Comments on: Al Mohler presents us with a conundrum

By: Kyle

Kyle — Wed, 30 May 2018 21:37:34 +0000

It sure sounds like he is referring to a categorical re-ordering of desires, that is, replacing a homosexual orientation with a heterosexual one. Sure, God may desire this I suppose if we are intended to be heterosexual, but if it is a biological or early childhood thing, it cannot be expected to happen this side of the eschaton. Not to compare the moral statuses, but aren’t evangelicals familiar with alcoholism, and how though people’s behaviors may change in managing it, the desires remain for their whole lives? Sure God wants this to be changed, but the reality is that it often is not changed in this life, and alcoholics surely are not to be faulted for something they cannot change, or be expected to change it.
In these studies of married homosexuals, do these gay mean experience any sexual attraction with their other-sex spouses with whom they have fallen in love? I know that they remain basically gay, but do they develop any sexual attraction to their spouse in addition to their general gay orientation?

By: Teresa

Teresa — Wed, 30 May 2018 21:37:34 +0000

Even if someone believes that same sex sexual activity is sinful and that the desire to do so is temptation .. I still see no reason to call temptation “sin”.
Afterall .. concerning Jesus Christ ..the scriptures say: .. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. (Heb 4:15)
No one has tried to play judge and jury with Jesus and claim him to be a sinner just for having temptations. So why do it now?

Dave, excellent, excellent statement, with a lovely quote from Scripture to support it.
Thanks for sharing this.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 30 May 2018 21:33:31 +0000

Kyle, Now we’re on the same page.
I can get polemic, and debunk the old canards regarding homosexuality, but that would take weeks of typing, plus it wouldn’t be germane to the topic at hand.
I would just like to add that I reject the proscribed notion that I should be condemned to a life of solitude. That, in of itself, is a cruelty beyond words, biblical or otherwise. Such an imposition is incongruent with the social and gregarious nature of humans, which are innate qualities.
God Bless, and Peace

By: Kyle

Kyle — Wed, 30 May 2018 21:33:31 +0000

And I also wonder how many homosexuals experience smaller change: like experiencing sexual attraction for an other-sex person they fall in love with. With all of the talk of “changing orientation,” I feel like we sometimes miss the fluidity of sexual attraction. Perhaps replacing one orientation with another is not very likely, or eradicating SSA to a great degree, but what about changing to the degree that you have satisfying sexual experience and attraction with your spouse? I wonder how often this happens.
Of course all of this is predicated on the traditional Christian belief that heterosexual marriage is the norm. Not all Christians, and of course not all people agree.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Wed, 30 May 2018 21:33:31 +0000

Bernie: that’s fair, we don’t know the causes of homosexuality. My guess would be that it is a mix of genetic and environmental factors, like just about anything else. But let’s take the origin component out of the equation. Alcoholism and homosexuality at least share two similarities: they are usually unchangeable (in terms of the disposition), and they are considered sinful by traditional Christians when indulged.
So, my point was, a traditional Christian should not expect a homosexual to change orientation in order to be faithful, anymore than they should expect an alcoholic to change their proclivity to abuse alcohol. They can expect them to manage these desires, but they cannot expect them to change them if the evidence shows that this usually does not happen.
Of course, sometimes it does happen I imagine. But it cannot be the norm or the standard for traditional Christian discipleship. That would just be cruel.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:51:32 +0000

It just sounds to me as if Mohler is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He should run for the GOP, he would do quite well. He has become more a politician than a Reverend. Let us not forget his constituency. I think that has a lot to do with it. I feel that he is trying to appease one and all. I sorta got the feeling that his previously progressive posture that he was leaning towards was nothing more than a mere mollification of sorts.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:11:43 +0000

SG – I know. But traditional Christian morality does teach this (that same-sex desires are part of the brokenness of our fallen world, and that to indulge them is against the will of God). Celibate gay Christians such a Wesley Hill seek to find congruence between their faithfulness to traditional Christian sexual morality and their gay sexual orientation.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:11:43 +0000

William –
Dave did a great job explaining what I would say. I think it is clear that Jesus did not have a sinful nature (an inward bent in our desires to choose sinful actions). However, neither did our first parents, Adam and Eve, however we understand this story (a literal couple, the first humans with souls, however many there were, etc). Nevertheless, we can be tempted through good and natural desires to do sinful things.
So, the desires for food, influence, comfort, avoidance of pain, sex, etc. are all morally neutral or even good in themselves, but we can be tempted to use them in the wrong way, to the wrong degree, at the wrong time, etc. – in some way contrary to God’s will for us. When we use a natural desire in the wrong way, we have sinned. And when Adam and Eve sinned, this created a sinful nature, because sin affects our characters and the world around us (i.e. those who came after them). But it is perfectly possible to be strongly tempted to do the wrong thing, even with desires that are themselves good and natural.
A good example of a desire tor feeling that is itself evil: hatred and bitterness (not hatred of sin, but hatred of a person). A desire for an inherently sinful action is an evil desire, whereas a desire for an inherently good action is a natural or good desire, which can be used in the wrong way in an act of sin.

By: Teresa

Teresa — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:11:43 +0000

@Kyle, how far can we take this ‘same-sex attractions’ are part of the brokenness of our fallen world? Here’s what I’m saying: attractions are not the whole of homosexuality? Is that understandable? There’s a substantial difference between attractions and orientation. I’m sure you know that as a str8 man (I’m assuming you are), that ignoring your attractions to women, doesn’t in any way change your orientation.
Are you saying that simply being a homosexual makes me a ‘broken human being’? More so, than you are as a str8 man? Am I still ‘broken’ in your theological view whether I’m chaste or not?
This is much the heart of this whole issue, at least for me. In a nutshell, same-sex orientation as seen through this theology is, in my opinion, saying that no matter what homosexuals do, say, become (unless we’re in the closet) … attractions or not … we’re just not equal to str8’s. We somehow need to be treated like sick people (broken). We become someone’s project, so they can feel oh so good about themselves, for being kind to ‘sick’ (broken) people.
Is this what’s happening, Kyle? I’m not saying it is, or isn’t, right now, that’s what I believe is occurring. I’m certainly happy to be disabused of this notion, if I’m wrong.

By: Throbert McGee

Throbert McGee — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:11:43 +0000

I suppose I gather Jesus was celibate from the facts that He was never married, and that He was morally perfect. I suppose it is possible that He had a secret marriage, but I find that to be extremely unlikely, for if it were true, I believe it would have been mentioned or alluded to in the New Testament in some way.

Actually, some people have argued that the absence of any NT reference to Jesus’s marital status suggests that he HAD been married at some point (perhaps he was a widower).
I mean, if you imagine a short biographical sketch about an American man with normal eyesight and average intelligence who lived from 1960 to 1993, and the biography never mentions whether the guy had a driver’s license and knew how to drive a car, most readers would assume that he had knew how to drive and had a license, and probably that he owned a car as well — because that’s the norm for an American male of that era, while those who never learn how to drive and never get a license are the rare exceptions.
So, the argument is that it would’ve been quite unusual for a Jewish male of in 1st-century Judea to have remained a bachelor into his 30s, and that therefore the Gospelists would’ve mentioned this odd fact had it been true of Jesus.
But on the other hand, you can argue instead that, as a young man in his 20s, Jesus had been involved with the Essenes, a somewhat fringe-y Jewish sect that actually did emphasize voluntary celibacy. (If so, this probably would’ve been mildly distressing and perplexing to Mary and Joseph — who were presumably Pharisees, which was typical for “blue collar” Jews of that era. And Pharisaic Judaism did not ascribe any special virtue to celibacy, unlike Essene Judaism.)