become terminal. I fear that many “conservatives” have simply grown weary of trying to defend any kind of Baptist Identity (however one defines it).
Perhaps, we’ve also grown weary of Cephas and Apollo. I know I’ve grown weary trying to figure out what is distinctive about Southern Baptists these days.
I do share your desire for a nice Convention-wide Camp Meeting and Picnic on the grounds, but I fear that so many just have given up.
Two responses in brief before I board my airplane.
1) I did not think that Peter came well as he asked the question.
2) Peter has the right to ask questions, even to ask them in a way that I do not like. That is his right as a messenger.
It was definitely a “moment” at the convention. But my focus is on Mohler’s response – it was masterful and biblical.
I don’t see why we get so hung up on the question of whether its a choice or not. We believe in original sin. People are born sinners. Jesus redeems us from all sin. It doesn’t matter a bit if it’s nature or nurture.
Hi BRENT,
I was thinking that it’s not about ‘we’ (Christians) . . . in a case like this, you have to consider what happens to young people from the effect of judging that same-sex attraction is ‘chosen’ on purpose.
Imagine being a youth with same-sex attraction in a family where it has been preached that ‘everyone knows that it’s a choice’;
where does a kid go for ministry ? Who can he tell? Who can he talk to about what he is experiencing ? He would be afraid of rejection even before speaking about his trouble. And he would have good cause to be afraid.
Abandoned by his family and his Church, even before he understands what it is he is dealing with? No one to speak with among those who should care the most about him?
I don’t think that Christians can overlook just how badly the ball was dropped in the case of these young people.
Most people LOVE their children, no matter what problems the child is facing.
But imagine coming up in a world where your situation is pre-judged. To whom do you turn, when you are ‘rejected’ already in their minds and heart ????
That is why it matters so very much.
Two things, Christiane:
1. I am a little confused, do you agree that homosexuality is a sin?
2. If we act redemptively toward people, then they will come to us because they know they will get the truth and love. But to refuse to speak the truth is not loving and to refuse to speak the whole Gospel of forgiveness and restoration to them is a half-truth (as Mohler said). I have counseled with people who struggle with this, and I don’t think any of them would think I was anything less than loving nor did I shrink to communicate the truth that homosexuality is sinful and that they need to repent.
We need to be loving. But we need to speak the truth about their sin and their need. That is why we can’t settle for “half-truths”.
Hi JASON,
May I ask you this question?
Do you think all people with ‘same-sex’ attraction CHOOSE it ?
I don’t think they do. I think that many of them have a disorder that is a ‘trial’ to be lived with. chastely . . .
but I believe that their ‘same-sex’ attraction is not a ‘sin’ unless they willfully engage in homosexual activity.
We may see that ‘choice’ thing differently, but we likely agree that engaging in homosexual activity is not permitted.
My Church own forbids homosexual relations not only because it would be outside of marriage, but also because it cannot lead to new life (children) being formed according to God’s natural law. I don’t think that the concept of God’s ‘natural law’ is a part of your beliefs. I’m not aware of it, if it is.
I hope this explanation helps you.
I guess I’ll join the minority here and say I think Al Mohler’s response was “way off base.” There is not evidence that homosexuality is a not a choice. So, where’s the lie?
Also, exactly where have we failed to minister to homosexuals? Have we withheld emergency medical care for them at our hospitals? Have we refused to give them aid when they have come to our offices destitute? I don’t think I clearly understand what Mohler is suggesting.
I for one do not intend to give into the pressure of militant homosexual groups who want us to stop calling it what it is — sin, pure (or not so pure) and simple.
It is not surprising to me that Wade Burleson would jump on the ridicule Peter wagon, but I think we ought to at least examine Mohler’s statements to see if they are in fact, factual.
What he said is very controversial to say the least. And yet, it seems the default postion to simply accept it as “ex cathedra” because it is Al Mohler.
I think that is a dangerous trend.
I’m willing to take my “lumps” (pun intended) for even suggesting that Al Mohler could be mistaken about something, but that’s how I feel.
I will also offer this caveat — I do not know Peter Lumpkins and did not hear how he presented his question. So, there may have been something in his tone that deserves to be questioned or even criticized. However, Peter Lumpkins being wrong does not equate to Al Mohler being right.
The “winner/loser” motif is not a good fit with theology in my opinion.
Well put, Frank. It is newsworthy for Mohler to use the word “lie” with reference to a previously espoused SBC position. It is also newsworthy that he is pulling back from our “choice” language, albeit without necessarily saying they were “born” that way.
Two things here: (1) We should all be willing to entertain the notion that Mohler needed to clarify his remarks EVEN THOUGH the person asking him to do it was Peter Lumpkins, a controversial figure at SBC Voices. (2) If Mohler’s response was so biblical and articulate, etc., then why did it elicit so many “smackdown” comments about cage matches, being Mohlerized, etc. You can’t have it both ways–it was either a kind, Christian, gentlemanly explanation of a confusing earlier quote OR it was a powerful “putting Lumpkins in his place.” Please pick one. Was he RUDE or NICE? I personally think he was nice.
A wise man once said something that I try to remember but don’t do a good job of–”Once someone becomes your political enemy, they can no longer be the mission field.” I think it’s right for Christians to publicly speak out against homosexuality, to stand against gay marriage, and neither one of those stances are hateful in any way, form, or fashion. But I think once we become so involved in the political side of it, they refuse to hear the forgiveness that we proclaim in Christ.
Part of the problem has been the pretend christians who claim that homosexuality is not a sin and should not be preached against (“Paul was prejudiced. Christ NEVER would have called homosexuals to repent”). These same people, like David Gushee, claim that homosexuals can be Christians and should be welcomed in the church. Well, when people make that sort of blasphemous claim, then real Christians rise up to defend biblical truth. So, the pretend chiristians shout louder. Then, the real Christians shout louder because, again, they’re lying and their lies that you can be engaged in homsexual behavior and be a Christians will damn someone to hell.
Well, it’s gotten to the point where people only hear the volume instead of the message that “Chrst will forgive you of that sin if you repent and trust in Him. Please, repent. Christ loves you. He won’t turn you away”.
I’m not saying I knwo what the answer is. I know for a fact that we can’t deviate from the message that homsexuality is a sin 100% of the time without any exceptions whatsoever. Maybe start ignoring people like Gushee, Bruce Prescott, and other pretend christians who claim that it isn’t a sin and just plead with the lost to repent of their sins and trust Christ?
It’s no wonder Baptists come across as choosing our favorite sins to rail against. Too much of that, and we will be ignored, even more than we are now. Your last statement, Joe, is very important, i.e., “just plead with the lost to repent…” and quit lambasting favorite crimes. Judgementalism, slander, lying, failure to love, are all sins of equal gravity. If all we can do is rail at gays, we’ve lost the battle. Dave’s comments are important. We must love them, deal with their hurt, show them a new life in Christ. One example: my father was a hopeless alcoholic…no one condemnatory sermon brought him to Christ…he had heard all of that. It was the constant expressions of love and care from a local church that finally showed him how much the Lord loved him. He accepted the Lord, and, believe it or not, he never took another drop.
I believe it.
Mohler did a fantastic job as always.
In fact, he did what Lumpkins is unable to do…answer a question with a straight answer.
What we saw was the difference between someone who thinks through an issue biblically and brings the gospel to light on that subject contrasted with a person whose goal is to misconstrue and misrepresent so that his personal agenda and attacks can be advanced.
That someone got “mohlered” as some have put it.
Here is the issue…The people who are upset with Dr. Mohler, do not understand the difference between SSA (Same Sex Attraction) and the actual act of homosexual sex. I do believe that there are men and women who are born (or conditioned by family life as a child) being attracted to people of the same sex. This, in itself is not a sin any more than a guy who is attracted to females is not sinning. What separates SSA and homosexual sex, is the choice to act. Homosexual sex is a sin and it is a choice. Those truths are undeniable. But there are hundreds, if not thousands of men and women, who feel attraction to the opposite sex, but do not CHOOSE to act on those feelings.
What I think Dr. Mohler and maybe even Merritt were trying to get to, is those in the SBC (and evangelical Christianity as a whole) are causing problems by failing to see the difference between SSA and the act of homosexuality. When someone struggling to deal with SSA hears condemnation rather than guidance and support, how do you think that makes them feel, and feel about Christians in general? Not so good. Furthermore, even for those who have chosen to act on their SSA feelings, who have committed the sin of homosexuality, how do you think they feel when they see Christians making more of a deal over their sin, and all but ignoring other sins. In the SBC we will not tolerate homosexuals and churches that support homosexuals, but we dont deal the same with other sins. And scripture is quite clear that ALL sins are equally offensive to Him. Homosexuality in God’s eyes is the same as lying or adultery. But do we do not kick churches out for not actively condemning lairs or adulterers. How about domestic abuse? How many churches look the other way when one of their deacons beats their wives, how many convince the wife to keep her silence because of course divorce is a sin. Again, when homosexuals see this, see the double standard, they are offended, they feel targeted. And in this way Dr. Mohler is right. Christians and the SBC HAVE done a terrible job with dealing with homosexuals. We have been dealing with their sin, in a sinful way!
“”how do you think that makes them feel”"
When my pastor thundered down the truth of God’s Word condemning the sin in my life, I did not feel very happy about it. I felt uncomfortable. I felt condemned. I felt like if I did not respond to Jesus Christ I would go straight to hell when I died.
So, I’m truly sorry that the diagnosis is hard to hear, but it is hopefully the first step toward eternal life.
“” How many churches look the other way when one of their deacons beats their wives”"
My guess (and that’s all any of us can offer in this regard) is: not many thank God.
Why should this outrageous sin be used to soften the Word’s clear teaching on another sin? I think your logic may need some sharpening.
“”Christians and the SBC HAVE done a terrible job with dealing with homosexuals.”"
I’m assuming (quite dangerously of course) that you are confessing your own short-comings. I don’t think you can distinquish between assisting an individual and condemning a sinful life style. I’ve done what I can to hold both issues in tension.
I also wonder if you have ever read a book on the practice of homosexuality written by a homosexual. You might not think it is just a “little sin like all sin.” All sin is not equal in its physical, emotional, or social destructiveness. There’s a reason God singled out this sin as an “abomination.”
You might be right about what Mohler means, but unfortunately we can only go on what he said — and said emphatically. I’ll wait to see if he can clear the air before I bite into his apple.
Frank: For what does he need to clear the air? How much clearer does he have to be?
“Your own short-comings”
Nice to know you couldn’t respond to my post with out making a personal attack. Nice job there.
Just to be perfectly clear, homosexuality isn’t the only sin that God declared to be an “abomination.” 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 would seem to place 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. The only point is that homosexuality is certainly a sin, but it is by no means “singled out” among other sins in that way.
How about domestic abuse? How many churches look the other way when one of their deacons beats their wives,
Truthfully, I don’t know but I have to suspect that it does happen. Such churches ought to be kicked out. What about the church where a staff member molested his child, the senior knew about it and kept him on staff and that senior pastor is still there. That church should be kicked out.
The fact that they haven’t does not mean that Broadway and other churches like that should not have been. Those churches were not found having members who struggled with the same sex attraction that they knew would be a sin to act on so they chose not to act on it. Those churches were found with members living as homosexual couples and they church refused to do the biblical thing and bring church discipline to bear in those cases.
This is a cyber-shout of ‘amen’ from across the Pacific!
While I haven’t read / heard Mohler’s response which I have no doubt would be masterful, your briefing Dave is the most balanced I’ve read in a while. In our zeal for truth preservation we have demonized the homosexuals as more hell deserving than other sinners (will there be a ‘solitary confinement’ equivalent for gays in hell?).
On the flip side, homosexuals these days are getting far more demanding for an audience and pretty much flaunt their lifestyle in your face (I had the ‘privilege’ of living in the gay capital of the South Pacific where I bumped into them quite regularly). I think though (and I could be wrong) that they have been slowly forced into this exhibitionism as a reaction to public and vocal anti-homosexualism. The more we fight them publically the more they react it seems.
Nevertheless, as you so rightly put it, the best the church can do is stay on the truths of the sinfulness of the practice but embrace a redemptive approach toward the individuals who are involved in it.
What struck me most was the stark contrast between Richard Land and Al Mohler.
Land took to the stage and played loose with the facts and made wild assertions that no person can substantiate.
Meanwhile, Mohler showed himself to be a thoughtful thinker with regard to what he said about homosexuality. He clearly recognizes the complexity of issues such as homosexuality. He’s not a bumper sticker kinda guy.
Interestingly, Mohler’s position with regard to homosexuality and “sin” is the same as what Tony Campolo has been preaching for many years. Granted, Campolo and Mohler have real political differences and views about how the church should address homosexuality – but the theology is the same.
It is interesting that you would say that Mohler’s theology and Campolo’s theology are the “same.”
Perhaps in Campolo’s very early days (and even then I would suspect large theological differences to surface), but not in the Campolo latter years.
Campolo has continued to slide further and further left of center.
Having said that, I do not suggest that everything Campolo believes and says is heresy — though some clearly is, in my opinion.
I don’t think Mohler would put himself in the same theological boat as Campolo. You may know them both better than I do, but that seems to be my conclusion from what I do know.
Campolo, like Mohler, does not believe same-sex attraction to be “sin”
He still believes – as Mohler does – that, while attraction is not sin, homosexual “acts” or behavior = sin.
Campolo makes that clear in many of his books. He often uses the language of “same-sex eroticism” or “same-sex behavior”
He calls those with same-sex attraction to life celibate lives.
My comment was about Campolo’s and Mohler’s definition of what is defined as “sin” with regard to homosexuality (no other comparisons being made beyond that question)
live not life.
It will surprise no one that Richard Land’s report was one of the highlights of the convention for me. Others include the NAMB report and Platt’s sermon. I see no need to contrast Land and Mohler in this way.
So no need to contrast or you disagree with the contrast?
I was under the impression that God was sovereign. Listening to Land, you’d think Obama was – after all, ObamaCare will cause 99% of folks to live shorter lives! How that makes sense, I don’t know.
It’s fine to say it’s bad policy, that it’s too expensive and will be an economic disaster, say it will weaken rather than improve the quality of care received on average. Dems can make similar complaints about some medicare reform proposals.
Mohler’s not a big “sky is falling” guy.
Perhaps a more stark contrast is Land’s comments as mentioned above versus those made by Rick Warren at the Pastor’s Conference who declared:
” I couldn’t care less about politics. If I thought you could change the world through laws, I’d be a politician. But you can’t. So I have zero faith in any politics.”
Click on my name BDW above for link to full Warren/Land quotes.
Don’t leave out O. S. Hawkins. He was just as forceful as Land regarding the impact of Obamacare on our insurance policies at Guidestone.
BDW, I agree with you. I thought Land did a poor job grounding his positions/principles in the gospel. Unfortunately, his words reminded me (and others) of a political rally.
A few thoughts on the Lumpkins / Mohler incident. I haven’t seen the video, but from what I’ve read it does seem that there was an attempt to trap/embarrass Mohler, that plainly didn’t work. In any event, the schadenfreude that some are feeling over the incident is probably something that ought to be suppressed.
It is a little frustrating to keep seeing things like: “So where does Mohler stand on homosexuality? We still don’t know!” I’m sorry but if you are saying something like this, you are being deliberately obtuse. It takes about 30 seconds to find out where Mohler stands on homosexuality. Homosexual acts are sin. Period. That’s where he has always stood, that is where he stands now. Nothing has changed in that regard. The additional thing that he is saying that seems to be disturbing people is his assertion that gay people may not be that way because of the simple formula that we’ve long heard from evangelicals: They simply chose to be that way. That is what is sending people over the edge, but honestly, do we really think that a heterosexual person simply wakes up one day and decides to play for the other team? Hey presto, I’m gay? Seriously? Mohler is not suggesting that gay people are born that way. All he is saying is that the roots of homosexuality are more complicated than we in the evangelical church have made them out to be. Is that really that controversial? And he is saying that denunciation and condemnation has been a less than effective evangelistic tool to reach the gay community. Is that really breaking new ground?
Here’s the money quote:
“We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophobia,” Mohler says. “We’ve used the ‘choice’ language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice” (//link)
The ideas that take time to process are (1) we lied, (2) we’re homophones, and (3) sexual orientation is not a choice.
Honestly, folks, when I first read this quote, I thought Merritt had misquoted Mohler. Now, I know he didn’t. But please don’t act like this is the standard SBC line. This is new, folks, and it may take some of us a while to process or get used to it.
I dont think you would like to find out how many SBC’ers secretly feel the same as the jokers at Westboro Baptist Church. The numbers might startle you. Not a majority by no means. But I would bet a substantial minority.
Again, Mohler is making a difference between SSA and the act of homosexual sex. A differentiation that many SBC’ers (including some on this board) do not understand, and as a result, lump people who have same sex attraction with people who actually commit homosexual sex. In lumping both together, those who do so HAVE lied, DO resemble homophobes, and do NOT understand that in some cases ATTRACTION is not a choice…Action IS a choice however, and I dont think Dr Mohler would say differently.
Well said. We’ve lied when we assert that homosexuals are secretly heterosexuals who are denying their heterosexuality out of pure spite and rebellion. How many of us “chose” to be heterosexual?
Rick,
Just for clarification…he did not say that sexual orientation is not a choice. He said it is not “merely” a choice. An important qualifying word.
Honestly, the inclusion of this word is a big deal in the discussion.
Maybe you didn’t get the point because you didn’t see the word “merely”.
Sorry. “Homophones” would be everyone having the same iPhone 4 or something. I meant to type “homophobes.”
Homophones would be people who speak and understand the language of gay people.
Actually, homophones are words that sound alike such as whether and weather. I now have the VeggieTales silly song about homophones in my head.
Jeff “must crave” knowledge. (A homophone!)
That was pretty good. I might have to use it sometime.
First off, I have the feeling that Peter Lumpkins, who has banned me from commenting on his site, was trying to trap and embarrass Mohler. And you know what? Mohler took the bait and swallowed it whole. There was a reason why Mohler CHOSE to do this. Mohler has his eye on the future, when homosexual marriage is legal in the United States as it is in so many other countries, and wants the SBC to not be marginalized when that day comes in the same way that people who oppose interracial marriage are now marginalized. I am not equating the abomination of homosexuality with interracial marriage, only pointing out that when/if homosexual marriage is legalized, opposing homosexuality will make you as marginalized in this country as opposing interracial marriage does, so Mohler is being forward-thinking in trying to “contextualize” or “spin” a position against homosexuality in a way that allows the SBC to remain an entity that is afforded a degree of respectability in mainstream America. Bottom line: the SBC is the largest evangelical body in the country, and Mohler is looking for a way for that to remain true in the context of a society that officially endorses, rewards and promotes homosexuality in its media, courts, schools etc. In order to remain evangelical, the SBC will still have to hold that Bible calls homosexuality sin, but in order to remain large, SBC will have to “massage” and “de-emphasize” the issue.
Now whether Mohler’s foward-thinking is Biblical and justified is a matter for another day. But in this context, Mohler is 100%, completely totally wrong. The reason is that Jonathan Merritt is pro-homosexual. Read the excerpts from a column that Merritt wrote for CNN in 2010 in this link: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/jonathan-merritt-is-prop-8-fight-the-culture-wars-last-stand
Yes, “freedomtomarry” is a pro-homosexual “marriage” site. In it, Merritt uses all the homosexual rights slogans, such as “marriage equality”, portrays people opposed to homosexuality as “aging” and “out of touch”, and describes opposition to homosexuality as based on ” a traditional view of sexuality” instead of what the Bible says. Merritt doesn’t want the SBC to alter its approach to the homosexuality issue in order to be more loving to homosexuals and make us more effective at evangelizing and ministering to them, nor is he motivated by some nuance between a practicing unrepentant homosexual and someone struggling with SSA issues. Instead, Merritt wants the SBC to alter its approach because he does not view homosexuality as sin. The only thing that keeps Merritt from openly acknowledging this and publicly, explicitly taking his stand with the pro-homosexual lobby is because of his current position on the staff of a Southern Baptist church where his father is the head pastor. Merritt’s views can be summed up in a piece that he wrote for USA Today, in which he states that homosexuals “… often suffer as societal pariahs at the hands of misinformed Christians who believe that gays have chosen their sexual orientation.” Even Merritt’s superficial appeals to orthodoxy in the USA Today piece, his claims that “God desires a better path for their lives” and “our biblical convictions prohibit a redefinition of marriage”, he pointedly refrains from calling homosexuality a sin, other than to resort to the “we are all sinners” mantra common to homosexual activists working to influence the church. He then says “Scripture says the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law, gives life.” So, opposition to homosexuality is legalism, but Merritt’s views of “love” isn’t? And I should point out that even the superficial, misleading appeals to orthodoxy in Merritt’s USA Today article in 2009 are totally absent in his CNN 2010 article, where he pointedly refuses to either oppose homosexual marriage or state that opposition to homosexuality is based on the Bible. Look, when you take the position that “God created homosexuals this way”, as Merritt does with “misinformed Christians who believe that gays have chosen their sexual orientation”, and the fact that he is far harder on Christians that adhere to Biblical texts on this issue than he is on practicing homosexuals (Merritt has a lot more “love” for the latter than the former”) then what other conclusions are possible?
And it is impossible to take the position that Mohler does not know about Merritt. That 2009 article in USA Today stated that “Jonathan Merritt … serves as national spokesperson for the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative“!!!
So, if it is a “new day for the SBC on homosexuality” then it is a dark one indeed.
Here’s the Lumpkins/Mohler video from the convention: http://jaredmoore.exaltchrist.com/2011/06/16/video-peter-lumpkins-got-mohlered/. I think Peter’s question was blatantly accusatory.
Good grief! There is so much spin on this that it’s ridiculous. I read ” I haven’t heard, I haven’t read” Well I suggest you see what you are talking about before commenting.
http://jaredmoore.exaltchrist.com/2011/06/16/video-peter-lumpkins-got-mohlered/
The Lumpkins/Mohler exchange is around 14:04 into the video.
Debbie:
Thanks for the link to the video. Personally, the exchange speaks for itself.
Thanks, DEBBIE
I watched the questioning and the response with interest, and actually I thought that Peter wasn’t ‘baiting’ Dr. Mohler so much as asking for clarification;
and I thought that Dr. Mohler did an excellent job of responding to Peter’s question.
Not sure what all the commotion is about . . . I didn’t see impropriety in that question Peter asked, nor did I see a ‘smack-down’ of Peter from Dr. Mohler.
I suspect that the ‘commotion’ is more of a reaction to the CONTENT of the inter-change . . .
I do see, in Dr. Mohler’s words, a new ‘spirit’ that I think will help Southern Baptists to minister to those with ‘same-sex attraction’, with a humility of heart. I thank God for this.
It IS a change for the better.
If homosexual marriage is legalized in America, and the Bible says that is sin, why exactly do I NOT want to be “marginalized” on this issue? IN the world, yep. But not OF it. Marginalize me.
Jared: We must have been reading, thinking and posting at the same time.
Yes Maam. Thanks for linking!
Jared:
It will be very interesting to hear people’s reactions after they watch this video. For me it is self evident, but the person who asked the question of Dr. Mohler sure is whining and crying.
Rick: I disagree with Job on why Dr. Mohler said what he said. He said what he said because it is how we should respond to this. Kudos to Dr. Mohler for this great Biblical answer. Watch the video if you dare.
I was there. I was satisfied with Mohler’s explanation. I was also satisfied with Peter’s need to ask it. I didn’t really object to the Peter’s accusatory tone or Mohler’s pedantic tone. Some of this is just the personalities God gave these brothers.
My issue, once it was confirmed that Mohler did indeed say these words, was the way that others piled on with all the “smackdown” cheers for his explanation of the controversial quote. I mean, is that really the right spirit or attitude?
Rick:
Did Peter need to ask this question in a public forum?
Actually, yes. He got a copy of the quote in a periodical — I think the Christian Science Monitor — don’t quote me. Merritt sourced the Mohler quote to a personal interview. Peter attempted to acquire a transcript of the interview from Merritt privately and was refused. He then contacted Mohler privately a number of times and was ignored.
For what it’s worth, I think Peter assumed, as I did, that Merritt must have misquoted Mohler. If Peter was “going after” anyone here, I think it was Merritt. Truly, I think Peter thought of this as sort of a “journalistic scoop” and who can blame him? Did ANYONE read this in Baptist Press or anything?
So, pardon the long answer, but Peter had tried to resolve this privately to no avail.
Here is what I observed about J. Merritt using Mohler’s words in the article. I stated this on another blog. I first thought Merritt took Mohler’s words out of context, but changed my mind after reading again.
I may have been wrong about Mohler’s words being taken out of context in Merritt’s most recent article. I’m sorry about that. Jonathan makes it clear that Mohler’s (biblical) position of homosexuality being a sin has not changed. While Merritt admitted that Mohler’s position on homosexuality has not changed, he simply puts forth that Mohler perceives that some Christians have not done so well in their approach to and treatment of homosexuals. I don’t find that disagreeable. Merritt did make other observations in his article, but did not tie Mohler to them as if Mohler supported them. (Again, I should have been more careful with my words.) Of course, I would still like to read/hear the entire context of Mohler’s words.
Rick, is it sinful to cheer a biblically faithful response to an accusatory question? A question that had NOTHING to do with the report that was just delivered by Mohler?
When the floor is open to question entity heads, messengers are NOT AT ALL BOUND to ask questions only about the material just presented. They can ask about ANYTHING that pertains to the public words and actions of the entity head.
Is it a sin to cheer a good answer to a good question? No. That would sound like this:”Dr. Mohler did a good job clarifying the quote about Southern Baptists lying and being homophobes since homosexuals do not MERELY choose their orientation. Great job, Dr. Mohler!”
What we had on Twitter was the kind of gloating, mocking scorn reminiscent of those two muppets in the balcony. Smackdowns and cage matches? Really?
Rick, we’ll just have to disagree then. I thought Peter asked the question in an accusatory manner; and Mohler responded in a graceful, biblical way. It was more than a question and an answer, it was was an accusatory question and a response that destroyed the accusation. Once an accusation is made, a debate insues, and Mohler won. Lumpkins got Mohlered. If Lumpkins accusation was verified by Mohler’s response, then twitter would have said “Mohler got Lumpkined”. Since Lumpkins lost, twitter told the true story.
With regard to the Jobs comment about Jonathan Merritt, the question begs:
Can one cling tenaciously to the belief that homosexual behavior=sin while also simultaneously support increased rights and legal recognitions for gays and lesbians (whether in the form of civil unions or marriage rights)?
If the answer is yes, then perhaps the answer is that Merritt and Mohler are in agreement on the question of homosexual behavior=sin but simply different in their public policy approaches much in the same way that some SBCers would like to see all “illegals” return to their country of origin while other SBCers prefer what they believe to be a more just, compassionate and humane approach affording a path to citizenship, etc.
If you don’t think immigration is a good enough comparison, then look at alcohol. Many Southern Baptists believe that consumption of alcohol=sin but I don’t hear anything calling for a prohibition on alcohol sales.
Now, with regard to other comments about Mohler:
I think Peter’s question was fair. The quote didn’t sound like Mohler. I was surprised to Mohler use the word homophobic. Then again, Mohler hasn’t always addressed homosexuality in the same way as most Southern Baptists. He’s clearly been leaning in the direction of a “born this way” perspective for several years now since his gay baby gene controversial article. Thinking out loud can sometimes get leaders in trouble.
Now that Mohler has responded, there are more questions to ask of him. Perhaps he’ll write on these in the near future. If Mohler is embracing the concept of sexual orientation and that homosexuality is [generally] not necessarily a choice – then why are the implications for ministry to homosexuals?
What does Mohler think about ex-gay ministries that thru therapy gets homosexuals to lead a heterosexual lifestyle? Should homosexuals pursue this path or instead choose a life of celibacy.
I sense that Mohler is more sympathetic to the celibacy route as he clearly has been influenced by Catholic theology with regard to sexuality questions. We see proof of that in his views concerning birth control and the purpose of marriage.
I also sense that perhaps Mohler’s approach towards these issues is going to be different than that of Bob Stith who has for years been a leader in the Ex-Gay Movement.
Dave has pointed to two different perspectives within the SBC re: homosexuality. My guess is that there are more than two perspectives!
BDW: Again I think you are misunderstanding. Giving the Redemptive message is what Mohler is talking about, and if we as a denomination are honest, people have been homophobic. They wouldn’t befriend a homosexual, they wouldn’t talk to a homosexual other than to tell them that they are in sin. The redemptive part of the message being left off. That is what Mohler was addressing. It has nothing to do with therapy or anything else but giving them Jesus Christ who is the Great Physician.
BDW: Dr. Mohler has stated he has written over 200 articles on his view on homosexuality. I believe that would be clear enough that there should be no further questions.
What exactly have I misunderstood, Debbie.
Be specific.
Mohler himself loves to talk about “implications” of decisions and actions in history. Well, certainly his comments in the Advocate have additional implications. Who disagrees with that? His statement doesn’t end the conversation. It begins a conversation – and its a conversation that Mohler clearly seems very interested in having. That was my point.
I gotta admit Debbie, do you ever really read what I actually write? Where did I misinterpret or misunderstand what Mohler believes about homosexual behavior=sin???
I see that Debbie has been back to this thread to comment but has failed to respond to my reply.
Typical. Drive-by criticizer.
BDW: I’m hardly a drive by and I think you know that. I do not respond to you or Frank because there is nothing to respond to. I think you know the answer to the questions you ask that I wasn’t even referring to. I answer. You twist. It’s fruitless, thus no answer from me.
Not to mention the fact that I have probably given where you have misunderstood in the many comments I have already posted.
Frank: How is it a Biblical answer? I think you know the answer to that. You know scripture quite well.
The video on the Mohler/Lumpkins exchange is quite clear, I don’t need to answer.
Sorry Debbie.
You are a drive-by criticizer.
This is the third-time in a row that I’ve responded to you and you failed to reply.
Maybe this is because you leave dozens and dozens of comments and can’t keep track of things?
You made an accusation. You claimed that I misunderstood something. I said, WHAT? And, based on your reply here, are apparently not capable of answering what I think most people would consider to be a rather simple question.
Here’s the thing. I am more than capable of having a discussion. I am more than capable of defending my words. Yet you, on several occasions now, have dropped by, taken a shot, made an assertion, accused me of misunderstanding something or being wrong or this or that, and then you fail to show up.
Simply not showing up and failing to back up your assertion is rather weak. It’s weak to go around making pronouncements (i.e. you are wrong) and then refuse to explain exactly how that person is wrong or how that person misunderstood something.
You have, in your infinite wisdom, pretended as if this Mohler-Homophobia debate is cut and dry and simple. It’s clearly not. Mohler would probably acknowledge that too. If it was such a simple issue, why the need for 200+ articles on the subject?
My point, a point that you don’t seem to “get” (probably because you lack the ability to take time and actually read anything) is that Mohler’s comments have broader implications especially for how Baptists and evangelicals should minister to homosexuals. Read my comment again: I mentioned Stith and Ex-Gay Ministries. Certainly Mohler’s comments have implications for Stith’s agenda and the ex-gay movement.
Debbie,
How was it a Biblical answer? The Bible says nothing about homosexuality be an “orientation or genetic.” Science offers no proof the the same.
So, Mohler’s answer and accusation I’m a liar, seem a bit over the top and not all based upon Scripture or science.
Did he sound scholarly? No doubt; he usually does. But, that is not the same as having Biblical evidence or scientific proof.
Of course, the matter of how we treat homosexuals in regard to civility, etc., is a different matter. I don’t object to Mohler’s position in that regard.
So, my conclusion is it was not a Biblical answer, nor a scientific answer, nor a particularly civil answer. I also think he has confirmed what many already feel about him.
Frank: It’s interesting to me how you pick and choose what you hear.
I think Wade said it perfectly in his post on this:
The problem we have right now in the Southern Baptist Convention is Southern Baptist preachers who honestly believe that Jesus would never sit down with a militant homosexual and have a cordial conservation with him over dinner (think Zacchaeus), or that Jesus would ever care to be in the presence of a loud-mouth radical lesbian who is known throughout the city for her activism much less offer to help the lesbian with repairs on her home or pay for her groceries (think woman at the well), or that Jesus would ever go to the homes of homosexuals and open the Scriptures and teach them about Himself. They don’t think Jesus would EVER do that because THEY would never do that. This kind of legalism becomes the death knell of any spiritual vitality in the Southern Baptist Convention.
Jesus is not just another Southern Baptist preacher. Thank God He is not, and thank God He is God. Maybe Al Mohler has caught a glimpse of Jesus in ways his critics have not.
It’s interesting to me that you tell BDW you never respond to me. Yet you criticize everything I post
You never answer any direct question. You just criticize. I respect your right to differ but your criticizing leaves me a bit annoyed
I know this may sound dumb, but how can see the video? Does someone have a link?
I just realized that Debbie had already given the link. Thanks Debbie.
All one would have to do in order to ascertain Mohler’s views on homosexuality would be to read his articles on the subject at albertmohler.com. As recently as June the 3rd he wrote an article on the subject and made it crystal clear that homosexuality is a sin. In this article he stated “The Bible’s condemnation of same-sex behaviors is comprehensive and clear. It is interwoven with the Bible’s message concerning God’s plan for humanity, marriage, and society — and the Gospel.” Mr. Lumkins did not need to ask the question, because he asked for a clarification that could have easily been acquired by doing just a little bit of reading.
Nope, not true at all. I have read a lot of Mohler’s articles, and none of them sounded like the controversial “money quote” in question. That’s exactly why Peter asked it. The quote about lying, homophobic Southern Baptists and homosexuals who were not merely choosing their orientation was NEW GROUND.
Peter was not doing a general research paper on Mohler’s views. He was trying to understand a specific very confusing and controversial quote.
Rick, the difference with Peter and me is that when I read that quote by Mohler, I knew what he did not mean because of the many, many articles that he’s written on the subject. What Mohler explained in response to Peter’s question, I already knew concerning Mohler. Peter should have known as well.
Exactly.
Well, it didn’t sound like vintage Mohler to me, either. Perhaps Peter should have known it was really Mohler and exactly what Mohler meant by it, but since he didn’t know, he asked a question. Remember, folks, he was not only asking what Mohler meant, he was first of all verifying the accuracy of the quote. If he sounded frustrated, remember, Mohler could have confirmed the quote when Peter sought verification privately. Looking at it another way, should I really have to ask something on the floor of the SBC to get an answer?
Interesting that you give Peter so much benefit of the doubt. Considering his normal tone and normal M.O. and his desire to rid the SBC of Mohler and all those like him, I think his agenda was on display and his accusatory tone was easily read.
He was not asking an honest question. It is laughable to argue that he was simply looking for an answer to a question. No, he wanted to trip up Mohler and embarrass him…probably so he could have some grounds to try and start another 12 person grass roots movement to oust him. His plan backfired.
Rick, Merritt had already validated the quote
Rick: Al Mohler has said what he said at the Convention before. This is not new as Peter’s articles articulate. In Dr. Mohler’s writings he has written over and over that homosexuality is sin, but his point is that we need go beyond that. Christ is available to them and not through homophobia, in other words not just by radically condemning them but by showing them the mercy and love that Jesus has and would show to them. It’s not hard to comprehend unless one doesn’t want to.
Yep, absolutely true. Do you remember the gay baby gene thing that BDW referenced above? This was not new ground at all. I understand wanting clarification on a quote, but that could have been done privately. I’m an absolute nobody, but have been able to appraoch Dr. Mohler and talk to him at a SBTC evangelism conference.
As Mark stated even Merritt made it clear that Mohler had not changed his position on homosexual behavior being a sin.
Listen, Peter TRIED privately and got nada. And this goes further than the “gay gene” versus choice issue. Saying Southern Baptists were essentially “lying homophobes” required a bit of explanation. Hey, I’m glad we know. Glad for the question. Glad for the answer.
So you think that the head a SBC entity should answer each and every question from people who try and write them? Especially from someone whose only apparent claim to fame is that he is a loudmouth on a blog? Yes our entity heads do answer to the SBC churches, BUT that does not mean that they have to answer each and every question (even in private) that is sent to them. To say that they do or should is laughable and is evidence that people dont understand that the work of, in this case, a Seminary President, is not “simple”, that they DO NOT have time to answer questions left and right. Most especially when said questions are coming from someone with a clear and blatant ulterior motive in asking said question.
Rick, How do you know Peter tried privately? Even if he did, why must Mohler entertain his questions?
At first I thought you just didn’t get the whole discussion. But now you are simply denying things and misrepresenting things that are pretty straightforward.
He explained how the SBC (on the whole) has been teaching half-truths on the issue. Did you not hear that?
He explained how are actions are a “form of homophobia”. (BTW, the quote Peter used clearly said “form of”…why do you fail to include it?)
He explained (and has done so on many other occasions) what he means by it being more complicated than saying it is “merely a choice”.
Lumpkins was not trying to clarify Mohler’s views. Mohler has stated this repeatedly in multiple article and radio shows and interviews. He was trying to trap Mohler and make him embarrass himself or Merritt. Pretty obvious agenda.
The question was not a REAL question. Pretty obvious. Unless, of course, you don’t WANT to see it.
Exactly… As Mohler said, he has written over 200 articles on the issue. Anyone who even tries to figure out Mohlers position and has half a brain can do it. Peter’s a smart guy- if he had genuine questions about Mohlers position he could have found the answers, easily, without making the convention his stage.
I think the confusion is that Mohler is more well known as someone who focuses mainly on the cultural aspects of homosexuality. I know that to be the case in his one minute radio spots.
And that is the trouble with being a culture warrior. That is what you will be most known by. I think BDW makes some very good points…even though…he and I are far apart on many issues. Mohler is known for his stance on birth control, marrying young (even though his daughter is not married), and many other “cultural” issues that are not in and of themselves mandated in scripture.
If he had said: I think that women preaching is a sin but too many in the SBC are anti women and so focused on gender roles that women have not been treated well in the SBC.
I think the Mohler supporters here would be aghast and saying, What on earth is he talking about. That is not who we are at all.
I went back and watched the exchange. I think it is clear Peter had a purpose beyond clarification alone, but that is generally the case at Conventions.
What I’m surprised at is the fact that Mohler never answered the question–at least not directly. He never showed where I as a SBC had been caught in a lie. He never substantiated his claim that the entire SBC is homophobic. Yet, he gets applause.
I have said the same thing he has said, and heard many others say it. So, I’m at a loss of where this “lie” comes in. I frankly was right in the middle of the AIDS issue in San Francisco in the early 80′s before Mohler ascended to his throne and now pontificates on any and all matters SBC (or otherwise).
People talk about Peter getting “Mohlered.” I think I see people who have been “Mohlerized.” I wonder what the outcry would be if a staunch, well-known, conservative leader other than Mohler would have called the entire Convention a “liar?”
The fact that he gets a pass on this just astounds me considering the things other people have done and have been excoriated.
Again, I don’t think I’m going to join Peter’s fan club, but then again, I don’t think I’m all that thrilled with Mohler’s skirting of the question.
I suggest you go back and listen to what Dr. Mohler says begining at the 19:26 mark.
The lies, homophobia are tied. Many evangelical Christians, including SBC folk, have no problem with saying homosexuality is a sin, but we DO have a problem with trying to share the gospel with homosexuals. The fact is that many SBC folk sound more like Westboro Baptist folk rather than Christ-centered folk. The SBC has the same problem with alcoholics, and women who have committed abortions! They condemn the sin AND the sinner rather than do what Jesus did in condemning the sin but loving the sinner to death in Christ! Those in homosexual relationships will ONLY be saved by the grace of Christ Jesus, NOT by yelling at them saying “SINNER!” And those struggling with SSA will only find relief if Christians stopped calling them sinners and rather offered love and support so that they can AVOID sin!
Until a Church can lovingly bring into its heart those who are weakened and suffering, then that Church still needs to have its heart changed.
Something in Mohler’s words to Peter give me hope that a ‘heart-change’ has begun . . . and that can only happen with the help of the Holy Spirit.
I don’t think Peter meant those questions in a bad way, and I am glad that Dr. Mohler was able to explain more fully his words to Peter . . .
let the dialogue continue, people
please
I went back and watched the exchange. I think it is clear Peter had a purpose beyond clarification alone, but that is generally the case at Conventions.
What I’m surprised at is the fact that Mohler never answered the question–at least not directly. He never showed where I as a SBC had been caught in a lie. He never substantiated his claim that the entire SBC is homophobic. Yet, he gets applause.
I have said the same thing he has said, and heard many others say it. So, I’m at a loss of where this “lie” comes in. I frankly was right in the middle of the AIDS issue in San Francisco in the early 80′s before Mohler ascended to his throne and now pontificates on any and all matters SBC (or otherwise).
People talk about Peter getting “Mohlered.” I think I see people who have been “Mohlerized.” I wonder what the outcry would be if a staunch, well-known, conservative leader other than Mohler would have called the entire Convention a “liar?”
The fact that he gets a pass on this just astounds me considering the things other people have done and have been excoriated.
Again, I don’t think I’m going to join Peter’s fan club, but then again, I don’t think I’m all that thrilled with Mohler’s skirting of the question.
Frank,
I am afraid to say that you and Rick both have misquoted and mis-cited Mohler and the discussion at several points.
Mohler did not say the entire SBC is guilty of homophobia. In fact he clearly stated that it was a problem within the SBC…and then he said “a form of homophobia” (as quoted by Lumpkins). I think his explanation brought to light exactly what he meant. But even if he didn’t…is it not clear that many within the SBC have been bold to call it a sin (as we should) but have not been bold to love homosexuals and share the restorative truth of the Gospel to those who repent and believe. You can deny it, but I think it is obvious that is not happening on the whole. That is “a form of homophobia”…not that we are scared of the people, but that we treat them as sub-human and share half-truths with them. That is not what the Gospel calls us to preach.
As for calling the convention a “liar”…he explained that comment. Are you ignoring it on purpose or did you miss it? The SBC has been telling “half-truths”, he explained, and I think he is right. Evidently, so did many of the messengers.
Moreover, we have had several SBC leaders telling the convention that we arelying about membership numbers. They are right too! So, saying that people are lying is not uncommon.
Also, you say he didn’t answer the question…but he clearly did. The question was about whether or not he made those comments or if Merritt lied. Mohler clearly answered that question. (Again, are you ignoring it or did you just miss it?) He then expounded on what he meant by the comments cited by Lumpkins.
He clearly addressed the questions and brought the Gospel to light on a crucial issue. Brilliant response. Biblical response.
Jason,
In your view, is a “form” of homophobia not a perspective within the general term homophobia? I am a “form” of sinner, which makes me no less of a sinner, just a sinner of a certain type.
Now, listen, in my earlier “money quote” post, I DIRECTLY copied and pasted Merritt’s quote of Mohler. So please, no accusations of misrepresenting Mohler.
To be clear, folks, I am satisfied with Mohler’s RESPONSE to the quote in which he did indeed say the SBC had lied, was homophobic, in a certain form or manner (happy?) and that homosexuals were not MERELY making a choice. So you don’t need to argue Mohler’s clarification with me.
Feel free to argue the NEED for a clarification. I think the original quote was new, confusing, controversial and in need of explanation, REGARDLESS of Peter’s alleged motives in asking the question. I mean, in the old days, the people calling Southern Baptists lying homophobes were the homosexuals, not the Seminary Presidents, which leads to another question. Do the other Seminary Presidents feel the same way?
The only reason I felt the need to mention those clarifying remarks was because you left them out of your summarizing statements.
Mohler said: it isn;t merely a choice (followed by explanation) – your summary of his point was: he said it isn’t a choice.
That is NOT what he said. Thus my pressing you on the clarifying word of “merely”.
You may not think it is a big deal, but it is. You may say I don;t need to argue his clarification with you, but you keep rejecting it/omitting it, so I think I might need to keep bringing it up.
For example…he did not call the SBC a bunch of “lying homophobes”. You are rejecting his explanations and putting words in his mouth. Yes, he said the words “lying” and “homophobe” but he did not use them the way you are using them and he nuanced them and explained them. At least be fair in the representation…that is my point.
I can understand the questions of his comments. That is fair. But let’s make sure we represent his words correctly rather than the way you just did: “calling Southern Baptist lying homophobes”. As I said he didn’t say it that way, and you know it. But here are the real issues:
Have believers been teaching half-truths (his explanation for lying, that you seem to reject because it isn’t as good a soundbyte) about homosexuality?
Have we practiced a form of homphobia?
Have we or haven’t we?
He said we “lied” and were “homophobes.” Peter asked a question. He explained what he meant. I said I accept his explanation. I’m fine with all of this.
The only issue for me is the snide digs at Peter for asking the question and the feeling among some that when the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary says that we have lied and practiced a form of homophobia that he should be above having to answer a few questions. Enough already.
Rick,
I see where you’re coming from. I respect what you have to say and I will say praise God that people are allowed to ask questions in the sbc. But the fact remains whether it’s you or me or Peter Lumkins or anyone else, when we ask those questions it opens us up for scrutiny. That’s why I’m big on step up, state your name, and be a big boy. At the very least I respect Peter because he doesn’t take potshots from a concealed position.
I don’t think anyone is above answering a few questions. I think Mohler was ready, and quite able (as he demonstrated) to answer those questions. So I agree with you.
In fact, no one has argued he is above questioning…not sure from where that accusation is coming.
Peter has brought the digs upon himself with his antagonistic nature on the message boards. His antagonistic tone during the question was evident as well.
Like I said, it wasn’t an honest question…thus the response it has generated.
The thing is Rick and Frank. I have also read Peter’s over 200 plus articles over the years. Put the most recent ones in with his question and I think it’s clear that Peter was doing anything but trying to help Dr. Mohler out. Peter Lumpkins is clear what his agenda was. I also thought Dr. Mohler was gracious in answering as he could have not done so. So spin away, but it’s just not going to wash this time.
The clapping shows that people aren’t so ignorant as to not know what the agenda was.
Who’s spinning? Regardless of who asked the question or why, Mohler never answered it. You call it “being gracious,” but it could easily be called, “being slick.”
I’m waiting to see which it really was.
Just for your benefit I’ll repeat what I did not say: “I did not say I thought Peter’s motives for asking were pure as the driven snow.” So, please don’t spin that to help boost your moderate views.
Disagree, if you will, (I respect your right and expect your accusations) but deal with the issue.
Clapping, “smack-down,” “spanked (Wade)”, “Mohlerered.” You have a different view of humility than I have.
The clapping also shows that we are humbling ourselves to see where we have failed in past years. His answer was wonderful and it showed his heart for those without Christ.
Look, I have one question. Which is more important, agendas and putting one’s foot down or giving Christ and his redeeming love? People are going to hell and now is the time to get the Gospel out. Hell cannot be full of more people than heaven.
“That is “a form of homophobia”…not that we are scared of the people, but that we treat them as sub-human and share half-truths with them. That is not what the Gospel calls us to preach”
Is this the royal “we”? Mohler writes about a lot of things he has no personal experience with in the everyday world. For example, when was the last time Mohler reported to a homosexual boss? or worked alongside a homosexual day after day? Some of us have and we know how to live at peace with people and those who think Christians “hate” them find out very different.
The irony is that Peter uses the same intimidation strategies with those who try and question him on issues. The difference is that Peter is not a great entity boss that people admire…no matter what he says or does, they hang on every word. John Wylie even got to “approach” the great man once at a conference! Wow.( I have heard of people who got Piper to sign their bibles!)
Mohler sometimes forgets he is accountable to the convention (I know…he is accountable only to the Trustees who worship him), and that means he must answer the peasants once in a while in public. It is only once a year.
Too much cult of personality in the SBC. It is not healthy.
Lydia:
You said:”The irony is that Peter uses the same intimidation strategies with those who try and question him on issues. ”
Or he will simply not publish what you attempt to publish on his blog.
Lydia: Speaking for myself, Al Mohler simply conveyed what I have been saying this whole time. What was displayed this year has been everything I have been writing on and hoping for our convention. It’s not about who said it, but what he said that matters. Someone who is not known at all could have said it and I would have clapped. His words are exactly correct.
And Peter is hardly a victim in all of this.
“And Peter is hardly a victim in all of this”
Debbie, Did you miss this part of my comment?
“The irony is that Peter uses the same intimidation strategies with those who try and question him on issues. ”
Peter claims he was being ‘intimidated”. I found that amusing considering his sop and typical mode of communication.
Debbie, A lot of Christians live this out every single day in the real world. Words are just that: words. Do you get Mohler sound bites on your radio stations there? I can see where people might be confused who have followed Mohler’s culture war soundbites and writings for a while.
What is even a bigger consideration is now that we have no liberals to fight…the fight is narrowed to Landmark vs Calvinism. Or, free willers vs Calvists…or whatever it is…those are just masks…it is about power politics as usual.
I agree with Mohler on a large part of what he said. I do not think homosexuals are born that way no more than I think stutterers are born that way. I do believe their environment and experiences directs them toward very bad choices. I came to see this working with the cross over groups like Exodus and Love Won Out.
As to Mohler, I think from the perspective of the cross, he is just as important as the janitor at SBTS.
Let me give this a shot. I think other people have hit parts of this, but I’ll try to put it all together from my perspective.
The lie: that homosexuality is simply a choice that can be made and unmade, turned off and on at the discretion of the individual. If that is the nature of homosexuality, then it doesn’t require the gospel to address it. It only requires a different choice. They don’t have to be set free by the saving life and death of Jesus; they only have to stop doing what they’re doing and stop choosing to think and feel and act that way and stop being attracted to those of the same sex. But if homosexuality is a deeply rooted sin that reaches down to the soul of a person, then it is not simply a matter of choice, but requires the gospel to redeem that person and liberate them from the bondage to sin. Again, let me clarify (as I believe Mohler did) that I believe that homosexual behavior is sin and that it does involve a choice. But I do not believe it is “merely” an issue of choice. I believe it is deeper than that.
I also believe that a measure of homophobia has existed in many Southern Baptists. My evidence? I asked a group of professing Chrstian men in my town this question several years ago: Suppose your church is searching for a pastor and has narrowed the list to 2 candidates. As part of the itnerview you ask their greatest failing and their greatest struggle. One says that, before coming to Christ, he killed a man in a fit of rage and still struggles with his temper, but by the grace of God he is striving to put that sin to death. The second says that, before coming to Christ, he was a praticing homosexual and still struggles with same sex attraction, but by the grace of God he is striving to put that sin to death. All other things being equal, which one would you want for your pastor. Every one of those men chose the first candidate. They even said they would be willing to choose the first man if he was not as qualified in other areas as the second.
Also, let me upfront that I am no fan of Peter Lumpkins. He frustrates me. I believe, as some have stated, that he was out to trip up and embarrass Mohler. Let me also state that I am a big fan of Mohler. However, I thought Mohler went into rally/pulpiteering mode in his answer. I didn’t care for that.
So, you interviewed a small group of men in your little town and that justifies calling all people in the SBC liars and homophobes?
I don’t like that kind of broad brushing. I also do not think your representative sample is enough to use such strong language in your condemnation of others.
That’s where I think Mohler made his big mistake. Remember, Mohler does have an agenda. He “COULD HAVE” a vested interest in putting church planters in the field that will become voters who are loyal to him.
This is one accusation I have heard more than once. I don’t say it is proven, but his words at the Convention did not go far in dispelling such myths, in my opinion.
If he does not do a follow-up, it could be difficult for him in the future to speak with authority on other issues–outside his kingdom at and around Louisville.
Frank,
Let’s clarify some things. I was involved in a conversation with some men in my town whom I believe are representative of average church members in the Southern Baptist Convention. True. This group could be described as a small group of men and my town could be described as a little town. True (and, let’s be honest, a little condescending on your part). I stated, assumed, or implied that ALL people in the SBC are liars and homophobes. False. I broadbrushed and condemned others. False. I called no one a liar, save perhaps myself in having previously diminished the issue of sexuality to mere choice. I called no one a homophobe. I said that it was MY opinion that A MEASURE of homophobia has existed in MANY Southern Baptists.
First, my conversation with these men had nothing to do with my understanding of the “lie” Southern Baptists may have told or believed regarding the nature of homosexuality. That was my opinion based on years of attending and serving in Southern Baptist churches and being around Southern Baptists. In my experience, homosexuality is often reduced to nothing more than a choice, and the deep issues of how sin affects human sexuality are often dismissed or ignored. I have served in mega churches in Florida and small churches in Texas. Perhaps that provides a more impressive representative sample.
Second, I think the conversation I had with these men revealed a bias shared by many people, many Christians, and many Southern Baptists where homosexuality is rated differently than other sins. And I am not saying that there is no difference bewteen sins or their effect on individuals or their impact on society. I am saying that all sin, from lying to lust to homosexuality to rage to gossip to idolatry, is equally deserving of death and is equally redeemable by the grace of God and the blood of Christ.
I am not interested in individual agendas, nor voters, nor vested interests, nor kingdoms. I am interested in applying the gospel fully to the difficult issue of sexuality and in repenting where I (and perhaps we) have failed to recognize the depth of the issue, failed to recognize the necessity of the gospel in dealing with the issue, and failed to acknowledge the purifying, cleansing power of Christ.
Daviss,
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
My point about being able to approach Dr. Mohler and talk with him was simply to demonstrate that he is accessible. I had a friend who was a helper of a church planter in Denver, CO who was very discouraged. My friend emailed Dr. Mohler, because the church planter really admired him, and asked him to call and encourage the church planter. Within a short time Dr. Mohler called and encouraged the young man. Based on my personal experience and the anecdote from a friend I find it hard to believe that Mr. Lumkins tried very hard to get in touch with Dr. Mohler. I’ve seen evry year I go to any Baptist meeting of this sort, there is always at least one person who loves stepping up to the mic and being controversial.
Btw, I found Dr. Mohler to be the most humble and gracious of the major speakers I’ve ever met.
John:
You said:”I find it hard to believe that Mr. Lumkins tried very hard to get in touch with Dr. Mohler. ” I agree.
Clearly Peter fired up his “base” by using this confrontational approach.
Pertaining the question, “Did Peter really try privately to resolve this?” From the horse’s mouth (insert joke here):
I mentioned at least twice on my site, I thought Dr. Al Mohler needed to answer a particular question about words attributed to him by Jonathan Merritt in an opinion essay published but subsequently pulled by The Christian Science Monitor. And, the reason I stated Dr. Mohler should answer the question is because Jonathan Merritt refused to offer—and even scoffed at the request—of showing tangible evidence for Mohler’s words, evidence for others to examine for contextual clarity. Moreover, I twice sought an answer off the record from Dr. Mohler before the SBC. And, since I said I was prepared to ask the question on the convention floor, I sensed compelled to do what I publicly said I would do—ask a question.
Try working for him. I know people who have transferred out because they could no longer take the tyrannical fits and condescention. You got to view the public persona. People often make those assumptions. In fact, this was brought out a few years ago on a blog and Mohler publicly apologized. Too bad things did not change after that. If you have never worked for a Christian celebrity before, it is hard to understand. Most employees excuse such behavior because he is a ‘great man’ and they want to be near the power. They tend to look the other way…a lot.
Keep in mind your friend did not contact him with a disagreement. And when was the last time Mohler planted a church in the trenches?
I happen to know a few people who have contacted him with some concerns of some things coming out of SBTS. People who are not the typical masses but well connected in Christendom that Mohler ignored. He simply did not need them anymore.
Read this fast, Dave will probably delete it. It is not cooperative and unified. :O)
I think it is fair to debate whether Peter has an agenda or whatever. I don’t particularly see the purpose that such a debate serves. It is quite clear from reading the comments hear that everyone has their mind made up about Peter.
But the question that Peter asked Mohler was fair specifically with Mohler’s use of the word LIED and HOMOPHOBIA. I’m sure Mohler knew that such strong words would invite questions.
In fact, it seems that Mohler wanted the question, he wants the conversation – unlike Rainer of Lifeway who was just annoyed by any questions inviting criticism. Rainer and other Conservative Resurgence leaders should expect such questions. They invite it upon themselves. For years they have preached against liberals and cast themselves as defenders of orthodoxy. OK, well don’t get snippy when folks from the younger generation come along and follow the CR leaders lead, raising questions about anything that smells like heresy or borders on being unorthodox.
BDW,
I don’t often find myself in full agreement with you — though I do respect your thoroughness in posts.
This is a vey astute observation:
“”In fact, it seems that Mohler wanted the question, he wants the conversation “”
I fully agree it sure looked that way.
I’m with Frank in thanking you for your take on this, BDW. At least for now, welcome to the dark side.
Frank L, you said: Mohler never answered it.
I don’t know what more of an answer he could have given in a brief allotted time.
He was asked: did you say these words? He replied yes.
He was asked about how we have lied. He replied we have not lied by refusing to call it a sin, we have told the truth there; but we have only told a half truth b/c we have a history of emphasizing the “choice” side when there are much more complex issues here that our sin involves. In other words: yes it is a choice to act that way, but it’s much more than a mere choice to have those desires–a person simply cannot turn their desires on and off at will. There is more to the story, especially with the pervasiveness of sin.
You might be able to accuse Mohler of generalizing a bit when he blanketly says “we have lied/not told the truth” because some do see the greater complexity while others do not and “we” southern baptists really don’t have a singular spokesman. But I think many of us can testify to experiences in our churches when the “it’s a choice” voice seems to echo over anything else.
Mohler was also asked how we have been homophobic. His answer was clear: we’ve created a church culture where for whatever reasons a person is unable or uncomfortable with standing up and saying, “I practiced homosexuality…or…I struggle with same-sex attraction, but I am washed, I am sanctified, I am justified…” (1 Corinthians 6).
In many churches that might be more of a passive than an active (Westboro-ish) homophobia, but we cannot honestly say we truly love and embrace the homosexual/one struggling w/ same-sex desires until we can look through the cross, stand side by side with them, and echo those words of Paul as a church body w/o causing them fear of rejection.
Mohler’s point was clear and I think quite accurate: we have done well to hold onto the truth that homosexual practice is sinful; but we have not done enough to truly shine upon it the light of grace and hope of the cross, standing in support of the one who clings tight to the cross and says, “I once was…” even though they might still struggle.
It is so important that Christian people see themselves as a ‘family’ that cares for the ones who struggle in their midst. That sense of solidarity found ‘in Christ’ among a Christian family will encourage and strengthen not only those who need it, but also help to increase the acts of loving-kindness among those who help them.
It’s a win-win.
Man, I missed it. I have been tied up in hearings and all sorts of stuff this week.
I’ll check out the video. I doubt that I’ll have much to add to all of the comments already made here.
How Christians address questions of public policy is tricky. What complicates things for us is that we live in a democracy, and we live in a democracy that was founded by Christians and explicitly on the Chrsitian ethic. So, as the culture moves away from that ethic and jettisons things that were agreed upon for centuries, what are Christians to do?
Being loyal to Jesus and what he said in the Gospels and the writings of his apostles in the rest of the New Testament is the first priority and non-negotiable.
But questions of public policy and how the church should address those involves a great deal of wisdom. I suspect the apostle Paul and the preachers in New Testament times addressed pagans involved in all sorts of unethical, but legal practices, in a way that is different from preachers in the U.S. in 1945, which is different than the way preachers might address those same class of persons today.
Then, add to the mix the influence of modern medicine, scientific discovery and all the rest, and you have more complexities to deal with. None of that changes the truth, but it can provide information that helps us understand issues better, which may affect our approach.
Christians are right to be concerned about efforts to “modernize” that are really nothing than thinly veiled attempts to be disloyal to Jesus. American history is littered with examples.
But Christians should also be concerned with elevating particular cultural expressions about things with the Gospel and Christian ethics.
Chrisitans should also be concerned about becoming unable to speak to the world in which they live.
Keeping all of this straight is hard work!
The question “Is same-sex attraction a choice? Is it a sin to be attracted to someone of your gender if you don’t act on it?” isn’t really the question for the people asking it. The real question they’re trying to get to and the point they want to make is “If someone is born that way, how can we say homosexual sex is a sin?”
If (and I’m not saying they are, I’m saying “If”) some people are born with same sex attractions, the only biblically acceptable choices they have are (1) lifetime celebacy or (2) try to develop an interest in the opposite sex, fall in love with and get married to someone of the opposite sex. Homosexual sex is always sinful 100% of the time without any exceptions whatsoever.
If someone claims they have a same sex attraction but that it is not sinful to act on it, they are not a Christian.
Hi JOE,
In your Church, is it possible to label ‘sin’ that which was not ‘willed’ by the person ?
For example, take two individuals:
Person ‘A’ is thirteen years old and feels an attraction to the ‘same-sex’, rather than to the ‘opposite sex’ . . . yet this person cannot tell us that he ‘willed’ to be this way . . .
Then take ‘Person B’
Person ‘B’ is a grown man who has even worked in research concerning homosexuality, and has publish books on it, and has done ‘therapies’ on children with the tendencies of the opposite sex, based on his theories.
Then, in his adulthood, he willingly plans and takes a vacation with a ‘rent-boy’.
Which of these persons has ‘willed’ their feelings, JOE ?
Which one has ‘acted’ on them ?
Do you believe that the ‘will’ is involved in ‘sin’ ?
Or not ?
I don’t know how some Christian people understand the formation of ‘conscience’ and how it works, so I ask honestly, not seeking to anger anyone.
Christiane,
I’m not sure how to deal with the particular cases you bring up, but if your question is “Does ‘will’ determine whether something is sinful” then the question is more complex than a yes or no answer.
I will say this – there are many who struggle their entire lives with same sex attraction and do not act upon it. There are some recent examples of this on the web. Henri Nouwen is one who struggled with these feelings but never acted upon them. I would not say that Nouwen sinned in how he struggled, but had he acted upon those struggles, then he would have been sinning. Not sure if that answers your question, but hopefully it pushes the conversation along.
Yes. It does help.
I think people do see the difference between someone being ‘tempted’, and someone ‘acting on’ that temptation with their full consent.
There are some who believe that being tempted is a sin, but I do not, myself. I see that kind of temptation as a ‘trial’, and if that ‘trial’ is overcome and the temptation is resisted, then no sin has been committed, in my belief.
I think that in order to ‘sin’, people have to choose freely that path that separates them from God’s grace.
They may in time ‘repent’ (hopefully) and ‘repentance’ is itself an act of the conscious will to turn again towards Christ and seek forgiveness.
What has hurt many people with ‘same-sex’ attraction is that they believe they did NOT choose it, and they are called liars and sinners by some Christians who think that SSA (same-sex attraction) is ALWAYS a choice.
The harm done, especially to the young, is tragic.
Funny, I don’t remember saying anything about “will”. I said if a person has an attraction to the same sex they cannot act on that attraction without committing sin. I don’t care if they’re 13, 23, 83, or 103. Anyone who has an attraction to the same sex has to choose between living celibate, trying to develop an attraction for the same sex (which may or may not work), or having homosexual sex which is always sinful.
“Anyone who has an attraction to the same sex has to choose between living celibate, trying to develop an attraction for the same sex (which may or may not work), or having homosexual sex which is always sinful.”
I agree with you, JOE.
In my Church, celibacy is a time-honored choice for some who are called to the religious life in the ‘western’ liturgical rite (Roman). It is in the eastern liturgical rites of my Church that clergy may marry.
Was the quote in question vintage Mohler? I suppose it depends on what is meant by vintage. Similar language can be found in an October 2010 post titled Between the Boy and the Bridge — A Haunting Question. It’s not as if Mohler is hiding his position(s).
As to whether or not Peter has a specific agenda against Mohler I cannot say for I cannot read his mind/heart. But I can read his website and see the posts in which Mohler’s name is tagged.
First know that God brought me out of 20 years of believing I was born a lesbian.
Second, homosexuality is not a choice! I did not choose to be attracted to women. It was just there. Thankfully, after coming to Christ, the attraction to the same sex was slowly removed.
No one chooses their attraction.
No one chooses what tempts them.
What we do choose is how we react to our attractions and temptations.
The key to this whole argument folks is to start building relationships with the gay folks in your life. Do not talk to them about whether or not homosexuality is a sin! Unless they ask!
Talk to them about how Jesus gives you such peace, talk with them of how wonderful life is knowing Jesus as your personal savior.
Invite them to come to a bible study at your home after supper.
Get them into the word of God and allow the Holy Spirit to do the convicting okay?
Our job is to reflect the love of Christ Jesus to others.
God’s job is to judge the lost
The Holy Spirit’s job is to convict.
Jesus already did His job, He died for us.
What are you waiting for? Get the heck off this blog, quit arguing with each other and get the heck out there is show the love of Jesus Christ to the gay people in your life.
Start building relationships with them, invite them to your house for dinner, or go to lunch with them, how about a cup of joe! get to know them just as jesus did with the lady at the well . . . he first had conversation with her, got to know her . . ..
Its all about building relationships, its all about reflecting the love of Jesus Christ, its all about getting them into the Word of God and the Holy Spirit convicting them . . .
That’s how it works
Nothing you can say, no argument, will change a gay person’s mind . . . . only the Holy Spirit can convict folks . . . .
love you all
Charlene <
Charlene, thank you so much for your testimony and your reminder to act and not just talk. I certainly need to remember that.
“”Nothing you can say, no argument, will change a gay person’s mind . . . . only the Holy Spirit can convict folks . . . .”"
Not everything a church does is to “change an individual’s mind.” Sometimes, a church needs to point out error, not to help the one in error, but to prevent that error from capturing others.
The homosexual community does recruit. Militant homosexuals do in fact try to press their agenda into the lives of young people. Not everyone “just wakes up seeking a same sex relationship.”
Part of our gospel work is to “contend for the faith once for all delivered.” This takes clear, unequivocal language that could make persons of certain persuasions “uncomfortable.”
It’s not always about “building relationships.” Sometimes it is about speaking the truth. Sometimes, these two agendas seem disconnected. It is like walking a tight rope.
Frank:
You said:”It’s not always about “building relationships.”
“We” Baptists have followed this advice too long in relationship to homosexuals.
I think this is exactly what Dr. Mohler was talking about our needing to change as SB.
Good answer Tom.
Those who are in the gay lifestyle already know what we are against, what they don’t know is that we love them. And some Christians don’t.
… what they don’t know is that we love them…
As long as Christians say that homosexuality is a sin that must be repented of, homosexuals will always claim that we are “hateful”.
Know what Joe? That’s not true.
A couple of questions for everybody.
1. what scientific evidence exists for choice ?
It was a question that was asked here in the TN senate that no one has answered.
2. What is the purpose of the law in this discussion….
3. Why do we not obey the Cultural Mandate given to us by God and understood by the Reformers or do we not believe that it is a Biblical Mandate.
Just asking
Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Every time a person is physically intimate with another person, that is a choice.
That is what we should be talking about, in my opinion.
Of course, Jesus expanded adultery to include lust.
Where attraction ends lust begins is difficult to define.
I have no problems with the ministries that try to help people in these ways (at least the ones I have heard of).
If a person is tempted to be intimate with a person whom the Bible says he/she should be intimate with, that person can stand up to that temptation.
But I also think that the Bible teaches that no one has sinned because they are tempted.
So – if we stick to these principles, we are fine. If we use other words to mean different things, we can end up miscommunicating.
Robert, I am not a scientist. I think, however, at this point in my life that I agree with what Francis Collins said about this issue. He does not suspect that we will find a so-called “gay gene.” I think that is a great hope for many people, but it is completely a guess at this point.
There may be physical genetic traits that some people have that may make them more susceptible to finding certain aspects of the same sex attractive etc. I am guessing here, though.
I believe that sexual expression can be a very complex matter that could be part biological, party psychological etc. And some of those connections can go way back to an early age when a Person cannot remember.
But – the command to remain chaste is clear, as is the command not to lust. We sin when we do those things. That’s what Jesus taught, and we should be loyal to him.
I just don’t want to be staking out scientific positions on things when we know the complexities of these matters. We don’t need to anyway (see the clarity of Jesus’ commands). And we shouldn’t because we are not qualified and because we now know how much we don’t know about this field.
I feel certain, however, that men are not the sum of their biological impulses. We have a will and the ability to obey, despite our temptations. That is central to Christian teaching.
After listening to the video I cant help but conclude that Peter was 100 percent correct on his conclusion.
I for one reject that we have lied and that we have been homophobic.
Dr Wright was spot on in his dialogue with the homosexual leaders but Al Mohler not so much. This is a paradigm shift that I will not tolerate.
He can take his paradigm and shove it!
Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Mr. Masters:
You said about Dr. Mohler:”He can take his paradigm and shove it!”
Classy on your part–NOT!
The main point is this. We need to talk and treat homosexuals with compassion. With love. We need to give the gospel while recognizing the struggle that some have. To not do so is very wrong. Thom Hunter’s articles on this site are saying the same thing that Al Mohler is saying. I think a rereading of Thom’s articles are in order.
You have read some astute comments here from former lesbians that shed light on what Al Mohler was saying. They articulated their words well. Reread those comments.
It’s clear from Peter’s articles since the convention his intent. He is always trying to dig himself from a hole and now is no exception. He’s like a dog with a bone. He’s not letting go until he accomplishes what he originally set out to do which is to attempt to humiliate Dr. Mohler who again, gave a wonderfully Biblical answer. It was brilliant. Peter couldn’t accomplish his goal in person so he’s going to do it on his blog for who knows how long until he thinks the goal is accomplished. He’s in the press now so that is just going to give him enough ego to keep going.
Debbie:
Yes Peter is getting the limelight and he has an agenda on this one simple little question he asked of Dr. Mohler.
You said:”It’s clear from Peter’s articles since the convention his intent.”
I believe he has written 3 articles already on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai4GKBkQEv8
Debbie,
I guess the point of this video is that Peter was trying to “make a big star” out of himself. However, by tempting me to watch and listen to this AWFUL music, you have sinned far worse than either Mohler, Lumpkins or the homosexuals!
My point is this. What Dr. Mohler said is important and I’m actually glad Peter asked the question. What Peter meant for harm God meant for good.
We need to invest our lives in people who are lost. By that I mean we need to cultivate relationships with those outside of the church. And not because we have a goal or agenda but because as Christians we are to truly care about people.
When you befriend a person you like them, you love them, you genuinely care about them. I personally have grieved over two people who have died within the last three years who were lost and are now in hell. One as recently as this past Thursday. They died without Christ. I will not soon get over these two deaths knowing that they are not with God. I gave the Gospel but it bore no fruit. These were not homosexuals nor were they bad people. They were lost people without Christ and I knew both of them for a long time. To add to the pain both were very young. 26 and 30. One took his own life because he felt there was nothing more to live for. It hurts like crazy. Both however knew that I genuinely loved them. Of that they had no doubt. But they are now lost eternally. I have a vested interest in us as Southern Baptists getting off of our behinds and quit this silliness and get on with missions, investing cooperatively in the Gospel. People are dying. They are not of old age. They are in the youth of their lives.
Now apply the above scenario to homosexuals.
Make that three within the last 3 years. A 17 year old who took his own life as well. People need to know what we have that gives a reason to live. Christ.
OK. This is getting out of control. Accusations are flying around the blogosphere that Mohler believes in the Gay Gene, that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change. Perhaps everyone in the SBC has not “lied” about homosexuality, but people are certainly lying about Mohler’s beliefs about homosexuality. I am greatly losing respect for people with whom I differ on some theological issues but always respected their firm stance on what they believe. But outright falsehoods cannot be overlooked.
Mohler has always been somewhat of an enigma in SBC life. A staunch Calvinist (which should have relegated him to the lowest level of Dante’s Inferno in the eyes of the SBC) but also one of our most prominent culture warriors (which has elevated him to hero status). Until now Mohler the culture warrior has outweighed Mohler the Calvinist. But now that Mohler has said something which inexplicably calls his culture warrior credentials into question, Mohler the Calvinist is prominent and therefore his stock is plummeting to the seventh level. It is an amazing phenomenon.
Back when I was in seminary @ SBTS Mohler wrote an article (this would have been ~2006, I think) where he basically argued that if we hold to total depravity/the universal nature of sin in all aspects of our life we as Christians must be open to the possibility of a “gay gene,” though that, of course, makes it no less of a sin (much like a genetic propensity to alcoholism doesn’t make drunkenness less of a sin).
He maintained the research hadn’t proven anything yet, but we must be open to the possibility.
Frankly that’s true.
It seems in this issue there are those who want to hold so stubbornly to the idea of homosexuality from the top down being a “choice” that they are doing disservice to the all-pervasive nature of sin.
It seems that several bloggers/commentators in their reactions are doing more to prove Mohler right than wrong. And that’s just sad.
Mike,
I agree with you in regard to the “possiblity” of a gay gene, though there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to suggest such at this point.
But, that was only half of his statement. The other half was in regard to “homophobia.” This is an explosive statement to make without offering any proof.
Now some just assume he was right and “we” are all homophobes. I don’t make that assumption.
” Until now Mohler the culture warrior has outweighed Mohler the Calvinist. But now that Mohler has said something which inexplicably calls his culture warrior credentials into question, Mohler the Calvinist is prominent and therefore his stock is plummeting to the seventh level. It is an amazing phenomenon.”
This is a good point. But it only shows the hollowness of being a culture warrior and how limiting it really is. It is almost as if he has done a bait and swtich. He has talked a lot about the evils done in society by homosexual behavior and wonders then why any in the SBC would act homophobic.
However, if all his talks/writings in the mainstream media had been on the power of Grace no matter what, leaving all cultural considerations of the behavior in society out of it, then his charge of homophobia in the SBC would not be confusing to anyone.
He has built a national reputation as a culture warrior. that is how most people (outside the ministry bubble) know him.
The simple fact is that BDW is right. Its a paradigm shift for the SBC.
Calvinist have always been culture warriors because they read and obey the Bible. We are not Pietest and we are not Anabaptist!
We obey the Culture Mandate and we obey the Great Commission.
We are not Dualist.
It is not one or the other it is both.
Come join us in the Southern Baptist Geneva
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/05/20/Tenn_Dismantles_Discrimination_Ordinances/
Proclaim the Gospel to the captives and Redeem the culture.
“We obey the Culture Mandate and we obey the Great Commission.”
The Law to ‘obey’ is the Great Commandment. The Great Commission is a ‘mission’ where you are ‘sent forth’.
The ‘Cultural Mandate’?
Is that the same as the Beatitudes or the teaching about the Kingdom ? I don’t think so. The Kingdom of God is not ‘of this world’ and we are only sojourners on this Earth. We are to be in the world but not of the world and we are told that trials may come, but we should not fear because Christ has overcome the world.
If you want to serve Him in this world, then respond to the beatitudes, and to the Great Commandment,
with a true humility of spirit, as that is the sign in this world of a Christian person.
Robert,
I work in downtown Nashville and was so proud when I read that had passed.
Robert: No thanks. I’ll pass.
Lydia,
I would hardly refer to ministry as a “bubble”. Anyone who has engaged in ministry knows that it in most cases ministry exposes you rather than isolates you. As a matter of fact the pastor in most average sized churches is the most involved person overall in the lives of the people in and outside of the local congragation. Why? Because they come to him with situations and problems that many times they wouldn’t share with anyone else. No one in my congregation sees the calls in the middle of the night, the conseling sessions trying to save marriages, the calls that we’ve had to make to DHS in order to protect children, the calls that we’ve had to make to the Sherriffs office in order to prevent someone from harming themselves.
Now to be honest I know nothing of mega church pastors and seminary presidents. But speaking for the rank and file local church pastor, the ministry could hardly be classified as a “bubble”.
Robert: I agree. It’s the ministers that visit prisons and situations I would have a hard time with such as suicides. They also have to comfort grieving families who have lost a loved one and speaking as a formerly having worked the cancer ward in the hospital, that is no easy task.
John, I do understand where you are coming from. But just for a moment imagine going to work in a secular place where such situations you never imagined are brought your way. I have dealt with tons of them.
Perhaps you have some people reporting to you with terrible situations. These things are not kept secret long in the workplace when absenteeism and other behaviors are evident.
Now, imagine your job, that pays your mortgate and for your wife to stay home with the kids, rides on how you respond to such things as a boss or co worker.
There is a difference. And that difference is the bubble. In the bubble, you are “sought out” as a minister in times of need or you seek out those you hear are in such situations…as a minister. That is your main job . Outside the bubble it is a whole different ballgame and I think many pastors are ill equipped to give counsel to those in the real world dealing with such things. They just do not have a lot of experience with it and the experience they have was just so long as to get a paid ministry position.
It is one reason I really like the idea of bi voc pastors. They are “in” the world everyday but not “of” it. (Hopefully)
Lydia,
I certainly understand and respect your viewpoint. I was bivocational my entire ministry until I came to Springer, and I have worked jobs off and on with the church’s permission even since I’ve been here. There are definitely certain advantages to being in the workforce, one in particular is being in contact with people you might not be normally. In my bivocational pastorates I was able to minister to people and lead several coworkers to Christ.
Having said this I still think that a full-time pastor is only isolated if he chooses to be. If he is out and about instead of in his office all the time he is more exposed to people. As far as having to deal with a boss, in the congregational form of government a pastor has quite a few people bossing him around. LOL
Bravo John for being bi voc for a long while. It is a hard road.
“As far as having to deal with a boss, in the congregational form of government a pastor has quite a few people bossing him around. LOL”
True to an extent…he can still preach that he is the specially anointed authority over them…if he has a lot in his savings account. (wink)
It is still a long cry from reporting to a card carrying anti closet homosexual that wants outward displays of support for their lifestyle. That is the true test of loving that person.
I’m sorry that last comment should be addressed to John.
Wow Debbie!
Do ya think maybe thats why God is bring such calamity to a once Great Nation.
He said Advance in all spheres of life and you say….no I am busy building a relationship with my same sex intercourser friend.
So Culture goes to Hell in a hand basket and you win a straggler or two into the Kingdom. Satan will take that deal any day!
I know you have a burden for muslims but even they get that point.
Has P-Lump come completely unhinged???
I know that he is one of the most shrill voices out there on the fighting fundamentalist side of the Baptist isle, but from all the post he keeps churning out he appears to be obsessed with Dr. Mohler… and homosexuals.
What’s up with him?
I bet pastors are glad their congregations don’t try to parse every single word in every sermon the way some are doing with Mohler.
Mark,
I can assure you if I called my church people “liars and homophobes” they would be knocking on my door come Monday morning.
That’s exactly what Mohler did, and I think, in the absence of any further explanation from him, it is a statement that should be discussed.
I know I am in the minority but I think Mohler’s statement was calculated, well-prepared for in advance, and simply off the mark. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced it should be discussed.
I do not judge Mohler by this one statement. Just because I disagree with him on this issue does not make him a bad person.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think this statement is going to fade away anytime soon. I would not be surprised if numerous letters are already on their way to Dr. Mohler’s office.
I hope there are a lot of letters going Dr. Mohler’s way. It will confirm just how right his choice of words was.
I’m liking the “P-Lump”… I hope it sticks!
Alford:
He is simply making it very clear his two obsessions for all to plainly see.
I have now watched the video. I haven’t read the article that prompted the exchange, so it’s hard to know how those statements of Mohler fit in the entire article.
If the statements made in the article are not contextualized, Lumpkins’ question seems to be a fair one. It is one, perhaps, that I might ask.
Mohler’s response is not complicated at all. It is a full throated endorsement of everything the Bible says about homosexuality. I would think that if Mohler or the SBC were moving toward a new paradigm, the language would be significantly different. Certainly, he would not be affirming scripture’s clear condemnation of homosexual behavior.
I do not like the terms “lie” and “homophobia.” Those words, taken along with no further explanation, are not accurate.
It’s clear from Mohler’s response, even though he affirms his earlier statements that is not talking about lying or homophobia, as we would understand those statements.
He is merely criticizing an approach to dealing with homosexuals that focuses on the volitional nature of human actions, which assigns that same level of volition to what one finds to be attractive in a sexual way.
When Mohler’s entire statement is examined, this is no paradigm shift. Just a clear, traditional, biblical position.
This is not that big a deal.
And despite Mohler’s recognition as a spokesman on cultural issues, he should be, and forever will be, remembered as the person who lead the effort to reform the SBC’s flagship seminary to a position that was in keeping with the vast majority of the people in the SBC and the seminary’s founders.
Louis: I find it so interesting that some such as yourself are offended by the words liar and homophobe. Think of the phrases and words used toward those who are gay. They are offended yet that is OK because it is being said in the name of God.
I am a person who likes for people to say what they mean. I like straight talk. I think the words were exactly the ones that should have been used. We as a denomination need to examine ourselves instead of saying “but I don’t do that.” We do do that.
Debbie:
I do like the word “lie” because it says that someone is intentionally saying something that is untrue. If some evangelicals are saying things that are not accurate in this area, I think it would be for lack of precision and knowledge and not intentionally saying something they know to be false.
I would be interested, however, in seeing some examples.
I don’t like “homophobic” because I believe it to be a nonsensical word in the context used typically.
But I like Mohler’s longer explanation that he gave to Lumpkins about what he meant.
Joe B:
You said:”As long as Christians say that homosexuality is a sin that must be repented of, homosexuals will always claim that we are “hateful”.
That is a mighty general statement. Surely, not all homosexuals view Christians who share the Gospel truth with them in love as “hateful.”
“”Surely, not all homosexuals view Christians who share the Gospel truth with them in love as “hateful.””"
Certainly not “all,” but certainly most in my experience.
And yet that has not been my experience.
Al Mohler & Homosexuality
Al Mohler stated that homosexuality is “more than a choice.” Should we think, then, that there were at least some “non-choosing” citizens in Sodom etc. and that therefore God didn’t “choose” to destroy them but was only “oriented” to destroy them? Is it now better to be gay-fearing than God-fearing (Matt. 10:28)? And is Mohler now hurrying up the Second Coming by helping to fulfill the “days of Lot” (Luke 17:28f)?
Sigh.
Where is there any gay fearing in what Al Mohler has said? Anywhere? Maybe you should look at them as human beings first. Human beings who are gay. Human beings who need Christ. You act as if Christ did not die on the cross. They need the answers we have concerning Christ. Christ and the cross that is the issue.
Whether BP caved into pressure from certain non-pro-mohler corners of the SBC blogosphere we’ll never know. But they have run an article on Mohler’s answer on homosexuality.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=35615&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0623
I don’t think they’re gonna like it.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }