Now that we have moved into some calmer waters since last week's rapids over my question and Dr. Al Mohler's response at the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), I thought it necessary to set the record straight. My understanding concerning Al Mohler's position on homosexuality before the SBC has been entirely swept aside by much of the internet buzz >>>
Why people make such broad-brush implications in the face of clear facts remains a tribute to the unmitigated nonsense one finds so often on the internet. It really makes me ashamed to be a part of the "blogging" community. The truth is, if a reputable "fact-checking" organization existed which could, for a reasonable fee, "approve" sites for their credible content (not perspective, just content), similar to the ECFA, I'd join today and only link those sites which were a willing part of the network. It's really getting out of hand so far as I am concerned. But that's another concern for another day.
My present task is to set the record straight concerning my own views on Al Mohler, Jonathan Merritt, and homosexuality prior to, during, and now after the Southern Baptist Convention. Below are several selections from posts I wrote leading up to Phoenix, 2011.
My Position on Mohler's Views before the SBC
"Yet, while he rightly quotes Mohler as holding the very clear Biblical teaching that homosexual behavior is not in God's design for sexuality and is sinful, Merritt later supposedly quotes Al Mohler directly in what stands as hard-to-accept language. According to Merritt, Mohler bluntly said:
"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"
I attempted to locate the direct quotes. I failed. Unfortunately, the Merritt article offers no links, and Jonathan did not hint in the article where Mohler allegedly said or wrote these words or the context for them. Frankly put, if Al Mohler did either write or speak these words, I don't believe for a minute these words accurately represent the context in which Jonathan says Dr. Mohler allegedly used them.** It's just that simple. Mohler has been too clear on his cultural commentary on the gay agenda. Moreover, it is unacceptable for Merritt to write such provocative statements without citing his sources.(//link)
______________________________________________________
So, since you interviewed Mohler, is the interview available for inspection? I'd like to read the entire interview. After all, that remains my chief complaint. As I mentioned in the OP: "Frankly put, if Al Mohler did either write or speak these words, I don't believe for a minute these words accurately represent the context in which Jonathan says Dr. Mohler allegedly used them." The only way I'll know is to interact with the source itself. I hope you see my dilemma. Of course, Dr. Mohler could make a public response and settle the issue as well (a direct comment to Jonathan Merritt // link)
______________________________________________________
One of my chief complaints in the piece I published had to do with Merritt's bold affirmation that Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president, Al Mohler essentially agreed with Merritt's new game plan to reach gays by flat-lining all sin and consequently toning down the rhetoric against homosexuality, as if homosexual practice is no better or worse than say, gossip or lying—sins Merritt dubs as evangelicalism's "respectable sins." (//link)
______________________________________________________
Though I was emphatic in my original post, I need to be clear once again: I do not believe Al Mohler said either evangelicals generally or Southern Baptists particularly have "lied about the nature of homosexuality" and have practiced "homophobia" apart from serious qualifications, qualifications so serious, in fact, as to moot any legitimate use Jonathan Merritt could have gleaned from their use without contorting the original usage…
Pardon me, Jonathan. But you, my young brother, have placed Dr. Mohler in a precarious conundrum. Nor do I think you grasp the weight of it. Al Mohler is now on public record saying, evangelicals—Southern Baptists—have lied about the nature of homosexuality. Evangelicals—Southern Baptists—openly practice homophobia. Evangelicals—Southern Baptists—have exploited "choice" language to wrongly denigrate homosexuals when they have known all along sexual orientation is not merely a matter of choice. A precarious conundrum indeed. Somebody better start explaining. If Jonathan Merritt refuses to offer the context, then so far as I am concerned Dr. Mohler is obliged to offer it to Southern Baptists. This is not going away. Nor would I be surprised if this issue makes it to the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention if it is not addressed before June. (//link)
______________________________________________________
I questioned Merritt's use of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president, Al Mohler's words, believing, as I still do, Jonathan either misunderstood or misused Mohler's alleged statement that "We've [evangelicals and Southern Baptists] lied about the nature of homosexuality…[and practiced]…homophobia"… .
"Fact-checking" notwithstanding, Jonathan Merritt must feel the weighty conundrum he strapped onto Al Mohler's back. Jonathan has placed into the public record words which cut the heart out of Mohler's consistent moral critique of the gay agenda over the last decade and a half. In whatever way Southern Baptists have failed in their attempt to reach the gay community—and failed in many respects no one disputes—to suggest we've lied about the nature of homosexuality is both slanderous to Southern Baptists generally and Southern Baptists' Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission specifically… .
Jonathan must also understand this: I am prepared to take this issue all the way to the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention in Phoenix. If Southern Baptists have been lying about the nature of homosexuality, then we have a right to know from Al Mohler himself why he thinks we have lied, practiced homophobia, and exploited the language of "choice" to denigrate the gay community when, according to Mohler's alleged words which Jonathan claims Mohler himself indicated were not taken out of context, "it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice." (//link)
______________________________________________________
As a follow up, I want to make two quick points. First, neither Jonathan Merritt nor Dr. Al Mohler has offered to elaborate on Merritt's insistence that Dr. Mohler stated explicitly, "we've lied about the nature of homosexuality" and thereby exploited the "language of choice" when we knew it to be "clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice." To Jonathan's credit, he responded to my challenge toward his use of Dr. Mohler's words expressing my firm reservation that Dr. Mohler would have uttered the words he claimed without serious qualification(s). However, Merritt insisted in a post-publication conversation he had with Mohler, that Dr. Mohler "did not mention that his quote was taken out of context." More significantly, Jonathan refused to offer the interview transcript he indicated he possessed to substantiate his claims. In addition, Dr. Mohler disappointingly has not responded to the quotes Jonathan claims come from Dr. Mohler. I've twice emailed Dr. Mohler, but no response has been offered.* (//link)
______________________________________________________
What I clearly maintained leading up to the Southern Baptist Convention is substantial agreement with Al Mohler on what I perceived to be his view on homosexuality (there were some caveats but those are irrelevant to the overwhelming agreement I had with Mohler). Indeed my words not only demonstrate I agreed with Mohler, they also reveal I defended Mohler against what I perceived to be an exploitation of Al Mohler's view, an exploitation by Jonathan Merritt.
My Question at the Southern Baptist Convention
Numerous people have described my question to Al Mohler in the most horrendous terms, commonly, for example, as an attempt to "embarrass" Mohler or "attack" him. Motives attributed to me for asking the question at the SBC range from my alleged hate for Mohler and "Reformed" theology to wanting personal attention by being in the spotlight to asking the question because I am a "fundamentalist" pastor to just being "divisive" and a rabble-rouser. I've been implicated as being the "crazy cousin" everybody who is "godly" tolerates at the convention as well as the paradoxical wise-fool in Proverbs who becomes the unwise-fool for breaking silence (17:28).*
Yet, the truth is, on more than one occasion, as my words before the convention show (above), I stated I was willing to ask the question at the June meeting unless either Merritt or Mohler responded. I twice inquired privately to Al Mohler about this issue (and said so here), both times of which contained the assertion that I was prepared to ask the question at the convention. Even for all this, unscrupulous men attribute motives and purposes to me after my question to Mohler contrary to what I fully revealed long before I asked my question to Mohler. And, truth be told, I really do not think I could have stated my question in any way conceivable with my abilities which would have appeased the overwhelming majority of the critics. For many critics, just the fact that the questioner was me and the one questioned was Mohler stood sufficient to condemn the entire process as hatched in hell.
My Position on Mohler's Views Now
Confused. That's about as clear as I know how to say it--confused. As my words prior to the convention indicate, imagine my shock when Dr. Mohler not only admitted the words were his—that is, "we've lied about the nature of homosexuality" and practiced a "form of homophobia," a homophobia for which we should repent, but Dr. Mohler was glad to report to me this was so. He said, "I'm thankful for the question, my brother, and I am glad to tell you, that I was asked that question, and I made those statements. They're not alleged statements; they are actual statements. "
So far as I am concerned, Dr. Mohler now needs to clarify himself.** Notwithstanding his lengthy statement after answering my question about the Merritt quotes, he does not tell us how evangelicals broadly or Southern Baptists particularly have either "lied about the nature of homosexuality" or how we have practiced "homophobia." Indeed Dr. Mohler is obligated to explain how our supposed "homophobia" is different, if different at all, from the charge of "homophobia" about which he himself appears to insist is not a point well-taken when brought by those he deems critics.
For example, Mohler wrote in "Anti-Christian Discrimination: It's getting hot out there":
We are now living in a world in which the cultural elite, the courts, and the entertainment industry, are convinced that homophobia is a sin and homosexuality is fully legitimate. Those who hold to the biblical model of marriage and sex are considered to be threats to the regime of moral relativism and sexual libertinism" (//link)
As one can see, Dr. Mohler appears to be suggesting our culture has turned on its head the biblical understanding of sin and judged those who model biblical virtue as threats to societal norms, threats he suggests the cultural elite tags as "homophobia." Who is prepared to disagree with his conclusion? I am not. I agree with Mohler. The question is, does Mohler agree with Mohler? If he does, how does his new-found language he spoke at the SBC toward Southern Baptists about "repenting" of "homophobia" fit into the duplicitous moral landscape his writings introduce? If Dr. Mohler rejects the characterization of "homophobes" by which society slams evangelicals, how is his characterization toward fellow Southern Baptists (and evangelicals) in practicing "homophobia" supposed to be acceptable to them? What makes Mohler's charge right in claiming we practice homophobia and consequently off limits to legitimate inquiry, while society's slamming us for practicing homophobia is wrong, according to Mohler, and hence worthy of Mohler's rebuke?
Or, is it possible Southern Baptists were non-homophobic when Mohler penned the words quoted above, but now presently have become what our critics falsely charged toward us then? If so, when did our moral shift occur? What prompted our shift if shifted we have? When did we devolve into homophobes? At what juncture did Southern Baptists and evangelicals finally perceive culture's high moral insight, becoming convinced that homophobia is sin just as the cultural elite, the courts, and the entertainment industry all along perceived it to be?
I personally do not think the questions above deserve a silent response. And, from people I've talked to who represent grassroots Southern Baptists, they don't either. Hence, if Al Mohler's advocates do not see the moral paradox he's now created for himself, it is not because his words do not yield it.
Let's hope Dr. Mohler takes this issue seriously and clears up the confusion created by suggesting "we've lied about the nature of homosexuality" and practiced what can only be called "homophobia."
*Interestingly, some continue to spread the decidedly false impression I personally cast Mohler's response to me as an intimidation tactic. While others have suggested this, I have not. As the latter link shows, however, something must have verbally and/or visually transpired during Mohler's response, since even my critics insist I was verbally "spanked" and "Mohlerized" while getting my linguistic "beatdown."
**Dr. Mohler did not clarify himself on our supposed lying about the nature of homosexuality nor his understanding of our "homophobic" sin about which we must repent. See Mohler's full answer on video.
Peter,
You just posted this while I posted on your previous article. So I will post only part here. Feel free not to post the other one.
If I'm reading all of this correctly, and after just watching all of the video of this from the SBC, I think I like about 99.9% of what Dr. Mohler said. But to say Southern Baptists are practicing a form of homophobia or that we have not been honest is disquieting.
However, the use of the word homophobia is largely considered a pejorative term in the evangelical community. Whether Dr. Mohler intentionally meant to use such a disparaging term towards Southern Baptists is perplexing. There is no mistake in what that term means culturally today. As a culture warrior he should know this. I hope he clarifies and chooses to withdraw the use of that term. The clear meaning of that word as it is has been used for more than 10 years is undeniable. For example, from Wikipedia: "In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."" So are Southern Baptists seeking to dehumanize people? NO! Is this like racism or anti-Semitism? Absolutely not! I hope this was just a poor choice of a word and upon further reflection decides to retract.
I too would like clarification on how Southern Baptists have lied. I have not, nor has my church, nor association, or state convention, or the SBC as far as I know. So who has lied? Again, I'm hoping for a poor choice of words here that he realizes is unhelpful in this discussion.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Posted by: Ron Phillips, Sr. | 2011.06.20 at 02:03 PM
Ron,
I could not agree more. Some seem to think it's "parsing words" to insist he come clean on what he meant by "we've lied." I gave Mohler every opportunity to correct any false impression of his words, going so far as to inquire if Merritt was mistaken or were his words not clearly communicated given the context in which the words were spoken. By-passing all opportunities to clarify, Dr. Mohler insisted "those are my words...they are not alleged words, they are actual words."
Hence, if Mohler meant something other than we've been intentionally deceitful--which is exactly what lying involves--he allowed no indication at all such was the case.
Grace, brother.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2011.06.20 at 03:24 PM
Thanks for your efforts to clarify this matter. Tangentially, I was wondering if the characterization of your encounter with Dr Mohler ("even my critics insist I was verbally "spanked" and "Mohlerized" while getting my linguistic "beatdown.") is typical of reactions at the convention? Did anyone characterize the success of the Overton resolution, a clear rebuke to the committee and to Dr.Moore as its spokesman, as some kind of "smackdown" or the like? It seemed the delegates overwhelmingly spoke on that issue. I know this is off-topic in a way, but I think the reactions are indicative. Understand if you do not want to comment or even post this.
Praying for you
Posted by: PastorPitman | 2011.06.20 at 04:57 PM
Peter,
From hearing Mohler's comments and reading his words, here's what I think he meant (and since I'm not Mohler, I could be completely wrong):
Re the lying about the nature of homosexuality: He's saying we have made it merely about choice, when it's much more complex than that. There is a choice involved, but there are other factors as well. By and large, it seems, Christians haven't faced up to that reality. To the extent that we have naively held onto the idea that it's just a choice, we have lied.
Re the homophobia: I agree that this is a poor choice of words. I'm not really sure what it actually means. But I think what he meant by that is that we have dealt with homosexuals with a lot of truth and, for the most part, withheld the grace. Maybe a broad brush statement, but it rings true of people I know (myself included, whom I know very well).
Grace and Peace,
Jim
Posted by: Jim Upchurch | 2011.06.20 at 06:04 PM
Jim,
I can see where you get your thoughts on what Mohler meant. However, if we "lied", that means that we intentionally advocated ideas that we know to be wrong. This is simply not true. Unless Dr. Mohler can show where we have lied, then he lied when he made the original statement and need to repent.
Donald
Posted by: Donald | 2011.06.21 at 03:14 AM
Pastor Pitman,
Thank you for your contribution. The answer is no, at least to the ones with whom I spoke. People were cordial to me after the question. It took the twitter-boys and attack blogs to raise a stink about the question I asked. And so far as I know, I know of no one who twittered any demeaning insults toward those raising questions about the amnesty resolution, NNIV resolution, Lifeway, or Danny Akin's question. Some felt Akin's questioner was a "plant" but I don't know anything about that.
Jim,
Glad to hear from you. Though I take a different avenue in understanding Mohler's response than do you, you have some points very much worth considering. Thank you...
Donald,
I appreciate your logging on. And, you have the proper focus in leaning hard on Mohler's unequivocal usage of "lied". Had Mohler suggested Southern Baptists have been mistaken about the nature of homosexuality, while he would still need to clarify, it would not have conjured up such reprehensible outrage because it would not have been a moral issue but a matter of ignorance. One can be sincerely mistaken without being a liar. But one cannot be a liar without intending to deceive. This is the crux of the issue for me. By claiming "we've lied", he claimed Southern Baptists intentionally deceived, hardly a proposition worth clapping about.
Consider, however, if we are correct about this, then your final statement may need to be clarified: "Unless Dr. Mohler can show where we have lied, then he lied..." Perhaps it's better to say, Unless Dr. Mohler can show where we have lied, then presumably he's mistaken..."--unless we can show how he intentionally deceived the public about Southern Baptists. I do not think either of us want to fall for that. Thanks, Donald for your encouraging contribution. You hit the nail squarely in focusing on "we've lied."
Grace all.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2011.06.21 at 06:07 AM
Ron,
I think you are dead on: Mohler has served Southern Baptists well for several years on socio-ethical issues in the larger culture. Now, he's made a major gaff which deserves the closest attention. Will he clarify? I don't know. His friends are probably telling him he'll finally survive the fallout since we've a short memory. Perhaps they are right. If Mohler does not respond and offer clarity, the real losers will be Southern Baptists. If an entity head can get away with propagating an uncertain sound on a key issue of cultural import, then it may be indicative that Southern Baptists are turning back into the very thing we forsook beginning in 1979.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2011.06.21 at 06:18 AM
Peter,
I agree with Ron. I agreed with much of Dr. Mohler's response to your question, but was left scratching my head about SB's lying and being homophobes. I was wondering how the SBC has done this? I could've gone with him saying that "some SB's" have lied....I could've amened that "some SB's" have been homophobes...but, the all of us? or, the SBC in general?
David
Posted by: volfan007 | 2011.06.21 at 09:47 AM
Peter,
I can't speak for Mohler on this issue, but I agree that homosexuality is not merely a matter of choice. It is undoubtedly, as I see it, a deep-seated struggle.
Let me explain. Some people are born with a stronger proclivity than other people toward sins such as drugs, alcohol, overeating, or pornography. I think that some people are also born with a greater urge than others toward homosexual behavior.
This is a very real struggle in today's society, and I agree with Mohler that the switch can't simply be turned on or off. Certainly, the ultimate issue of the sinful act is a matter of choice, but the proclivity itself can't be simply turned on or off. As somone who has, in the past, battled things like alcohol and overeating, I can attest that the urge to engage in those sinful behaviors recurs in my life occasionally. I see no reason to classify homosexuality in a separate category from those sins I listed.
I don't believe Mohler was completely dismissing the element of choice in the matter of homosexuality, but was inferring that the proclivity itself is something that should be taken into account when examining this issue. If we look at the struggle not just in terms of choice, but also in terms of proclivity (i.e. the urge, or inclination, to commit the act), we can perhaps be more compassionate and successful in ministering to those who need Jesus to break free from their homosexual bondage.
Love in Christ,
Ed Goodman
Isaiah 10:27
Posted by: Ed Goodman | 2011.06.21 at 05:46 PM
Ed,
I did not write this piece as an explanation of what makes homosexuals homosexual. Hence, your understanding is interesting but irrelevant to this discussion.
Fundamentally, the post-SBC issue which concerns me is, Dr. Mohler has categorically judged Southern Baptists as intentionally deceiving the public about the nature of homosexuality, a moral charge which no amount of accusations toward me or others about so-called "word-parsing" is going ease, Ed. Mohler did not say we were mistaken about the nature of homosexuality. Instead he said we were lying about the nature of homosexuality.
Furthermore, Dr. Mohler cast injurious and even needless ad hominem insult toward both Southern Baptists and evangelicals as practicing "homophobia" without the least qualification or description, not to mention any type of hard evidence. He had every opportunity to explain himself. He chose not to explain but preach a sermonette, a sermonette about which few, if any, would disagree with 99% of his talk.
This is the issue here, my brother Ed. Please contribute toward this point next time round.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2011.06.21 at 09:53 PM
One wonders if a call to clarify with AM about his over-reaching comments would be answered or not. I, for one, will make such a call because I don't want him to speak for me. Just because he serves as our employee does not give him carte blanche. Or is he speaking ex cathedra?
Posted by: Steve Evans | 2011.06.22 at 09:51 AM
Steve,
It is my understanding that this was the exact reason Peter asked the question from the floor of the SBC as he never got a response before the SBC. He wanted to give Dr. Mohler an opportunity to distance himself or clarify that Southern Baptists have lied about the nature of homosexuality and that Southern Baptists are practicing a form of homophobia as quoted by Jonathan Merritt. He didn't clarify those two remarks. He emphatically embraced them. Again, I liked everything else he said but those two issues are two things that I think the majority of Southern Baptists would disagree.
Maybe Ed Stetzer could do a poll of Southern Baptist pastors that simply asked if they agree or disagree with those two statements. I would speculate that the numbers of that poll would be well above 90% that disagreed with Dr. Mohler.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Posted by: Ron Phillips, Sr. | 2011.06.22 at 12:32 PM