Dr. Albert Mohler has responded to some of the criticisms leveled at him. I blogged about Dr. Mohler’s article here and responded to his ideas about prevention here.
51 thoughts on “Was it something I said? Dr. Mohler responds to critics”
Comments are closed.
Karen –
Thank you for your response. I just thought there was a great difference between saying:
“But classical Christians believe that eros – romantic, sexual love – is reserved for monogamous, heterosexual, covenantal relationships.”
That basically, a particular type of love SHOULD be reserved for a particular group….and saying that a particular group CANNOT EQUALLY experience this love.
Could we agree that both same-sex and opposite-sexed couples can equally experience eros, but many christians believe that same-gendered eros should not be blessed by the church?
Karen,
I wonder if you’re still watching this thread. Thank you for answering my questions. I asked if you would support/ignore/fight laws that would punish gays with prison time or death.
You answered that you would certainly fight strongly against laws that punished gays with death. Your response in regards to laws that would punish gays with prison time wasn’t so strong.
It sounds like while you are sure that gays shouldn’t be killed for being gay, you’re not so sure that forcing them into prison them isn’t a just punishment for their sin.
Have I understood you correctly?
Thanks for the clarification, Timothy.
Karen,
I do think you are right that I was mixing my tenses between you the person and you the collective.
As for the auction issue, I very much appreciate that you apologized to Mike for your attitude (if not your actions).
Sorry Timothy, I didn’t read your whole post before I responded above.
You also write, “because in your world you have your Truth and it gives you carte blanch to despise anyone who sees otherwise. And no matter how vile and unfair and cruel is something that is being done, you have your Love, and it justifies anything you or those who agree with you do.”
I assume by this and other of the comments in your post that you might be referring to the eBay auction. Just wanted to let you know I’ve posted a public apology to Mike Jones for some of my unloving actions against him. (On the Montel thread.) I’ve also personally contacted him to say the same.
Maybe I’m confusing your tenses when you refer to “you” above; maybe you mean “all you guys lumped together” and not me personally. But here it does sadden me that you think I have done anything vile or unfair or cruel or that I despise those who disagree with me. I do make mistakes and when I do, I eat “humble pie.” But I know at heart I’m not what you describe.
Timothy, I know that you and I got off to a rocky start, and I here publicly acknowledge my role in that. I like that our conversations are turning more civil and I thank you for taking the lead.
You write, “I don’t mind that you choose Truth over truth. I do mind, however, when you decide that the things that you belive are divinely ordained and therefor you have both the right and the obligation to demand them of others.”
I know that you mind the second part. But I can’t do anything about that. And since we have such radically different worldviews, it may indeed be an unbridgeable chasm between us. I hope that on this blog, in the Church and in culture at large we will find civil ways to air our disagreements. But I am not terribly saddened that you and I may never agree.
You also write, “But you, John, Alan and the rest are not content with your Truth. You insist that those of us who see a yellow wall ignore the truth of the yellow and embrace the Truth of the blue.”
No, Timothy, I don’t think I insist that of you. (I try to explain my beliefs and actions with the hope that you may connect with them, but I don’t insist you embrace them. You can reject them if you choose, as can anyone else.) I do insist it of the Church – a commitment to Truth as she best understands it. And I believe that the Church has the right to argue for that Truth in the public square in the effort to persuade as many people as possible.
What I meant in the former post is I think I pretty well understand where you’re coming from on this, and I also think you understand me. I don’t sense we are going to change each other’s minds. So are we doing a disservice to the blog or this thread by continuing to discuss it?
Karen,
I reread my comments and they appear harsh. If possible please accept the point I’m trying to make and overlook to the extent possible the tone in which it appears to be conveyed.
In re HRC, I agree with Jim.
My understanding of that program (which is not much understanding at all) is that it is set up to establish a form of communication with the church world. I’m definitely in favor of finding a way for the gay world and the church world to communicate (in language, not Language).
Karen,
There are times when I think we have some hope of connection but then you make statements that sadden me of ever reaching any place of agreement.
I don’t have any desire whatsoever to discuss Moore. However, I do wish to follow up on the following:
For me, the language of faith isn’t artificial, unreal or untruthful. It’s Truth with a capital T. For you, science (or whatever you want to call it) is. I think we’ve both made that pretty clear to the blog. Do we really need to continue to belabor our differences?
Yes, we need to belabor the difference. This is, to me, the most important matter that I want you to understand.
You set up a dichotomy between Truth and Science. That is artificial and a red herring. The real battle is between Truth and truth. Between that which is declared to be True based on your own personal (or even the orthodox) understanding of Scripture and that which is visibly true.
I don’t mind that you choose Truth over truth. I do mind, however, when you decide that the things that you belive are divinely ordained and therefor you have both the right and the obligation to demand them of others.
John Smid once said that though a wall appears yellow, if God says that it’s blue then it’s blue regardless of what it looks like.
That sort of thing is fine for one’s own personal walk. But you, John, Alan and the rest are not content with your Truth. You insist that those of us who see a yellow wall ignore the truth of the yellow and embrace the Truth of the blue.
This is very similar to the other dichotomy that is paired as Truth in Love.
I often see anti-gay activists declaring that they bring Truth in Love. But this Love is very different from the observable kind of love that Jesus spoke of. Just as Truth ignores that which is true, Love ignores that which is loving. Instead, this Love involves cruelty, a lack of caring, and visible hostility.
Those who are convinced of their Truth seek to impose it on others either through laws. Those convinced of their Love use it to punish those who do not adhere to their Truth.
For example, truth would say that same-sex couples are as in love with each other as opposite-sex couples while Truth arrogantly claims that they aren’t and so therefore they are unworthy of any civil protections.
Plain old love says that those who are sick with AIDS and unable to shop and cook should be shown compassion and be fed while Love says that the sick and hungry can starve to protect from embarassment those preachers who agree with me.
But for me the biggest problem with your Truth and your Love, Karen, is that it forever separates us. No matter how factual or evidentially based is something I bring to you, you can just ignore it – like the yellow wall – because in your world you have your Truth and it gives you carte blanch to despise anyone who sees otherwise. And no matter how vile and unfair and cruel is something that is being done, you have your Love, and it justifies anything you or those who agree with you do.
And I have no idea how to reach beyond that.
But I’d ask you in return, do you – or anyone else here – have a problem with the HRC blurring the lines? Doesn’t their Religion and Faith department compromise the boundaries between Church and State? Maybe if you’d be willing to tell them to get out of the church business, I’d be willing to tell Alan to get out of the public policy business.
The two aren’t the same by a long shot.
The HRC is not the state. Therefore it is not a blurring of church and state. It is just an advocacy organization, and quite blatantly so. They make no bones about it. And yes, they do hold opinions about matters of faith that they don’t agree with. Just as I see a constant stream of criticisms against the Episcopal church and the UCC from a number of conservative non-religious political groups. Would that, too, be an example of a blurring of church and state? I personally don’t think so.
You on the other hand, claim to be nonpolitical. Alan claims to be only interested in gays who don’t want to be gay (using different language of course), implying that he’s willng to leave the rest of us alone But obviously, by his public policy stances that have nothing to do with sexual orientation change, he’s not. What he says and what they do are clearly two completely different things.
And I’d still like to see an answer to my question about the HRC – post #16655 above. Because otherwise I’m going to believe you guys don’t have one.
Timothy writes, “Language restricted by doctrinal definitions says “noâ€, not because this is a matter of factual observations but because doctrine requires that it not be as real.”
I totally agree.
He writes further, “Karen, this is what I mean by artificial language. “Reality†is boxed in to fit with “faith†and answers are given that are not truthful, in an objective sense. There is no reason for this. Truly.”
I understand – really – where you’re coming from on this. But here I don’t agree at all.
Is the language of faith subjective? I suppose you could think that if you believe it’s based solely or primarily on personal experience. If you believe, as I do, that Scripture is divinely revealed, then the language of faith expresses what is ultimately objective and “factual observations” are under suspicion. That doesn’t mean that faith and science are always in conflict, though they may be. But for me, science (especially conjectural science) must yield to faith.
(I think back to that “black box” experiment when I was a biology major in college. How many of our “objective” facts were wrong when the contents of the box was actually revealed.)
For me, the language of faith isn’t artificial, unreal or untruthful. It’s Truth with a capital T. For you, science (or whatever you want to call it) is. I think we’ve both made that pretty clear to the blog. Do we really need to continue to belabor our differences?
My initial post about Moore’s essay was to direct people to his understanding about how Scripture changes in response to culture and whether those same understandings are applicable to Christian sexual ethics. I’ve gotten side-tracked, but I’d still like to discuss that idea if anyone is interested.
But if any of you have problems with other things Moore wrote, I suggest you take it up with him.
Here we have another example of the type of games that are played with language by anti-gay activists.
We see above that romantic love “is reserved” for the opposite sex. So when anyone says that same-sex love “isn’t real” the justification is that it isn’t allowed to be real.
Q: Is same-sex romantic love as real as opposite sex romantic love?
A: Objectivity and common language say “yes”.
A: Language restricted by doctrinal definitions says “no”, not because this is a matter of factual observations but because doctrine requires that it not be as real.
Karen, this is what I mean by artificial language. “Reality” is boxed in to fit with “faith” and answers are given that are not truthful, in an objective sense. There is no reason for this. Truly.
(Karen, sorry if that sounds personal.. not my intent.. but it is a good example)
Andrew Comiskey of EXODUS told a radio talk show host in 1991 that “gays are incapable of real love — only immature lust and infatuation.” I don’t get how heterosexuality is automatically more real, more moral, more mature. Look around you. You would easily get the opposite impression.
Jag writes,
“This poses an interesting question. So, one’s gender determines the capacity for love? Whether the gender of self or the gender of other, this determines the capacity for love between you?”
I think Moore’s answer would be “no, but gender determines (or should determine) the variety of love. (And he’s making a spiritual argument, not a biological one.) I’m not trying to patronize here, but I also don’t take for granted that folk understand the assortment of words that Scripture uses for “love.”
There’s phileo (brotherly/sisterly) affectionate love, and there are no restrictions there on same-sex.
There is the most recommended form – agape – a self-sacrificial, distinterested (meaning the giver expects nothing in return) good will and action. And again, there is no same-sex restriction on that expression, either.
But classical Christians believe that eros – romantic, sexual love – is reserved for monogamous, heterosexual, covenantal relationships.
That’s the context for understanding Moore, whether you ultimatley agree with him or not.
Timothy, I hear you, but I don’t believe I can respond in a way that is acceptable to you.
I personally don’t pay attention to public policy issues – not here locally in Delaware and not nationally, either. For lack of a better term, it’s not my calling. I’m simpy not going to be activist in that way, and my Board doesn’t want the ministry to be activist in that way, either.
But I’d ask you in return, do you – or anyone else here – have a problem with the HRC blurring the lines? Doesn’t their Religion and Faith department compromise the boundaries between Church and State? Maybe if you’d be willing to tell them to get out of the church business, I’d be willing to tell Alan to get out of the public policy business.
Hi Jag,
No, gender does not, in my opinion, determine the capacity to love or to what degree. Love is too big for that and is validated by all the various ways we can love a parent, child, other family members, friends, and the person we love romantically. Love also evolves as we do and as much as we allow it to. It also has different values and meaning for any given person and is in many ways indefineable.
timothy –
You raise a wonderful point…
“No one is willing to go witness before Congress and say “no, becoming ex-gay does NOT mean that a person becomes heterosexual and we are sorry for leading you to believe thatâ€.
There is literally no one from within the ex-gay camp that is willing to advocate for treating gay people with decency or who is willing to stand up to the dishonesty.”
I don’t know why there are so many unwilling to advocate for their gay/lesbian brothers and sisters…you’ve hit on something very important.
Karen,
to clarify: I mean you individually and in whatever capacity you are involved in your ministry. I’m not sure how to say the following without sounding accusatory. That isn’t what I’m trying to do. I am, however, telling you how I see the issue:
It is not adequate that you “aren’t political” if your ministry posts political essays and gives implicit endorsement of political actions that harm me.
To take this outside the “gay issue” – it is not morally defensable to see someone being beaten and look away saying, “oh I don’t get involved in violence.” You have an obligation to do what you can to mitigate harm.
It seems to me that the ex-gay ministry is comprised of two types, those who actively seek to harm the lives, freedoms, and rights of gay people, and those who say “I’m not political” but who do nothing to stop the others. The net result is that gay people are under constant attack by ex-gay ministries and those who use them as justification for their actions.
And when we speak up and say that the ex-gay ministry as a whole is active in doing things like seeking to take away health insurance, we only get fingers pointing away. Even those who claim that they want the church to “love homosexuals as Jesus would” such as Chad Thompson absolutely will not stand up and say “this bill is wrong” or “this action is harmful to gay peoples’ lives and is for no reason other than to be punative and spiteful”.
No one is willing to tell Alan that they will not affiliate with Exodus until the lies come off their website about gay people dying 20 years earlier. No one is willing to go witness before Congress and say “no, becoming ex-gay does NOT mean that a person becomes heterosexual and we are sorry for leading you to believe that”.
There is literally no one from within the ex-gay camp that is willing to advocate for treating gay people with decency or who is willing to stand up to the dishonesty.
And when we gay folk try to stand up for ourselves, folks like you see it as an attack on you.
You asked earlier what we should expect from you. I want you to put a stop to the harm.
But what do you want from us? Should we just let ourselves be lied about and attacked in testimony to legislatures? Should we stand by while Christian activists use ex-gay ministries to claim that we should have no rights because we could change if we really wanted to?’
This is not abstract to us. This is our paycheck, our ability to travel, our health, our freedom to assemble, our liberty, our children, our walking talking breathing lives.
Karen –
“He argues, however, that for several reasons, he does not believe it equates with heterosexual love.”
This poses an interesting question. So, one’s gender determines the capacity for love? Whether the gender of self or the gender of other, this determines the capacity for love between you?
As I am sure you will agree, the experience of “love” cannot be quantified. But, what we do know of the experience of love and attachment biologically (for example in reference to oxytocin release, etc..) is that those in same-gendered relationships seem to have the same biological event in their experience of love as their heterosexual counterparts.
By making a statement that implies that same-sex love is not equal to opposite-sexed love, it implies hierarchy. Language of heirarchy begins the process of legislation of hierarchy – which is exactly what we’ve seen with civil unions vs. marriage.
This, however, should not be surprising. The notion that “your love is not the same as mine” was an argument equally used in debates over interracial marriage (when it was implied that african-americans could not experience equal love because they were not of the same species!). It was an ill-informed notion then, and an equally ill-informed statement now.
Hi Timothy,
It is not my position to take a position that limits anyone in anyway, as long as it is not hurting another person. Rules are rules and laws are laws and there are reasons for them – many I agree with and some I don’t. I have been discrimminated against before and did not like it. I have been the victim of violent hate crimes and somehow survived to say how much it took from my life. I do not distinguish any person from another when it comes to personal freedom and the right to pursue it without fear. My issue has always been for the person who has unwantd SSA – I believe they should be treated with respect and dignity and given all the resources, support and encouragement they need and want to live the kind of lives they choose.
Dustin writes,
“Karen,
If there were a law being proposed which would make homosexuality a crime punishable by prison time, would you support it, fight it, or do nothing?”
If I were aware of it, I would probably fight it, but again, I’m not an activist, so I’m not sure how that would play out.
“What if the law being proposed made homosexuality a crime punishable by death? Would you support it, fight it, or do nothing?”
Are you serious? Of course, I’d fight it. Actively.
Timothy writes,
“Karen,
I am asking this seriously, not out of snarkiness:
Are there ANY areas of legislation or other political or social policy that have a direct impact on gay persons, couples, or communities in which you do not take a position that gay people would consider to detrimental to their well being?”
And I am asking for clarification, and not out of snarkiness either.
Do you mean my personal position? My ministry’s official position? The ministry doesn’t have any official position on political or social policy issues. We post some reading ideas – moderate to conservative – on our website book list for those that have that interest.
I said in a post above that I am personally pretty apolitical. I didn’t even start voting until I was in my early forties. (I don’t think that’s right, but that’s how it was.) I don’t like politics and I haven’t given public policy much serious thought.
Howler writes, “Karen, the article by Rev. Peter Moore, for which you provided a link, at first appeared to be a real attempt to discuss homosexuality in the context of scripture. However, once I came to the claims that homosexuals don’t experience “real†love, and the reference to a “study†by Paul Cameron, I stopped reading.”
I know that Cameron is a real flashpoint for many people, and you can choose to dismiss the entire article because of that one reference Moore makes. My intention in providing the link was to address how Biblical interpretation changes over time by its enounter with culture.
Your comment about “real love,” however is a distortion of what Moore wrote. He acknowledges that there is often love between homosexual couples … “And it is not my point to question whether there is some love between homosexual and lesbian partners. There can be care, concern, and compassion in such a relationship. But just because there is love, is the Church called to bless it?” He argues, however, that for several reasons, he does not believe it equates with heterosexual love. I dont’ think he ever states it is not “real.”
His references to “real love” actually had far more to do with Christian’s responses to homosexuals than it did to homosexuals themselves.
Mike writes,
“So Karen, do you favor or oppose sodomy laws?” In the Church? Yes. In civil society? The answer is, I don’t know. Though I’ve stated it several times before, some posters don’t seem to believe me. I’m basically apolitical. I haven’t thought through the sodomy law issues.
“And what of my other points?” What are your other points? There’s been so much dicussed on the various threads of this blog, I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
Karen,
I am asking this seriously, not out of snarkiness:
Are there ANY areas of legislation or other political or social policy that have a direct impact on gay persons, couples, or communities in which you do not take a position that gay people would consider to detrimental to their well being?
Ann, Warren, etc. are all welcome to share this as well.
This is not snarky … are there still states that have sodomy laws? I thought they were all eliminated with the Supreme Court decision.
Yes, Karen, there are still state with those laws on the books. Just as some states held segregation laws on their books symbolically for decades after they were found to be unconstitutional, so do some states still have their sodomy laws on the books.
For example, this month a legislator in Utah tried to have the unconstitutional law removed only to have his efforts blocked.
These laws are then used as an indication of the state’s position on a host of other issues, such as overturning employement agreements for health insurance between state employers (such as universities) and their gay employees. They are also used as a clear indication to the state’s gay citizens that the legislature will enact and enforce discrimination to the extent possible.
Karen,
If there were a law being proposed which would make homosexuality a crime punishable by prison time, would you support it, fight it, or do nothing?
What if the law being proposed made homosexuality a crime punishable by death? Would you support it, fight it, or do nothing?
Comment by Mike Airhart
March 19, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
Virginia, among other states, still has its sodomy laws on the books and continues to arrest and prosecute, even though the laws are unconstitutional.
Mike, can you actually cite any arrests for sodomy since the Lawrence v. Texas decision? The laws may still be on the books but they are unenforceable. I would be very surprised to hear of any such arrests since it is likely it would open the officer/prosecutor to a harassment suit.
Karen, the article by Rev. Peter Moore, for which you provided a link, at first appeared to be a real attempt to discuss homosexuality in the context of scripture. However, once I came to the claims that homosexuals don’t experience “real” love, and the reference to a “study” by Paul Cameron, I stopped reading.
Karen,
Virginia, among other states, still has its sodomy laws on the books and continues to arrest and prosecute, even though the laws are unconstitutional.
My point stands: Exodus and Focus defended the imprisonment of same-sex-attracted persons and condemned the Lawrence v. Texas ruling which ruled out prison as an option for private consensual adult behavior between couples.
So Karen, do you favor or oppose sodomy laws? And what of my other points? I look forward to hearing from you.
Micahel, I’m sorry for the pain you experienced around your lover’s death and burial. I confronted the same sort of situation in a small community where I served my first appointment. Some of the residents did not want to allow the burial of an AIDS victim (the son of one of my church members) because they thought their water supply might get contaminated.
Fortunately, giving them better understanding and calling them to compassion turned the tide. The church itself – at least overtly – did nothing other than reach out to the Mother with love.
I know there’s homophobia in the Church. Half of my message when I go out and speak is about repenting from homophobia. But you and I probably would not likely agree on the definition. And I know we part company on the issue of hate crimes legislation.
I think there is adequate protection and recourse for violent crime. (In theory, though not always followed out in practice.) And I think that many nations – Canada, for example – that pass sweeping hate crimes laws effectively undermine freedom of speech. As morally repugnant as the so-called evangelist was to you and your Mom, I’d still defend his freedom to say what he wants.
“Same-sex sodomy laws exist for the sole purpose of prosecuting and imprisoning same-sex-attracted persons and labeling them sex-offenders so that they cannot get jobs in the future.”
This is not snarky … are there still states that have sodomy laws? I thought they were all eliminated with the Supreme Court decision.
JAG, I think we were referring to two different things. I thought you meant specifically that Mohler’s belief in the doctrine of the Fall was only his personal interpretation. It seems you were referring instead to the larger issue of how Biblical understanding changes through interaction with culture over time.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I agree with you on the second point, that Biblical understanding does indeed change. I just don’t think homosexuality is in the same category as slavery and women’s ministerial rights.
Rather than spend a lot of time trying to explain that myself in this post, I would refer any interested readers to an essay by Rev. Peter Moore, which can be found here. http://www.tesm.edu/articles/moore-homosexuality-and-great-commandment.html
Maybe we’ll have to await the development of a NARTHoderm Patch (R) before that happens.
Interesting to me that NARTH has Dr. Mohler’s thoughts on public schools linked on their site but not his thoughts on pre-natal factors in homosexuality.
I would point out that hate crime laws currenty protect religious affiliation, something that is far more easily “choose-able” than sexual orientation.
Karen asked: “Who in the Church is doing these things, Timothy? And if you can, please be specific.”
I think Timothy did a great job providing examples. Let me give you another one. When my lover died, the minister at Calvary Chapel backed out (with only 30 minutes notice) when he learned that Gary had died of AIDS.
He said he didn’t want to be percieved as “endorsing the gay lifestyle”. I told him I didn’t want him to “endorse” anything, just convey God’s love to the grieving. He refused. And when I brought this to the attention of Chuck Smith, head of Calvary Chapel, he also refused to do anything about it.
Here’s another one: EXODUS is still affilaited with NARTH, whose advisors advocate teasing and ridiculing gender variant kids. EXODUS also believes that all Hate Crime Laws should be abolished because they are a “tool for crushing Christian Evangelism”. Like the “evangelist” who yelled obscenities at my mother as we entered the Municipal Auditorium for a Christmas concert by the Gay Men’s Chorus? This “evangelist” had a bullhorn, a Bible and a filthy mouth.
Meanwhile, Alan Chambers seems more concerned about protecting this hateful idiot’s “rights” (and others like him) than he does the lives and safety of gay people. Alan has still not drafted or posted an official EXODUS anti-hate/anti-bullying/anti-discrimination policy on the EXODUS website. What’s the hold-up? Too busy fighting the laws that protect gay people’s lives and liberty?
Funny. I thought Hate Crime Laws were a means of protecting the vulnerable from evil — and providing justice for those who are subject to terrorist acts and cowardly violence simply because they are perceived as “different” from the norm. I can assure you, the five men who stabbed me and murdered my friend that night in June of 2002 weren’t trying pass out tracts or preach the gospel.
Karen,
Exodus president Alan Chambers has opposed anti-discrmination laws for employers and landlords in the Orlando area. Exodus board member Phil Burress has opposed anti-discrimination laws and encouraged discrimination in Ohio. All the major religious-right organizations have encouraged discrimination against same-sex-attracted workers in government leadership roles, the armed forces, schools and churches.
A law passed in Oklahoma last year nullified the custody rights of gay parents, even those from out of state who drive across the state’s borders with their children. Children requiring medical care or other services while in Oklahoma were to be treated by the state as though they were orphans, their parents denied any say over their own children’s care.
In Michigan, the new antimarriage amendment has just been used to withdraw health insurance from the partners of state workers, even though the supporters of that amendment had assured voters that it would not be so broadly applied.
Same-sex sodomy laws exist for the sole purpose of prosecuting and imprisoning same-sex-attracted persons and labeling them sex-offenders so that they cannot get jobs in the future.
And some forms of strawman argumentation may be construed by some as a form of lying — though to be fair, I’ve seen culture warriors of all types use strawman argumentation. When the ends are believed to justify the means, almost any kind of sin can occur, and repentance is rare.
Karen –
“JAG also implies that Mohler is merely citing “his†interpretation of the Bible on this. That’s an easier way to dismiss Mohler if you don’t personally agree, but it demonstrates a glaring ignorance of Church history.”
Perhaps you are not well-informed of the history of the church in supporting slavery, not supporting a woman’s ability to be a minister, etc..? Church history shows us again and again that social issues seem to influence the “interpretation” of the Bible…I’m willing to bet that once same-sex marriage is legal everywhere, in 50 years the church will also find a way of brushing over a large “oops” that persecuted a number of people.
Just like now there are women ministers, and slaves are not a part of our culture (and not advocated by the church) – it’s not that the Bible has changed, it’s that mans interpretation has.
Karen, take a look at history a little closer.
Timothy –
Well-stated and poignant…it made me think of this argument from a new perspective, and I appreciated that.
Many thanks.
Timothy writes, “Because I offer you the compassion of condemnation, I can mistreat you. I can fire you, evict you, take away your children and your health insurance, I can lie about you and throw you in prison, all because I “tell you the truth about your sinâ€, which is, after all, the greatest act of compassion.”
Who in the Church is doing these things, Timothy? And if you can, please be specific.
gob·ble·de·gook –noun language characterized by circumlocution and jargon, usually hard to understand: the gobbledegook of government reports.
What is it you don’t understand about Mohler’s statement, Lynn? I’ll try to explain it to you.
Or, do you mean that you disagree with his statement? (What you seem to imply.) That doesn’t make it gobbledegook. Offensive to you, clearly, but not necessarily gobbledegook.
Mohler wrote: 3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God’s judgment.
That is theological gobbledegook. And furthermore there is no scientific evidence for such an occurrance known as “The Fall.” To then point to genetic problems as a consequence of such an event is ludicrous. Theological or spiritual doctrines do not have a basis in evidentiary reality and are not something to which reason and science must kowtow.
JAG takes issue with this statement in Dr. Mohler’s follow-up article:
“There is no conclusive research that indicates any biological basis for sexual orientation. But — and this is a big “if†here — if science were ever to discover a correlation or causation with biological factors, Christians should not be surprised. We believe in the catastrophic and comprehensive effects of the Fall and God’s judgment upon sin.”
I wish Dr. Mohler had used a capital “S” in that last line – Sin, instead of sin. With the small “s,” many Christians could conclude he is referring to a specific sinful behavior. With a cap – Sin – they would know he meant a general state of being – broken relationship with God and fellow humans and a flawed and distorted creation. This is often referred to as Original Sin, and it is a result of God’s judgment on the Fall – humanity’s deliberate choice of willful disobedience. Because something IS found in nature, it therefore doesn’t follow that’s how things morally OUGHT to be.
Mohler’s points about this in his original essay were clearer:
“3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God’s judgment.
4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible’s moral verdict on homosexual behavior.”
JAG also implies that Mohler is merely citing “his” interpretation of the Bible on this. That’s an easier way to dismiss Mohler if you don’t personally agree, but it demonstrates a glaring ignorance of Church history. The doctrine of the Fall has been taught consistently by the main branches of the Christian Church for almost two thousand years, including within United Methodism, hardly a bastion of fundamentalism.
@Timothy
Wasn’t Kill Them All, God Will Know His Own the battle cry of the Inquisition? Those crazy inquisitors were big on Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin.
First Mohler said,
. . . if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation. . . .
Then he responds,
In one article, I was said to advocate genetic therapies. I never said that, and I resolutely oppose such proposals. I would not advocate the use of genetic therapies to create heterosexual babies — or any other therapy of this type. The hypothetical question I addressed had nothing to do with genetic factors at all.
Ok, technically he did not specifically advocate genetic therapies. It just seemed that way. Nice to see him pull away from that position.
In his closing he seems open to greater understanding: “Keep the communications coming. . . I am sure God means for me to learn much from what you say.” Unfortunately, he has a curious view of the Bible:
From a biblical perspective, it makes no sense to say that homosexuality is normative supposedly because God “makes” people that way. God does not allow any of us to escape his righteous judgment on our sin, whatever the biological, environmental, social, or historical factors that we may claim as explanatory factors.
In my opinion, a “biblical perspective” demands that we consider biological, environmental, social, or historical factors.
Very good point, Timothy.
You know, I always was the one to say, “gee, there must be a pony around here somewhere….”
The greatest act of compassion a biblical Christian can offer is to tell the truth about our sin, and point all persons to redemption through faith in Christ.
This is, in my opinion, the single greatest justification of bigotry and arrogance that the church presently presents – and not just on issues of sexuality.
Because I offer you the compassion of condemnation, I can mistreat you. I can fire you, evict you, take away your children and your health insurance, I can lie about you and throw you in prison, all because I “tell you the truth about your sin”, which is, after all, the greatest act of compassion.
I believe that when the time comes that the King separates the sheep from the goats, many will be surprised that “I told them about their sin” will not justify evicting the stranger, denying care to the sick, or encaging the prisoner.
Hehe.. Love your title, Warren.
I was especially interested in his refusal to buckle when his compadres complained about his use of the word “orientation.” Apparently they were trying to feed him the “there are no homosexuals” line. If I can pick out one tiny silver lining in what he wrote, it’s this: He’s not drinking the P.C. Koolade.
Tiny silver lining, I know…
“There is no conclusive research that indicates any biological basis for sexual orientation. But — and this is a big “if” here — if science were ever to discover a correlation or causation with biological factors, Christians should not be surprised. We believe in the catastrophic and comprehensive effects of the Fall and God’s judgment upon sin.”
As I am sure Warren will attest to, and other on this forum, the is indeed much research which directs us to a biological predisposition to sexual orientation. It seems Dr. Mohler wants to make a preemptive strike here for his followers – to assure them…”don’t worry folks…it will still be wrong if it is biological, just as it is wrong now when we see it as purely a choice.” Dr. Mohler has got to do some research.
Also, he seems to place great authority in his interpretation of the Bible. That is, mans often flawed perspective on a divinely inspired word.
We forget that it was this same arrogance by which the Bible was used to justify slavery (Lev 25:44-46, Eph 6:5, 1 Tim 6:1-4) and even how to punish these slaves (exodus 21).
So now, Dr. Mohler wants to assure his audience that even if a biological component is found – gay/lesbian people are still sinners. Wow…thanks for the clarification mr. mohler.
Someone should strip him of his degree…he has a doctorate? With a doctorate, I know I had to study, research and read things to earn mine.