« Associated Baptist Press: "Mohler says Baptists must repent of homophobia" by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Al Mohler and Homosexuality: Setting the Record Straight by Peter Lumpkins »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chris Roberts

Thanks for the link to the full video and I'm glad you'll be giving a longer response to his answer. For myself, I'm fully satisfied in what he said. Clear on the sinfulness of homosexuality and the need for Christians to respond in faithfulness and forgiveness. Charges of "antinomianism" are unmerited.


A pitiful response by a "Dr." who most claim to be a greatly articulate speaker/teacher/preacher.
Being vague or evasive is usually done for a reason........

Jack Maddox


Vague? Evasive? You need to watch the complete response. He was neither. You may not like his response. You may take exception with his position. You my dislike all that is AM or SBTS - but vague and evasive is the last thing he was or is.

Jack Maddox

Ryan Abernathy

After viewing the whole video over on SBC Voices I now understand why you only posted part of it.

Time to change the website name to sbcspindoctor.com instead of sbctomorrow?

Mohler did a great job of articulating a Biblical position on homosexuality. Why do you have such an issue with his response? Further, why do you have an issue with the use of "we" in reference to the body of Southern Baptists? There is plenty of evidence to support Mohler's assertions. We have not done a good job of speaking the truth in love to militant homosexuals. Many have demonized them and some have gone as far as allowing the politics of the issue to invade their pulpits.

There is a crying need for internal dialogue in the SBC to learn how to take the Gospel to this growing population. Mohler's acknowledgement goes a long way toward opeing the door to that dialogue.

I for one am thankful for his response and am thoroughly satisfied with it. I think you might do well to leave this one alone.

peter lumpkins


I'm afraid watching the entire video adds nothing to the concerns I raised. So in that sense, Casey is correct. After the first couple of lines, Dr. Mohler avoided my query. It's that simple. If you think he adequately explained why he thought SBs both lied and practiced homophobia, please quote Mohler the the part I didn't include. If you cannot quote Mohler's words as evidence, then I'm afraid you're being far too dismissive toward Casey's wording.

With that, I am...

peter lumpkins


First, you could have gotten the whole video here. I gave a link to it. Moreover, you could have gotten it at sbc.net if you wanted it. And, since you already had watched it, it remains curious why you'd even come by here.

Second, unless you're willing to show precisely how I've actually "spun" the issue, I'd drop the point, Ryan. I explicitly said why I did not choose to leave the entire video in tact:

"The truth is, almost of all Dr. Mohler's response, after the first portion of his answer, addressed concerns he introduced, possessing little, if any, relevance to the concerns I specifically raised

While Mohler's words after acknowledging the quotes I offered may be worthy of note for another aspect of the subject, he neither explained nor offered evidences as to why he asserts we've been deceptive and homophobic, precisely what one would expect if a leader is going to make such raucous assertions. Now disagree all you wish but do not log on again here to charge me with "spin" when I've been straight-forward exactly what I'm doing and why.

Finally if you think there is "plenty of evidence" to demonstrate our lies and homophobia, go for it. Assemble it, Ryan. I'd love to examine some hard evidence instead of cheap, rhetorical broad-brushing charges I'm hearing from defenders like yourself. We've got plenty of evidence, ah? Well, let's see it, Ryan.

With that, I am...

Ed Goodman

Brother Peter,

I love you, man. I have always felt that you stayed involved with SBC life and published timely pieces about hot-button issues. However, I think you're going overboard with your word-parsing. If you can't figure out Mohler's position on homosexuality or discern his heart for the homosexual community, then you have severe interpretive deficiencies.

Peter, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that both you and Dr. Mohler desire for the lost souls of the homosexual community to receive Christ's forgiveness and repent of their sins. You can post articles until the day you die, but everyone will know that Mohler understands homosexuality to be a sin and that he desires to see them saved by Christ. I would dare say that you agree (at least I hope you do!).

I don't think you got "Mohlerized" and don't consider your question to be an embarrassment or an act of accusation. You had the right to ask the question, and I thought the question was legitimate (particularly if you had a sincere desire for clarification, which I will assume you did). I'll forever be on your side as your brother in Christ. But please.....don't misrepresent Dr. Mohler, parse his words out of context, or misinterpret the tenor of his answer to you.

Praying for you, Peter.



One could hardly accuse you of spinning anything. I love your straightforward approach and openness and honesty. Its a refreshing change from most bloggers. I do disagree with you a bit on our SBC practice of homophobia (only because I've seen and heard it personally) but its no reason to cause strive between two brothers.

Keep up the good work. You are appreciated.


Sorry about the spelling error. It should be strife instead of strive. I must have flunked that part of seminary that dealt with verbs.

Chris Roberts

Here's a glimpse of what I think Mohler means.

A guy walks into the typical SBC church tomorrow and shares, "I really struggle with sexual temptation. I know the things I think about are wrong, and I really want help to overcome this temptation. I struggle with porn, I struggle with thinking right, and I need help." Many churches, no problem. They will gladly help him with his struggle without any qualms on their part. But let's say there is more to the struggle: "By the way, my sexual temptation is over guys. I struggle with gay attraction." How many of our churches would be open to someone struggling with gay sexual temptation vs straight sexual temptation?

The example could be pushed much farther, but you get the point. We are far more willing to work with people struggling with one set of sins and less willing to work with people struggling with another. I have no hard data to back up this claim, but it would take quite an act of self-deception to believe otherwise. I don't like Mohler's use of the word homophobic, I wish he'd chosen a different word, but I understand what he means.

peter lumpkins


I appreciate it when one sees the difference between two views rather than one making charges of dishonesty toward the other (i.e. 'spin'). Thank you.

With that, I am...

peter lumpkins


Thanks for the encouragement about prayer and care for me as well as acknowledging my unpleasant role at times by dealing with ‘hot-button’ issues.  Know I really wish I could ‘leave it alone’, so to speak, and just take your words as personal appreciation from someone who differs from my own take on matters. And, had you left it as did Eric above—i.e., we have different perspectives about the matter—I could.  As it is, I cannot.

For the truth is, while in one breath you inhale prayer for me and exhale appreciation to me,  the next breathing cycle includes an accusation about “word-parsing” and perhaps “severe interpretive deficiencies” about Mohler’s position since I think he’s being nothing less than confusing with his admission that Jonathan Merritt’s quotation of him is accurate, not to mention his call for us to repent of our homophobia. You also end your comment with hardly the flattery of appreciation: “….....don't misrepresent Dr. Mohler, parse his words out of context, or misinterpret the tenor of his answer to you.”  OK, brother, I won’t. The problem is, I don’t think you meant this to be a cautionary exhortation for future purposes but a correction of my past and present behavior. For that reason, Ed, I cannot leave it alone.

First, you accuse me of going overboard with “word-parsing.”  Unless you’re prepared to offer tangible examples to defend your assertion, how am I supposed to know exactly what you mean, Ed? I get a bit frustrated when these blanket charges are claimed but never seem to get around to specifics. “Word-parsing”?  Whatever you mean by it, it cannot be good. I suppose the ubiquitous example of negative “word-parsing” would be the classic Clintonian statement, “it depends on what ‘the’ means.” Well, OK. That’s a good example of tricksterism. Now, Ed. please do me justice by showing a similar example with which I have gone “overboard” with my “word-parsing” of Al Mohler’s position. 

The fact is (and the record shows), I had possessed--up until Mohler’s admission that the words Merritt spoke were “his words” not “alleged words”--a profound appreciation and almost total agreement with Mohler on homosexuality.  Many people tend to forget my record on Mohler’s view of homosexuality. Instead they presumably read my criticisms of Mohler’s brand of “Reformed” soteriology into this issue and consequently assume any agreement with Mohler I may claim to possess on any issue to be disingenuous or even dishonest on my part. Worst still they literally make things up I neither believe nor say. Here are some of the recent things I’ve said about Mohler’s position leading up to my question at the SBC:

Frankly put, if Al Mohler did either write or speak these words [words in JM’s Christian Science Monitor article, words about which I questioned Mohler at the convention], 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 (embolden added, italics original //link)

Being the first words I publicly wrote on this issue, those words represented my working assumption throughout this issue. Again, my words a bit later (but before the SBC):

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. (embolden added, //link)

Clearly, I have not only said I substantially agreed with Mohler’s position (a few caveats exist), but I actually defended Mohler from what I thought was an exploitation of his position.

One final quote:

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 ( embolden added, //link)

Hence, the biggest surprise in the entire fiasco, to me personally, was Al Mohler’s concession that Merritt’s quotation of him was authentic; that is, neither “alleged” as I repeatedly suggested nor presumably skewed. Taken as the backdrop, to now suggest I’ve “severe interpretive deficiencies” about Mohler’s position since I think he’s being nothing less than confusing with his admission that Jonathan Merritt’s quotation of him is accurate, even calling on Southern Baptists to repent of homophobia, the very action for which Jonathan Merritt yearns, is nothing short of absurd to me, Ed.

Second,   I have not in the past, do not in the present, and will not in the future make a pattern of misrepresenting Dr. Mohler or anyone else I criticize, parse Mohler’s words out of context (or anyone else’s), or misinterpret the tenor of Mohler’s answer to me (or anyone else’s).  Periodically charges like this surface. About five or six weeks ago, one blogging editor wrote me blasting away about how "ungodly" and "divisive" I was in the blogging world, accusing me of "twisting" people’s words—twisting his words. I asked him where I had and he told me. I said, OK. Here’s my critique of your position (giving him the link to the post he mentioned).  Show me. I want to know where I’ve twisted your words out of context, making them mean something other than what your words mean. He said, “Sure! It might take me a day or two.” No problem, I said. A few days later he wrote back and said he’d been swamped and would get to it soon. No problem I said. I’ve heard nothing since about severely “twisting” his words. He's gone stone-cold silent about it (at least to me). He can charge me with "twisting" people's words--his included--but when I ask for proof, he clams up and goes away.

With all candor, I'm simply tired of wimpy, whiny bloggers who won't make good on their assertions. Consequently, I'm pretty-much through with them. I will continue to do my thing here at SBC Tomorrow and offer, as best I know how, documentation for the conclusions to which I come--conclusions with which readers may reasonably agree or reasonably dispute if they examine the documentation I offer and show my point not well taken from the sources I cite. In the meantime, those who are long on complaining but short on citation are welcome to do their thing as well. The public readership can decide who they'd like best to consider or whom they find more trustworthy.

In summary, if people are going to say “stop misrepresenting me” or “quit taking me out of context” or “quit misinterpreting the tenor of my answer” then those making charges need to grow some whiskers and say specifically what's being misrepresented, or skewed, or misinterpreted and how it's being done. Lallygagging around only makes things worse (not necessarily you, Ed, just generally speaking).

Even so, may our Lord guide us all as we work through ‘hot-button’ issues. Thanks for your prayers. Lord bless…

With that, I am…


Robin Foster


The real mystery of that video clip is who is that enchanting figure sitting in front of you? He looks like someone I have known from the past. Maybe a bow tie could help clarify his true identity?




If I were to ever compare you to a Biblical character it would be Peter. No one had a problem understanding exactly what he meant and what he said and thus is the same with thee. I like that trait in you.

A. Price

Is there anyone out there who thinks the 'Gay Agenda' has NOT been for the last 20-30- years to infiltrate our society, government, schools, and now churches, specifically SBC churches?

I agree with brother Peter, it's vet disheartning to hear that a president of our 'oldest' seminary would, even leave a 'crack' for them to 'take-out-of context', and misconstrue to the 'world' that we,SBC are coming their (Gays;) way!

Ron Phillips, Sr.


My schedule has not allowed me to keep very close tabs on this, but can you tell me if I understand all of this correctly?

Long before the SBC, you posted where Jonathan Merritt attributed statements to Dr. Mohler, that seemed to be a contradiction of AM's public position or a change of postion. JM refused to give you the context of AM's remarks and AM never responded to your requests to find out if indeed he made the remarks. At the SBC you then asked him if he said what he was quoted as saying by JM. He responded that those indeed were his words.

So 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 retract 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, nor state convention, nor 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.


Ron P.

The comments to this entry are closed.