Al Mohler, homosexuality, and continued moral confusion (part II) by Peter Lumpkins

continued from part I  >>>

The second public response Mohler offered was in personal correspondence he allowed North Carolina pastor, Les Puryear, to post on his site. Mohler was responding to Puryear's personal question to him concerning his statement about "homophobia" and the reference to "we've lied…"

In part Mohler wrote:

"...I point out that I never said anything remotely like what you suggest in your message. As you must know, my original statement made no reference whatsoever to the Southern Baptist Convention nor to Southern Baptists, but was a reference to 2,000 years of church history. I stand by the statement. I never spoke of "members of the SBC as 'liars' and 'homophobes,'" but I did speak of the failure of the Christian church over the centuries to deal with homosexuality in a fully honest and Gospel-centered manner...

...I cannot apologize for something I never said..." (//link)

Dr. Mohler's statement beckons response. First, why should Puryear not assume Dr. Mohler was speaking about both evangelicals and Southern Baptists in the CSM article when evangelicals (and, by implication, Southern Baptists) remained the exclusive topic about which Jonathan Merritt was speaking? Merritt was not referencing the historic Christian response to homosexuality over the last 2000 years. Instead he was speaking singularly about evangelicals using "clobber Scriptures," and the specific shift in evangelical circles toward gayness he observed. And, Merritt cited Mohler's words as solely indicative of the evangelical shift.

For Mohler, therefore, to suggest he was referring to 2000 years of church history when Jonathan Merritt's context was exclusively evangelicalism  simply makes no sense to Merritt's context. Let's be perfectly clear:  we are not suggesting Mohler was  not referencing 2000 years of church history as he says to Les Puryear. Granted he was. But if Mohler was referring to 2000 years of church history, then Jonathan Merritt did in fact skew the context for Mohler's words. And, if Merritt skewed the context from which Mohler's words were lifted, then Merritt needs to be publicly corrected because he continues to use Mohler's words apparently out of context--at least out of context according to Mohler's response to Puryear.

Even for all this, Mohler insists to Puryear he was not referencing Southern Baptists.  Yet if Mohler was not referencing Southern Baptists, then why did he specifically direct his answer to the question asked him toward the Southern Baptist Convention?  In other words, did he not call upon Southern Baptists to repent of their homophobia? I agree with Dr. Mohler that he does not owe an apology for something he did not say. Yet as we showed above, Jonathan Merritt's context drew the clear implication from Mohler's words that he was referring to evangelicals as the ones who've lied about the nature of homosexuality. And, if it was evangelicals about which Merritt referred, by necessary implication, we cannot avoid the inclusion of Southern Baptists. Then again, if Dr. Mohler clearly called Southern Baptists to repentence for their form of homophobia, I'm wondering how Mohler can deny his words were applicable to them as toward evangelicalism in general. In this spirit, may I utilize a line Dr. Mohler spoke:  I cannot repent for something I haven't done, Dr. Mohler.

The third public response just appeared in The Wall Street Journal. Entitled "Evangelicals and the Gay Moral Revolution" Mohler picks up similar talking points from his Phoenix convention response to the question asked him by a messenger. Much of the short essay solicits full agreement. Mohler rightly perceives the recent gay victory in New York as indicative of a moral revolution taking place before our eyes. He writes:

"In less than a single generation, homosexuality has gone from something almost universally understood to be sinful, to something now declared to be the moral equivalent of heterosexuality—and deserving of both legal protection and public encouragement. "

Mohler goes on to lament the failures of the Christian faith:

Our greatest fear is not that homosexuality will be normalized and accepted, but that homosexuals will not come to know of their own need for Christ and the forgiveness of their sins… .

It is now abundantly clear that evangelicals have failed in so many ways to meet this challenge. We have often spoken about homosexuality in ways that are crude and simplistic. We have failed to take account of how tenaciously sexuality comes to define us as human beings. We have failed to see the challenge of homosexuality as a Gospel issue. We are the ones, after all, who are supposed to know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only remedy for sin, starting with our own.

We have demonstrated our own form of homophobia—not in the way that activists have used that word, but in the sense that we have been afraid to face this issue where it is most difficult . . . face to face.

Several things may be said in response. First, the words Mohler wrote here are a cut above the confusing moral gibberish he affirmed in Phoenix. No mention of evangelicals (and, by implication Southern Baptists) intentionally deceiving anyone about the nature of homosexuality exists, which, in itself, makes this piece superior. Next Mohler vaguely alludes to our supposed "crude and simplistic" speech about homosexuality. It's hard to tell what Mohler means by this language. If he means employing the "God-hates-fags" innuendo or similar language to describe homosexuals, then Mohler is correct. The question then to ask is, who among Southern Baptists or even evangelicals employs this approach? The answer cannot be the Westboro clan since few, if any, commend their crusade apart from a general recognition of free speech rights.

If, however, Mohler demands we use language reminiscent of biological determinism, then we have a problem. If the Bible does not state the nature of homosexuality in terms of "sexual orientation" the way Mohler does, then no compelling reason exists why it is necessary for us to employ the language either. Nor may we be rightly criticized because we don't dance to Mohler's beat. Indeed why should we repent of either lying or homophobia when Dr. Mohler remains entirely unclear in his accusations?* 

Third, Mohler says we've failed to see homosexuality as a gospel issue because, as Mohler says, we know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the "only remedy for sin, starting with our own." This is where I think Dr. Mohler creates more confusion. Basically he seems to convolute moral reformation with gospel transformation. Mohler says, "the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only remedy for sin, starting with our own." Who can argue with this—if we are speaking about being children of God…becoming disciples of Christ…being in Christ…possessing eternal life…believers being transferred from darkness to light…having sin forgiven...being born again, or any number of other ways to describe a right relationship with God? That is to say, if we are referring to heart transformation, then obviously the gospel remains the only remedy for sin, starting with our own.

Nevertheless, the gospel is not necessarily required for personal moral reformation. In other words, a person does not require the gospel to stop committing homosexual acts any more than a person requires the gospel to stop messing around with the neighbor's wife, stealing pencils from a school desk, or putting chewing gum in the teacher's chair. A person may morally change apart from the gospel, but a person cannot morally convert apart from the gospel. That is to say, a person can reform but a person cannot transform. The former is a human act and the latter a divine act. Drunks do not require the gospel to beat drunkenness. Alcohol Anonymous (AA) works well on many, many people. I was a drunk before I was saved. The truth is, however, I actually reformed from my drunkenness, at least in part, also before I was saved. Reformation came in part through discipline I gained from the martial arts.** Understand: reformation did not save me. But it did make life for those in my circle, shall we say, a bit less tortuous.

AA never has nor ever will transform a single drunk. The gospel alone is the power of God unto salvation to transform human hearts. And, while no amount of human reformation can accomplish divine transformation of the human soul, still moral betterment and preservation is possible apart from being transformed in Christ. Our Lord Jesus Christ called us to be salt and light in our culture. And, when we're speaking of a socio-ethical issue like gay rights and behavior, we're speaking of an issue which is unlike personal ethical issues--pride, gossip, envy, etc., evangelicalism's so-called "respectable sins."  Like Mohler said elsewhere,

It is critical believers realize homosexuality is not just another sin among others... And while there are many sectors of sin, the issue of homosexuality is not ancillary issue.  It hits at the heart of what is wrong in our culture (Al Mohler, preaching at SEBTS, Baptist Press, 03/01/1995, embolden added)

We agree with what Dr. Mohler said to Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary chapel attendees in 1995.  Mohler appeared to have a clear grasp between socio-ethical issues and personal Christian ethics, drawing a clear distinction between the two. Nonetheless, I think Dr. Mohler now seems to conflate public reformation--reformation of which all human beings made in God's image are morally capable--into personal transformation--transformation of which only those who trust in Jesus Christ are eternally endowed.

May our Lord grant us all His will in understanding the times in which we live as the sons of Issachar understood theirs--"And of the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do...(1 Ch 12:32)

With that, I am...

Peter 

*I remain frustrated that many Southern Baptist trustees appear to allow entity heads to continually brow-beat the Southern Baptist Convention. If our trustees do not soon get a handle on the political posturing of some denominational workers, they will single-handedly give the Southern Baptist Convention over to power hungry, top-down dictatorial leaders

**not all, mind you, but definitively some

Comments

[CASEY]

Tackling your "power hungry" statement more than anything else is our 'slide' towards arrogance and elitism. For years Conservatives fought "self-perpetuating" Boards on the SBC and state level(s). As a wise former SBC-Exec.Comm. once told me, "If I'm asked by a Nominating Committee to serve on a Board my human/personal obligation is to serve those they represent. If, on the other hand, I am asked by an Agency head(or college president) to serve on 'his Board' then my first human/personal inclination is to support him...rather than those who support that institution." Sadly, Southern included, is now in a position of 'choosing it's own Board members'...and thus, the Board feels an obligation to support Mohler first and Southern Baptist tithe givers second. Until this is corrected...Comm. on Nominations functioning the way it should, we have in essence a self-perpetuating Board(s) that is beholden to the Agency head. Conservatives, frankly, have slipped into an area of governance that they previously said they abhor. While it doesn't make the job of correction impossible it certainly makes it more difficult.
Having said all that...is it any wonder of the difficulties in getting Mohler to 'come clean'? If his Board was committed to Southern Baptist tithe givers first and the Institution/Institution Head second...would we have a clearer quicker response? I believe there is no doubt as to that answer...

[Mary]

Here's the thing that I think people are simply not comprehending. Jonathan Merritt and others like Jay Bakker seem to be pushing this idea that we should stop talking about homosexuality being a sin, that it's just like every other sin and we need to stop proclaiming that gay marriage is a bad thing. In short JM seems to be advocating that we shut up about homosexuality in America as a culture. Stop fighing for the sanctity of marriage. JM used the words of Al Mohler to push his agenda of a softening of a stance on homosexuality and gay rights. JM seems to think it's enough to say that yes homosexuality is a sin but let's stop talking about and let's stop offending people so we can give them the Gospel. JM used Al Mohler's words to push his agenda of a moderation of how we deal with a very real cultural fight.

When the article came out Al Mohler was asked to clarify his comments by many many people. He blantently refused to address these comment deciding instead to force a "showdown" at the SBC. He knew the question was coming, decided to play politics and appease his sycophants which ended up to not be an answer to the actual questions he's been asked raising even more questions.

So here's the question today, right now, that Al still hasn't made clear. Is he with Jonanthon Merrit and Jay Baker that Christians need to moderate their speech and try to be more politically correct so as not to offend the world or does he still believe everything he's written in the past. Yes we all can agree that Al Mohler is very clear that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. What we don't get is if he is taking the side of Jonathon Merrit and Jay Baker and claiming we should shut up about so we stop offending people like Jonathon Merritt and his young friends who are threatnening to live the SBC because we have a very definate stance on gay marriage. Al Mohler either needs to denounce the agenda of Jonathon Merrit and Jay Baker or embrace it so we all know where he stands. Enough with the coded language trying to appease his sycophants without looking like he messed up this whole thing royally. If he cannot take a clear stand on this then he isn't worth much as a leader.

And no for all the people who want to proclaim that homosexuality is just the same as any other sin - it's not. Please tell me of the church who allows an adulter to bring his girlfriend in to church while his wife's on vacation and they say "sure we'll cover for ya" or the church who helps the member who's about to get caught stealing from his company cover up his crime. It is not the same thing. Of course I'm still curious where are all these churches filled with homophobic liars.

[Mary]

And for the record it's not enough for a sycophant to come screeching in declaring that Al is most certainly clear and you all are so stupid that you don't get it. When you have pro-gay people delcaring that what Al's currently saying is great then there is a definate disconnect betweet what the sycophants of Al want to claim he's saying versus what the world is acturaly hearing. You would think Al, being the brillant man he's claimed to be could put together a very clear concise message and one has to wonder why he's now decided to parse his words. Who is it he's so worried about offending? Or is it that he doesn't want to lose his reputation for being able to Mohlerize his opponents?

[Lee]

Peter,

Well said brother!

Based on what we are seeing and not hearing, there is little evidence to point us any other direction than to assume Mohler has indeed shifted left. An article worth reading again, is Jonathan Merritt’s’ article written in relevant magazine last August.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/current-events/op-ed-blog/22593-why-our-generation-doesnt-care-about-prop-8

Jonathan makes a sweeping judgment regarding how the majority of Christians engage the topic of homosexuality. A real highlight of his article, is when he intimates the Bible is “tired rhetoric”

Al makes a sweeping judgment that the majority of southern Baptist have lied about homosexuality, practice homophobia and do not understand that it is “not a choice, but a deep inner struggle”

It appears both junior and Mohler are joined at the hip on this topic.

[Eric]

I just read Jonathan Merritt's article that Lee posted and thought it was really good and thought provoking. He's trying to say something and I think we should at least give him the courtesy of considering what he is saying instead of ridiculing him. There is a lot of truth in what he said even though we may not like hearing it.

[CASEY]

ERIC:
Be specific....and what would that "truth" be that Jonathan is trying to share with us?

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

Merritt, in his 2010 article on Prop 8 says

it seems the next generation will begin framing the debate differently with separate moral and legal categories as they rise into positions of ecclesial and political leadership.

looks as if Dr. Mohler may be positioning himself to lead in making these future changes.

Blessings,
Tim

[Bryan]

While I know I don't agree with Jonathan Merritt on everything, I would also say it is clear he agrees homosexual behavior is sinful, at least in the article in Relevant magazine. I am inclined to agree with much of what he says.

Yes, homosexual behavior is clearly sinful, it is condemned in Scripture as evidence of man's deep depravity. But, I think we need to be careful with choice terminology. Because, while the behavior is sinful, we need to realize that sexual orientation, while possibly not based in genetics, is nevertheless a deep part of one's identity. Thus, it is not as easily changed as other sinful tendencies might be.

I agree with previous comments that we cannot say homosexuality is like all sin. That's true. While it is just as dishonoring to God and just as worthy and deserving of His wrath as all other sin, it is different in the effects is has on one's self and other people. That said, we do need to realize something.

We can stick our heads in the sand all day long and pretend we have all always been as compassionate and gospel-centered in our response to homosexuals as we ought to have been. While that may be true for some of us, I know that almost all of us have observed in others and in our own hearts responses of disgust and self-righteousness toward homosexuals and have reacted to them in ways that are less than Christ-like.

We can say that homosexuals represent a small portion of the population. And while that is true, we need to remember the United States is not as homogenous as statistics would lead us to believe. For while 1 in 50 Americans might identify themselves as homosexuals, nearly 1 in 8 Atlantans identify themselves as homosexuals. And I guarantee that if you break Atlanta down, neighborhood by neighborhood, there will be some neighborhoods that are filled with many homosexuals while there will be others that have practically no homosexuals.

Therefore, I can see how we would stick our heads in the sand and pretend there isn't a problem with the way Christians have responded to homosexuality in the past, as we might see things differently in our neck of the woods. But we have to remember that we are easily blinded by self-righteousness. And while homosexuality is sinful and is a sign of our deep depravity and desperate need for a savior, it is also something human beings who need that savior struggle with, and we need to be better at engaging the homosexual community with the full gospel.

Thus, I think Mohler is right on with the vast majority of his responses to homosexuality. I would never describe myself as a sycophant (although, I'll admit most sycophants wouldn't describe themselves as such).

We really need to be careful bandying about phrases like, "shifted left." As I understand it, the left side of the philosophical/theological spectrum is best reflected by liberalism. Liberalism's biggest marker was its rejection of Scripture as the inspired Word of God. However, I do not see such a response coming from Mohler.

And I think we are also assuming Mohler is guilty by association by linking him with Jay Bakker. While I would agree Bakker's theology leans too close to liberalism to really reflect evangelicalism, we are kidding ourselves if we say Mohler's theology leans in that direction too.

[Eric]

I think one of the "truths" that Jonathan is trying to get across is that we need to love people in our churches regardless of their race, social position, or sexual orientation. Its time to quit trying to browbeat people into God's kingdom and let Him do the convicting and convincing. If we as Baptists are so hell bent on castigating gay people then for pete's sake, spend as much time going after the adulterers, fornicators, gossips, and liars.

But--then we would run off or offend some of our deacons and choir members. God forbid!

Just listen to Jonathan's heart and quit trying to pick apart everything he says. I don't agree with his theology but I do see a young man trying to share the Gospel with a lost and dying world.

[Peter]

Eric,

To make JM the victum in this discussion is absurd. Merritt is doing more than calling the church to witness to gays for crying out loud. He's attempting to frame the debate in different terms, leading to a shift in the church's understanding of homosexuality. He's for changing the laws which discriminate against gays as a protected ethnic group. So drop the nonsense he is the "good guy" who is loving and kind while we are all the "bad guys" who are mean and unloving.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Eric]

Peter,

I never said you were a "bad guy" so please don't accuse me of doing so. I also never said Jonathan is the victim because the real victims in all of this are gay people in our churches. To listen to pastors and preachers debate the way they are doing surely must grieve their hearts and also the heart of Jesus. I doubt seriously if He would participate in the kind of discussions we are seeing on blogs and Baptist articles today. Whether some are "mean and unloving" can only be determined by the words they write.

[Peter]

Eric,

You're correct. You did not "say" such. But you *are* implying such with your continued language about "picking" JM apart rather than listening to his "heart" which you judge as "trying to share the Gospel with a lost and dying world." Definitively this is not about evangelism. If that's all this were there'd be no debate. Nonetheless, the language you employ is classic victimization. On the one hand, JM has an innocent heart, and on the other, we are bent on "picking" apart everything he says. Implication: he is the victim, we are the victimizer.

Now whether or not you think you're doing such, I assure you it's coming across like that. Stick to the ideas of the post if you want to make further contribution.

With that, I am...
Peter

[LMalone]

" Thus, it is not as easily changed as other sinful tendencies might be. "

Can this really be substantiated? What about pedophilia?

What I am seeing from those who support Mohler's statements is a need to put homosexual sin into a special category. Why?

[LMalone]

As to Jonathan Merritt. This is not the only issue he is trying to reframe positions on. And, some well heeled leaders went along with him. Anyone remember the silly Environmental manifesto he got some SBC celebs to sign a few years back and passed off as offical SBC policy?

What is it with this guy? Perhaps the leaders of the SBC should stop doing favors for his daddy. It seems to get them in trouble.

And we do not have to know Merrit Jr's heart or motivations. we can simply look at his actions and writings and go from there....

[LMalone]

The WSJ article only goes to prove what a media darling Mohler is and his power. He wasted no time "plaining" himself by redefining using his PR machine . He has an international media outlet to redefine "homophobia" for evangelicals. Amazing.

Too bad he did not say that in AZ.

[CASEY]

Well...at least we found out where AL MOHLER was right after the SBC-PHOENIX Convention. He was in Palm Springs, Calif. speaking at a 'Reformed Conference' for about 3 days with an associate of John MacArthur's. As far as I can tell it was the 'Grace to You' crowd and not openly solicited to Southern Baptists for attendance. Al Mohler can speak anywhere he wants to...but when Southern Baptists are begging for clarifications and answers...I believe he really 'missed the train' on this one.