« Reformed Effeminaphobia by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Prayer Concern for Adam Dooley and family »



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


Are you gay, Peter? Did you miraculously change in an instant to being straight? If so, please enlighten us how.


Dear John,

That's a personal question. I'm not going to answer you (read my rules for commenting). So, don't log on with a question specifically personal about me again, please.

With that, I am...



I have read your recent batch of articles concerning Dr. Mohler with respectful disagreement. I understand the difficulty you (and others) have with your new outlook on Dr. Mohler. The reason I sympathize with you is the same reason I disagree with you. My introduction to Dr. Mohler was his article in '06, "Is Your Baby Gay? What if You Could Know?" I was disturbed to think that a so-called conservative Christian could suggest the possibility of a person being born with homosexual inclinations.

Since then, I learned that my view of sin was too low. I realized that Mohler was right in suggesting that homosexuality is more than what we have made it to be, because sin is more than what we have made homosexuality to be. I appreciate your concern, and I respect you for not shying away from the opportunity to address Dr. Mohler. But I do hope that you will consider this as evidence that Mohler has stood here for at least 5 years.


Grace and Peace,



Isn't it interesting how people like to ask personal questions that they have no business asking. You can share your response with the one who asked me if I was gay. I think it should suffice.



Thanks for your respectful dissent to my concerns I’ve raised about Dr. Mohler’s views on homosexuality. I was aware of the post you offered from Mohler in 2007. The truth is, having read Mohler more deeply on this issue since the SBC in June, I’ve concluded he has been more confusing over the last decade than I actually realized. Too, for Mohler to suggest Christians should employ some type of hormonal therapy for the supposed “gay baby” strikes moral absurdity. So we should “fix” sin with a scientific solution? Nigel M. Cameron, president of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future in Chicago, was surely right when he flatly rejected Mohler’s spurious prognosis:

“Cameron said Mohler was "venturing on very dangerous ground. Ultimately, we [would] have people who essentially are the Lego products of other people who tried to put them together," said Cameron, a member of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). "I'd be very wary of using these manipulative technologies" (//link

In addition, a Time article cited other evangelicals who raised questions on Mohler’s position first articulated in 2007, a position he’s apparently now making a hill on which to die.  Quite honestly, I think this issue will bring an end to Dr. Mohler as the “reigning intellectual” of evangelicalism. He’s simply barking at the wrong cars passing by.

With that, I am…


Bob Hadley

Do you think some of Mohler's positions with respect to homosexuality can be tied to his position on total depravity? It would be interesting to hear the Calvinist's position with respect to homosexuality and the elect and how that would affect their position related to the perseverance of the saints.

Grateful to be in His grip



Bob, Great question.



Not sure what you're getting at, because Arminians and Calvinists agree on total depravity. Anything less than total depravity is Pelagianism, which has been condemned as heresy for more than 1000 years...


Baptists surely agree on total depravity--just look at some of the blogs out there.


But.....why would Mohler have to "answer" anyone? I thought it was only stupid people with an inability to comprehend a master of clear concise language who had an agenda against Calvinist that were purposefully and maliciously twisting Mohler's words? Well, it's settled! CNN is full of "antiCalvinist."


Can someone tell me why al mohler is an expert on sexual behavior? What are his qualifications?

There is NO evidence that one is born genetically homosexual. There IS evidence that early environments influence, outside of that person's control, their sexual orientation. In both cases, it is not a "choice" to have the struggle, but "born" implies that, to a large extent, it was God's intention.

I think it is also necessary, as I have seen others do, to separate homosexual orientation from homosexual activity. I do not think many choose to struggle with homosexual thoughts, however, they do choose to feed them, and give in to them, in the same way that a man gives in to his flesh and sleeps with a woman he is not married to. Both are "doing what is natural," and both are wrong.


Let me clarify, as homosexuality is, biblical, unnatural, I meant "doing what is natural" in that they are doing what their flesh wants them to do.

Isn't the whole basis of Christianity the opposite? A war against our flesh?

The comments to this entry are closed.