Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, recently was quoted as saying the following in an interview about homosexuality.
“We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophobia… 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.”
He was then asked to defend this statement in the recent SBC Annual Convention. The video of the exchange with SBC pastor and blogger, Peter Lumpkins is here.
I happen to agree with Mohler, especially as he clarified his statements. The Associated Baptist Press summarized Mohler’s response to the question by Lumpkins:
Mohler said at the convention “there is no way anyone in fair mindedness can be confused about what I believe about homosexuality,” because he has written more than 200 articles about it, but that “the reality is that we as Christian churches have not done well on this issue.”
“Evangelicals, thankfully, have failed to take the liberal trajectory of lying about homosexuality and its sinfulness,” Mohler said. “We know that the Bible clearly declares — not only in isolated verses but in the totality of its comprehensive presentation — the fact that homosexuality not only is not God’s best for us, as some try to say, but it is sin.”
“But we as evangelicals have a very sad history in dealing with this issue,” he continued. “We have told not the truth, but we have told about half the truth. We’ve told the biblical truth, and that’s important, but we haven’t applied it in the biblical way.”
“We have said to people that homosexuality is just a choice,” Mohler said. “It’s clear that it’s more than a choice. That doesn’t mean it’s any less sinful, but it does mean it’s not something people can just turn on and turn off. We are not a gospel people unless we understand that only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.”
Mohler said churches have not done their job until “there are those who have been trapped in that sin sitting among us.”
Now the use of “homophobia” is a sticky subject, for sure. But I do agree that Mohler is right. And in this, I echo the sentiments of blogger Elijah Friedeman, and want to quote him at some length (HT: The Aquila Report).
I realize that much of what Mohler said flies in the face of conservative Christianity. No one likes to be called homophobic. And religious people especially don’t like to be called to repentance. But Albert Mohler is absolutely right.
What did Albert Mohler say that was so outrageous? Was it the part about Jesus being the only Savior from sin? Was it the claim that our sinful nature goes beyond a simple choice?Any orthodox Christian should affirm salvation from our sin through Jesus and that we can’t simply decide to turn off our sinful nature.
I know that many conservative Christians want to turn homosexuality into an easy choice. But it doesn’t work like that. Don’t get me wrong. Everyone has a choice about whether or not to engage in sexual acts outside of marriage. But not everyone has a say about whom they’re sexually attracted to.
There are a lot of people in the world with addictive personalities – they’re addicted easily – these people don’t have to give in to their addictive temptations, but they have a problem that can’t be solved with a choice – a problem that only Jesus can fix.
Homosexuality is much the same. Homosexuals have deep-rooted attraction to the same gender that they can’t solve with a choice. Mohler stated that homosexuality, like any other sin, requires a Savior. When did that become a radical sentiment? Last I checked, it’s a biblical concept.
But I have a feeling that most people disagreed with Mohler, because he labeled Southern Baptists as homophobic.
I can’t speak to homophobia in Southern Baptist churches. I’ll have to trust Mohler on that front (apparently he explained exactly how Southern Baptists are homophobic, but I can’t find the transcript). But I know from what I’ve seen, read, and heard, a form of homophobia is very present in many conservative churches.
For some reason there is an irrational fear of and extreme aversion to homosexuals in a lot of churches. We may not come right out and say that we think homosexuals are nasty creatures, but if you read between the lines, it’s pretty easy to pick up on. This is homophobia.
We should not elevate homosexuality above other sins. If we condemn homosexuality as sin, we must also condemn other forms of sexual immorality as sin.
I’ve seen many religious people castigate homosexuals, but turn a blind eye to the other, more pervasive, forms of sins in the church. I’m more concerned about the prevalence of divorce in churches than I am about a few cases of homosexuals trying to silence their critics.
What do you think? Is Mohler totally off base? As for me, I’m standing with him on this one.
For more on this question, see other articles on homosexuality I’ve posted here on my blog. You’ll find reviews of two helpful books I’ve read on this topic.
Based on what you quoted from Mohler, I agree with him about everything except deciding that the motivation behind the church’s bad track record of dealing with the homosexual is homophobia. I have not read where Mohler has spoken specifically to the homophobia, but it is a tricky practice to assign motivation. I think we can easily see how homophobia could have resulted in the bad decisions and practices by churches. But I can also think of other reasons. To simply say it has to be homophobia does not help solve the problem in cases where it isn’t homophobia. Perhaps we need to get past trying to decide the motivation for our faulty practice and just get busy practicing our Christianity the way we should.
Dan,
I’m not sure he’s saying homophobia is the motivation. It’s more like a description. There is a fear of this issue out there, for sure. The problem of course is the misuse of the term to apply to any who would speak out against homosexuality. That aside, properly restricted to it’s meaning, the term does seem to describe the view of many Christians. Regardless of the controversy around that often misused term, there is a prejudice and suspicion, a fear and sometimes a hatred of homosexuals that in any evaluation is unChristian. We need to both hate the sin and love the sinner, to use another slippery phrase….
Thanks for chiming in on this.
Bob Hayton
I am with you with Mohler on this one. I read a book on this subject that has forever changed my view on this particular sin. Washed & Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill. In his book, Wesley doesn’t just castigate the church for its homophobia but also reprimands the other end of the spectrum by “greenlighting” homosexuality and taking away its sinfulness. I firmly believe if, as a child of our risen King, anyone wants to be ready and equipped to understandingly show compassion to the bearers of this particular sin Wesley’s book is a good place to start (not to mention our own Saviour’s teaching in the Big Four). This is NOT a paid advertisement. 🙂
Grant,
That’s one of the books that helped me on this issue too! I highly recommend it in my review of it.
Bob
I agree with Mohler, except for calling it homophobia. We have failed to identify the fact that this sin comes from a depraved, sinful heart, the same heart we have in us. The only difference is we know the Savior. People are bound by this sin just like others are bound by pornography, drugs, or alcohol. They have not chosen the way they react to the opposite sex, but they have chosen to give in to it. This is where we call it sin. We all have our struggles- this just happens to be theirs. I think there are saved people that struggle with these feelings and thoughts, though I don’t personally know any. It is a sin like anything else, and must be dealt with as such. That means we should be loving and point them to the Savior. But, we are not guilty of homophobia. The only thing we fear is confronting people lovingly about their sin. That is where we as Christians have failed.
Underlying Mohler’s statements is his (correct) belief in total depravity plus his (correct) belief in the existence of the demonic. I.e., the unregenerate soul is bent and twisted, from the inside, toward particular acts of evil. The unbeliever can no more stop feeling lusts of various types than he or she can stop feeling greed or hatred. Evil springs up spontaneously from the core of man’s heart. I bet the real reason a lot of evangelicals reacted against Mohler is because most evangelicals hold humanistic, Finneyite, semi-Pelagian views of man’s condition, so Mohler’s comments were incomprehensible to them. Lust isn’t a choice, it’s first an overpowering desire that controls the will and irresistibly causes choice. Only the grace of God can counteract it, but American Christians don’t believe that.
Good point, Jack. I do think that is part of it, for sure (the Finneyite views).
In my experience, conservative evangelicals and Fundamentalists have long displayed a stubborn ignorance to the complexities behind habitual sins (e.g. homosexuality). We simply call for repentance, not willing to explore the reality that the struggle is often born of wounds suffered in our youth as much as sinful choices on our part.
I can’t imagine as a Bob Jones student in the 1990s one of my fellow students having the courage to come out with his or her homosexual struggles without fear of repraisal. Bob Jones III mocked them from the chapel pulpit, and they were one of the only social demographics that were safe to hatefull slander over a good meal.
Mohler’s call for repentance is spot on, I think.
WM