Al Mohler–”Southern Baptists have Lied”

Posted: June 16, 2011 in Dr. Al Mohler, Dr. Richard Land, ERLC, Homosexuality

“We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophobia,” Mohler says. “We’ve used the ‘choice’ language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice”

When I first read those words I was taken aback.  Surely Dr. Mohler would not suggest that Southern Baptists have lied about homosexuals being born with a homosexual gene and as a result could not change.  You see, it is Dr. Mohler that has clearly articulated the Biblical position we are all born with a sin nature and as such there is no sin found within our marred DNA design that the application of the Blood of Jesus doesn’t change.  All Southern Baptist I have ever come into contact with would affirm that position.  Certainly Dr. Mohler, a strong advocate concerning the stand the Bible takes on homosexuality, would not attribute a dishonest perspective to Southern Baptist for standing on God’s word when articulating our position.  A position Dr. Mohler has helped shape over the past 20 years.  Certainly Dr. Mohler would not have said something in an article where the author attributes Dr. Mohler’s position as the same position of Jay Bakker.  Dr. Mohler just recently came out deriding Jay Bakker and his take on homosexuality.

Well my doubts were blown out of the water tonight as I sat with an open mouth hearing Dr. Mohler state; “Those words are not alleged I said them.” Then Dr. Mohler moved on to express his position on homosexuality is very well articulated in his over 200 articles that he would not expect someone to read this evening.  But, Dr. Mohler must understand that his position in his articles make no difference if they are lies.  I believe I have read his articles, not in one evening, for various research positions the scriptures take on homosexuality. I have not seen an article written by Dr. Mohler that attributes Southern Baptist with being wrong on the nature of homosexuality.

As a result of Dr. Mohler’s response to Peter Lumpkins question there are now questions that beg an answer.  Who are the Southern Baptists that have lied?  Is it the ERLC? They are the only Southern Baptists other than Dr. Mohler that has taken a position against homosexuality.  Every pastor I know, before they take a position on homosexuality, research Dr. Mohler and Dr. Land.  Could it be that Dr. Mohler himself has lied?  Who are these Southern Baptist people that have lied?

Dr. Mohler is a very articulate speaker and it is evident that he never addressed the question other than to say they were his words.  He never even suggested they were taken out of context.  He believes that Southern Baptist have lied and that lie comes as a result of homophobia.  Homophobia has caused Southern Baptist to take positions on scripture that makes us to be liars.  According to Dr. Mohler’s response to Peter Lumpkins question Dr. Mohler took the position that only the Gospel can change.  Certainly that is correct and I do not know of any Southern Baptist that has ever taught otherwise.  However, that was not the question.  Please, Dr. Mohler who has ever taught that homosexuals could change without the Gospel?  Name them!!  Please, Dr. Mohler, do you really believe the question was asked by someone that is against you?   Peter Lumpkins has defended you in many ways concerning this statement.  Dr. Mohler, do you believe that Southern Baptist teach one can be changed without the Gospel?  Are you saying, because of the “deep inner struggle,” obedience to the Gospel is possible in every sin except homosexuality?   Dr. Mohler, I was a 3-pack a day cigarette smoker, I was a 5th a week alcohol drinker, I was an ounce ever other day cocaine abuser, I was a promiscuous womanizer and porn onlooker and I can assure you cigarettes, alcohol, illegal drugs, and my sexual oriented deviancy was a deep inner struggle. But, I was able, by the Grace of God and Glory to God, to overcome. Through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, Dr. Mohler, I was able to “choose” to remove those things from my life.  Dr. Mohler, when you left the convention hall were you hugged and thanked for your stand by the protestors outside?  The position you take in this statement is the same position the people picketing outside advocate.  If homosexuality is a sin, Dr. Mohler, it is to be treated just like any other sin.  Dr. Mohler, by you saying we have lied about the nature of homosexuality your position says that homosexuals have a homosexual gene and as such are not able to change, they are just able to come to Jesus and then live the rest of their life denying their orientation.  Your position is a clear articulated position that any homosexual act is a sin against scripture.  However, your statement deceives us as it gives the appearance that one can be homosexually oriented thus, not changed when the Gospel comes into their life.  Dr. Mohler, if a homosexual is born with a gene that orientates one then it is on God. as He is our creator.  This position, Dr. Mohler, attributes to God the creation of evil.

Comments
  1. Joe Blackmon says:

    A wise man once said something that I try to remember but don’t do a good job of–”Once someone becomes your political enemy, they can no longer be the mission field.” I think it’s right for Christians to publicly speak out against homosexuality, to stand against gay marriage, and neither one of those stances are hateful in any way, form, or fashion. But I think once we become so involved in the political side of it, they refuse to hear the forgiveness that we proclaim in Christ.

    Part of the problem has been the pretend christians who claim that homosexuality is not a sin and should not be preached against (“Paul was prejudiced. Christ NEVER would have called homosexuals to repent”). These same people, like David Gushee, claim that homosexuals can be Christians and should be welcomed in the church. Well, when people make that sort of blasphemous claim, then real Christians rise up to defend biblical truth. So, the pretend chiristians shout louder. Then, the real Christians shout louder because, again, they’re lying and their lies that you can be engaged in homsexual behavior and be a Christians will damn someone to hell.

    Well, it’s gotten to the point where people only hear the volume instead of the message that “Chrst will forgive you of that sin if you repent and trust in Him. Please, repent. Christ loves you. He won’t turn you away”.

    I’m not saying I knwo what the answer is. I know for a fact that we can’t deviate from the message that homsexuality is a sin 100% of the time without any exceptions whatsoever. Maybe start ignoring people like Gushee, Bruce Prescott, and other pretend christians who claim that it isn’t a sin and just plead with the lost to repent of their sins and trust Christ?

  2. Jack Maddox says:

    Tim

    I think you make much that is not there in Mohlers position. I do not hear him advocating the “I have no choice’” position. However, he is saying that it is much more than just ‘change your mind’. It is more than just ‘pray this prayer and join the church’. I think you articulated it well in your own testimony. You did not ‘choose’ to morally reform yourself, you were changed from the inside out by the gospel. I believe this is what AM is trying to articulate. I do believe that his use of the term ‘lie’ is unfortunate and in many ways unfair. However, it cannot by denied that we as Southern Baptists may have overly simplified the issue through the years. I do not hear AM advocating the ‘gay gene’ or the ‘there is nothing i can do about it’ mantra. Perhaps he could have clarified that the use of the term ‘lie’ was unfortunate and perhaps it could be said that as SB we are still striving to do a better job of ministering to homosexuals. At the end of the day the truth is that the homosexual. just like the alcoholic, the porn purveyor, the liar or the religionist must repent of their sin and trust Christ and Him alone for forgiveness and victory. This involves personal responsibility. We must understand for many this does not end the struggle but perhaps in many ways it is the beginning.

  3. davekerr says:

    I had Dr. Mohler in class at Boyce College in the fall of 2005. The position he articulated at the SBC this year is the same that he expressed in class six years ago. He also seems to give this position in this Baptist Press article written in 2007. (see especially points 5-10 of the article) During this whole blow-up with Merritt and Lumpkins I have wondered if Lumpkins had actually read what Mohler’s articles on homosexuality. He has not altered his position any as far as I can tell..

    http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=25194

  4. Tim Rogers says:

    Brother Joe,

    Dr. Mohler, in the original article stated that “Southern Baptist in particular” have lied. The issue is not about David Gushee, or Prescott, they are not SB. I am not against Dr. Mohler, politically. I am shocked that he has called SB as lying about the nature of homosexuality. If that is the case, he and the ERLC are the only ones that have placed statements out about homosexuality. What is it we can trust that is total truth and is not?

    Brother Jack,

    This is a rarity. I understand what you are trying to say but I disagree.

    Perhaps he could have clarified that the use of the term ‘lie’ was unfortunate and perhaps it could be said that as SB we are still striving to do a better job of ministering to homosexuals.

    That is the exact question he was asked to clarify. He merely stated the words were his and he stood by them. It is not about clarifying now, it is about Dr. Mohler telling us that we are wrong about the nature of homosexuality.

    Blessings,
    Tim

  5. Tim Rogers says:

    Brother Dave,

    Did you not see in the “blow up” (your words) that Brother Peter defended Dr. Mohler? His question to Dr. Mohler at the SBC was because Merritt, the younger, stated Dr. Mohler’s position had changed. Brother Peter defended Dr. Mohler to the wall that Dr. Mohler would never say that Southern Baptist have lied concerning the nature of homosexuality.

    Dr. Mohler, regardless of his positions he articulates, has told SB they are all lies. How are we to know the difference between what he tells us now is truth concerning the nature of homosexuality and the things he is merely speaking out of a homophobic position?

    Blessings,
    Timj

  6. davekerr says:

    Tim,

    What I am saying is that I do not believe that Dr. Mohler’s position has changed. Again what he said at the SBC is in line with the position he gave in class in 2006 and in the article linked above in 2007. Where specifically SBC’ers have lied I don’t know that would have to be clarified by Dr. Mohler.

    My point is that Dr. Mohler’s position has remained consistent as least since the time I had him in class in 2006.

  7. Les Puryear says:

    Amazing. Truly amazing.

    A sitting seminary president publicy accuses the SBC of lying. It’s difficult to perceive the arrogance within for someone to make such a statement. A self-righteous statement such as that is unimaginable from a seminary president. Perhaps our seminary officials need to return to academia and cease trying to speak for the SBC.

    I don’t know who Dr. Mohler is speaking for but he doesn’t speak for me.

    Les

  8. Max says:

    Bryant Wright provided a good response to this issue when he met with members of a coalition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups at SBC-Phoenix http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=35556:

    “Jesus Christ came to die for all of our sins, whether it’s heterosexual sin or whether it’s homosexual sin…. For a society to come along at this stage in history and all of a sudden say that one of the … areas that Christ has no power” over is “homosexual behavior is really elevating the importance of that behavior above the power of Christ.
    Looking at sexual purity from Scripture, we’re not going to be able to come to common ground. I hope you all would respect that we’re just seeking to follow Jesus.”

  9. Tim Rogers says:

    Brother Dave,

    Again what he said at the SBC is in line with the position he gave in class in 2006 and in the article linked above in 2007.

    I have been following Dr. Mohler since he was Editor of the Christian Index. His position, as I have seen, has not changed since then. My point is he said “Southern Baptist have lied” concerning the nature of homosexuality. This statement was not made public in a interview with Dr. Mohler concerning homosexuality. This statement was made in an interview where the interviewer was writing an article to show how Evangelicals, in conjunction with Jay Bakker, are taking a new stand on homosexuality.

    Blessings,
    Tim

  10. Tim Rogers says:

    Brother Max,

    Yes he did. However, the question asked Dr. Mohler had nothing to do with Dr. Wright’s meeting with these groups.

    Blessings,
    Tim

  11. Joe Blackmon says:

    Tim

    I think he went overboard using the term “lied” and I think he could easily be accused of overselling his point by implying that all Southern Baptists have lied. My point was only that in standing up for the truth of what the Bible teaches about sex when people are lying about it and claiming to represent Christ that we should remember our first priority is to preach the gospel to the lost.

    I don’t think Mohler made a wise choice in how he worded what he said to Merritt but I’m prertty sure that he believes, as you and I do, that sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman is sin and must be repented of.

  12. Frank L. says:

    Hello Brothers and Sisters,

    I probably should not get involved in another blog as I barely have time to finish what I need to finish. But, I feel compelled to chime in on this issue.

    On another blog I frequent, it is clear to me that Al Mohler will get a free pass from most everyone in the Convention — at least most of the 4800 that were in PHX. But, I think what he said was outrageous and sets a very dangerous tone.

    For one, homosexuals comprise much less than 10% of the population (some say as little as 1-2%) and yet they are driving the agenda in politics, and apparently in at least one seminary also.

    We have not lied. Homosexuality is a sin that must be totally rejected. We have not failed to minister (at least not my church) to homosexuals, but without any compromise in the truth.

    At the very least the issue of Mohler’s statement must be pressed. Obviously, to do so puts one in the minority apparently.

  13. Scott says:

    After watching the entirety of his answer, it appears that Mohler is saying that homosexuality is not just some simple choice that you can flip off like a switch. Like all sins, homosexuality is deeply rooted in the human heart and can only really be changed by the Gospel. He affirmed unequivocally that homosexuality is a sin.

  14. Tim Rogers says:

    Brother Frank,

    You are correct in that Dr. Mohler really has some explaining to do.

    Brother Scott,

    You are exactly right. Dr. Mohler made it clear that homosexuality is a sin. Certainly no one is saying that Dr. Mohler takes a light stand on sin and even when it comes to the sin of homosexuality. However, that is not the question that was asked of him . Dr. Mohler accepted the words that are attributed to him in the quote above. He did not even try to say they were out of context. The context his quote came from was an article that linked Dr. Mohler with Jay Bakkier in their views of homosexuality. Dr. Mohler just recently put an article out there where he took issue with Jay Bakker about the “clobber scriptures.” Dr. Mohler is certainly entitled to articulate his position. However, even in your comment here, you are not certain what Dr. Mohler is saying. When was the last time that anyone questioned where Dr. Mohler stood on an issue? Dr. Mohler has now stated the Southern Baptists have lied about the nature of homosexuality. I am merely trying to find out who it is that has lied.

    Blessings,
    Tim

  15. Max says:

    I just viewed Mr. Mohler’s performance in the video archives of the SBC-Phoenix meeting. He clearly said that Southern Baptists have been right to insist that the Bible calls homosexuality sin, but wrong to say it’s just a choice that people can “turn on and turn off.” He may have dodged the word “lie” in his Phoenix comments, but certainly implied that Southern Baptists have been homophobic and only half right about homosexuality … with “half the truth not applied in a Biblical way.” His opening confirmation “I made those statements”, coupled with reference to his 200+ documents to the contrary, is confusing and known as “waffling” in my neck of the woods. Will the real Al Mohler please stand up … or perhaps he did in Phoenix.

    After you sort through his articulate, but condescending, effort to gain the upper hand in response to an honest question, you will find that Mohler essentially moved the Southern Baptist boundaries on this matter … and for that, he was applauded in Phoenix?! Scary! In his attempt to talk himself out of this dilemma, he only dug himself and this issue for Southern Baptists into a deeper hole.

    In his opening address prior to the Q&A, this leader of our “mother seminary” made an interesting and related statement: “There are many tension points in which the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ is being tempted to compromise on essential issues of Biblical truth and Biblical teaching.” Well, this certainly brought some tension to a lot of us listening in. If we compromise on this, what else will our new young preachers bend as they deliver culturally-relevant ministry in the 21st century? The trumpet must give a clear sound in this regard, rather than the uncertain noise offered in Phoenix this week (excepting Bryant Wright’s position as noted earlier in this blog).

    I must admit that Mr. Mohler has caused me to ruminate on another statement in his SBTS report: “Without your sacrificial support through the Cooperative Program, we (the mother seminary) simply could not do what has been assigned for us to do.” Hmmm … I’ll mull that one over.

    Thank you, Peter Lumpkins and Tim Rogers, for your faithfulness and boldness to address this matter.

    Max

  16. Tim Rogers says:

    Brother Max,

    You are correct, Dr. Mohler’s statement concerning homosexuality and his statement that raised the question from Brother Peter, certainly is contradictory at the least.

    Also, what many do not understand is that Brother Peter contacted Dr. Mohler’s office seeking a clarification. What many do not know is Peter was following the advice of the late B.H. Carroll. He said; ‘if you have a concern, take it to the professor, if that does not resolve your concern, take it to the President of the seminary, if that does not resolve your concern, take it to the trustees, if that does not resolve your concerns, take it to the people.’ Well, Brother Peter took it to Dr. Mohler,. His next step is to take it to the Trustees.

    Blessings,
    Tim

  17. CASEY says:

    DR. MOHLER fails to understand that these are ‘friends asking questions and clarifications’. Who speaks with absolute clarity? None of us, including Dr. Mohler. He is best served by responding to the people whom he serves and drop the ‘appearance of elitism’. That attitude is a dead end.

  18. Tim Rogers says:

    To all Readers,

    It seems that the Associated Press has picked up on Dr. Mohler’s statements. If he would have just expressed the words were taken out of context. But they were not and now Dr. Mohler has placed the SBC in the precarious position to decipher which things have come from our leaders that are correct and which things are not correct.

  19. Tim Rogers says:

    Sorry, I meant to give you the link. http://tinyurl.com/3d6wsft

  20. Luther says:

    I have not lied nor am I homophobic in regards to dealing with the issue of homosexuality. I just had a friend text me and ask, ” what is up with Al Mohler ” and I had to honestly reply that I did not know. Any equivocation on our part is an open door for our post-modern culture to pounce on any truth statement we may make.

    It may not be a choice to have homosexual tendencies but it most certainly is a choice to act upon those same tendencies. I would greatly like some clarification on what he means that the SBC has lied with regards to homosexuality

  21. Max says:

    Which of the 17 resolutions on homosexuality approved by Southern Baptists from 1976-2010 contain “half the truth not applied in a Biblical way”? http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/AMResSearchAction.asp?SearchBy=Subject&DisplayRows=10&Submit=Search&frmData=homosexual&offset=0

    What portions of the guidance provided to Southern Baptists by its Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) contain “half the truth not applied in a Biblical way”? http://erlc.com/article/homosexuality-your-questions-answered/

    What does the Bible say about homosexuality? As noted in the above ERLC document:

    “The Bible is very clear about its condemnation of homosexual conduct. Both the Old and New Testaments speak with one voice on this subject. In spite of the publicity given to pro-gay theologians in recent years, serious and consistent exegetical study still allows no other interpretation … While the Bible is quite clear about the sin of homosexuality, it is also clear about the promise of power to overcome this sin as well as others (1 Corinthians 6:11). The message of the Bible is a message of hope based on the love of God. He does love each of us just as we are, but He loves us too much to leave us as we are.” And to that, every Southern Baptist should shout Amen!

    Dr. Mohler has been granted too much of a platform to speak on this issue. The mainstream Southern Baptist voice has proclaimed the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this regard. Nevertheless, we will now have to respond to:

    “Seminary President: Baptists Have Been Homophobic” Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/June/Seminary-President-Baptists-Have-Been-Homophobic-/

    “Mohler Says Baptists Must Repent of Homophobia”, Associated Baptist Press (ABP) http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6496/53/

    “Baptist Seminary Leader Expresses Feelings About Homosexuality”, Wave3 Television, Louisville KY http://www.wave3.com/story/14926004/theological-seminary-leader-expresses-fellings-about-homophobia

    “Southern Baptist Church Refocuses on Sexuality”, Faith Radio http://www.faithradionet.com/2011/southern-baptist-church-refocuses-on-sexuality/

    Max

  22. peter lumpkins says:

    There is no “perhaps” to it–Dr. Mohler explicitly said, “we’ve lied”. He had ample opportunity to explain. He did not. He only unreservedly affirmed “those words are my words.” And he stood by them.

    From my stand point, I am morally offended Mohler would place on the back of all SBs the label of liars, propagandists peddling at best “half-truths.” No thanks, Dr. Mohler. Speak for yourself.

    With that, I am…
    Peter

  23. Bill Mac says:

    I think there is a false dichotomy at play here. Rejecting that same sex attraction (not behavior) is merely a choice does not mean embracing the view that it is genetic. Mohler never said it was genetic, nor did he imply it. I don’t know why people can’t see that. How many stories of suicide have we heard about from young, confused gay people who clearly don’t want to be gay? If they could simply choose to turn it off, don’t you think many (not all) would?

    Would someone please articulate for me that traditional SBC theory of same sex attraction? (not behavior) Do gay people choose their sexual attraction? Do heterosexuals?

  24. Tim Rogers says:

    Brother Bill,

    Here is where I get my information. If you will read the article Dr. Mohler expresses that research is heading in this direction. His article is about research done on sheep. He sums up the article telling us t hat as Christians we have to think through this in certain ways. In one summation he says:

    Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

    Thus, he believes there is a biological causation that one has no control over.

    Blessings,
    Tim

  25. Matt says:

    In keeping with Dr. Mohler’s reformed theology, I find his statement consistent. Especially if you are a Calvinist, what is wrong with saying that people are born with a “sin gene?” It is in keeping with the doctrine of total depravity. It doesn’t diminish the fact that all natural born sinners (including homosexuals) need a Savior.

    By the way, I am not reformed. Just trying to point out where his theological slant leads. As someone who believes in free will, I still believe people are born with the tendency to sin. For some, that tendency may be homosexuality, for others, being an alcoholic, etc. Who cares if people have a homosexual gene? What does that prove, except for the fact that we really are born into sin as, the book of Genesis teaches?

  26. Bill Mac says:

    “Thus, he believes there is a biological causation that one has no control over.”

    Tim,

    No, I’m sorry but he does not say that. I have read the article before and I just read it again. He says in his conclusions the following things: No biological basis for homosexuality has ever been proven. Ongoing research has yielded some results which suggest there MAY be a biological basis in SOME individuals (emphasis mine). He does not say that this research is conclusive. (as a researcher myself I can tell you such studies are hardly conclusive) He concludes that EVEN IF such a basis is found, the bible’s clear condemnation of same-sex sexual relations remains and is unaffected, but that there may be an impact on pastoral care and the possibility of genetic or other reparative treatment.

    I understand that people are (possibly rightly) upset about the word “lied”. But other than that I do not think you are being fair to Dr. Mohler.

  27. Debbie Kaufman says:

    Matt: That’s ridiculous and not at all correct. This is why I am pleased with the direction the Convention is currently going and pray it continues. It would stop nonsense like this.

  28. I think the word “lied” was being used as a rhetorical flourish. Dr. Mohler did not mean, “Every Southern Baptist has intentionally sought to deceive others.” Rather, what he meant was that we as Southern Baptists, on the whole, have not come to an adequate grasp of the nature of homosexual orientation. We have been working with the presupposition that if homosexual orientation has any connection to one’s natural disposition from birth, then it must be morally excusable. For this reason, we have sought to establish that homosexuality is simply a matter of choice as opposed to nature.

    Dr. Mohler’s comment is a way of bringing our doctrine of original sin to bear on this issue. For all Southern Baptists agree that we are born with a sin nature, and that our sin nature causes us to make choices that are sinful. If we didn’t believe this, we would be Pelagians.

    But, for some reason, when it comes to homosexuality, we want to be functional Pelagians. We want to say that homosexuals were born morally neutral with regard to their sexuality, and at some point, they made a choice to become homosexual. In reality, it is much more complicated than that.

    I don’t hear Dr. Mohler saying that scientific evidence has proven a genetic basis for homosexuality (I don’t think he would grant that point). But I think he would say that homosexual orientation is the result of a complex web of factors, most of which we do not presently understand scientifically, and some of which may be traceable to a predisposition that some people have from birth. That does not make homosexual behavior any less sinful, just as a predisposition toward heterosexual sin is not any less sinful because it seems to be the natural urge of almost every man I know (including myself! Matthew 5:27-30, anyone?).

    So his point is not to accuse Southern Baptists of intentional deception. It seems to be, rather, a rhetorical way of saying that Southern Baptists on the whole have not come to terms with how homosexuals themselves understand their own urges and behavior. Consequently, when we speak on this issue, much of our rhetoric rings hollow.

  29. Tim Rogers says:

    Brother Bill,

    I understand that people are (possibly rightly) upset about the word “lied”. But other than that I do not think you are being fair to Dr. Mohler.

    Let’s say, for the sake of argument, you are correct I am not being fair to Dr. Mohler. Should Dr. Mohler apologize for using the term “lied?” Let’s move away from the sake of argument position. I disagree with your assessment that I am not being fair. I have presented to you a direct quote from one of his over 200 articles and you still deny that Dr. Mohler believes that homosexuality is a biological issue. Notice also how he positions himself. Homosexuals can be “released” from their homosexual tendencies they are not changed. Huge flaw for one that is so articulate on his positions. Also, Bill, if it isn’t Dr. Mohler that has lied to us, then whom could it be?

    Brother Matt,

    Good words. I have thought about this from his perspective on soteriology. However, I already have been told by Calvinist that they cannot support him on his statement.

    Brother Dr. O’Kelley,

    I think the word “lied” was being used as a rhetorical flourish. Dr. Mohler did not mean, “Every Southern Baptist has intentionally sought to deceive others.” Rather, what he meant was that we as Southern Baptists, on the whole, have not come to an adequate grasp of the nature of homosexual orientation.

    Certainly do not want my 14 year old daughter to see this comment. Dad to daughter; “did you just tell me you were going to the pool? Then why are you in the car with this 16 year old heading to the mall?” Daughter to dad; “When I said I was going to the pool it was a rhetorical flourish. What id meant was that before the evening was out I was going to get by the pool.” Come on Dr. O’Kelley your skills are much better than that. He used the word “lied”. Dr. Mohler, as articulate as he is, knows what words to use and where.

    But, for some reason, when it comes to homosexuality, we want to be functional Pelagians. We want to say that homosexuals were born morally neutral with regard to their sexuality, and at some point, they made a choice to become homosexual. In reality, it is much more complicated than that.

    Now let me get this straight. **Believing Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, Do you think it is being Pelagian to see the “choice” language here? Romans 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Or maybe it is Pelagian to see choice language here. Now, lets look at the neutral morality of birth. Do you really want to say that people are not born morally neutral when God’s word clears states differently? Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

    Thus, Dr. O’Kelley, we clearly have choice language being used here in Scripture. Should Dr. Mohler allow that God could have been correct in His word but incorrect in his creation?

    Blessings,
    Tim

    **All Scripture is NKJV

  30. Tim,

    Words are used in many different ways. If I say to my son, “Your attitude is killing me,” I don’t mean, “Your attitude is literally depriving my brain of oxygen, leading to the eventual cessation of all of my bodily functions.” It’s a rhetorical flourish. We use them all the time in normal conversation. In the context of a conversational interview, I would imagine that language is being used less precisely than it would if Dr. Mohler had been writing an article.

    Second, nowhere have either I or Dr. Mohler denied that choice is an element in homosexual sin. Those who engage in homosexual behavior make a choice to engage in it every time they do so. What I was saying in my previous post was that none of us stand in a morally neutral position before God from which we decide to become either this kind of sinner or that kind of sinner. We sin because we are born sinners.

    Romans 1 mentions in particular that God has handed people over to sexual perversion because of their exchange of the truth about God for a lie. Yes, there is choice involved here. But that does not entail either that

    (1) those who exchange the truth of God for a lie are born morally neutral and decide in Pelagian fashion to become sinners;
    (2) being “handed over” to sexual perversion involves the creation of completely new sexual urges that had never existed before.

    In fact, it sounds rather more like “handing over” to sin is a matter of letting someone go in the direction in which he is already inclined to go. When we worship the creature rather than the Creator, the Creator lets us experience the full effects of our idolatry as we run wild into the perversions that reside within our hearts.

    Without original sin, there is simply no Christianity. Why are we resistant to an idea that only confirms a doctrine that we have always confessed?

  31. Bill Mac says:

    Tim,

    So is it your contention that all gay people were at one time fully heterosexual, and that they consciously chose to stop being attracted to the opposite sex and willed themselves to be attracted to the same sex? (I’m not talking about behavior, just attraction).

    As far as the quote you provided, it says that there is research that points to some level of biological causation. That is simply a statement of fact, unless you are suggesting that he is lying and that there is no such research ongoing. There is lots of research ongoing that points to some level of biological heredity between apes and humans. That doesn’t mean I accept it. It doesn’t mean it is proven. You can tell nothing about what I believe from that statement, other than that I have heard of the research and what it concludes.

    “Notice also how he positions himself. Homosexuals can be “released” from their homosexual tendencies they are not changed. Huge flaw for one that is so articulate on his positions.”

    I’m afraid I don’t understand this sentence. I think you have some words missing.

  32. Tim Rogers says:

    Dr. O’Kelley,

    I would imagine that language is being used less precisely than it would if Dr. Mohler had been writing an article.

    Ok, I will give you “killing”. However, please can you show me where we use “lie” when we really do not mean “lie”? I know you are not, but I got to take the shot, you seem to be pushing the definition that it depends on what “is” is. ;) Seriously, I understand your point, but I just do not think you can use that with the word “lie”. Not in the context of what he said. He not only said it in the article but he also said it in the response to Brother Peter. He even defined it as we have only presented half truth. He said that we we have told only half of the truth where we are have referred to the Scripture but we have not lived it out. Now, here is an issue also. Scripture, we are told by Dr. Mohler and we all believe, contains all truth. Our actions and our attitude has nothing to do with truth. Jonah proved that to us. Thus his use of the term “lie” is not merely rhetorical as you would present.

    We sin because we are born sinners.

    Neither I, nor any Southern Baptist I know, would deny your words. So, I do not understand the position. This entire issue did not come about because of we do not believe people are born sinners. It came about because we are told we have lied on concerning the nature of homosexuality.

    Without original sin, there is simply no Christianity.

    Once again, no one is denying original sin. Original sin came about because of a free will to choose. That free will will lead us to sin every time. That is part of the change in salvation–God changes our “want to’s.”

    Brother Bill,

    So is it your contention that all gay people were at one time fully heterosexual

    It is my contention that everyone is born biologically heterosexual. There are some who purport a “gay gene” as the answer to original sin. I am not one that does. The marred human at birth is not born sexually neutral because Romans 1 tells us that homosexuality is against nature.

    As far as the quote you provided, it says that there is research that points to some level of biological causation. That is simply a statement of fact, unless you are suggesting that he is lying and that there is no such research ongoing.

    Don’t know if you clicked on the link in that comment or not, but the quote was from an article entitled; Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It? I am not sure I can agree with you concerning his statement as merely a statement of fact. While it certainly states a fact that he discovered in his research he certainly appears to be leaning in this direction. Why? He later states The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible’s moral verdict on homosexual behavior.” That is the reason he is so adamant that the behavior is sinful. .

    I’m afraid I don’t understand this sentence.

    What I am saying that “release” and “change” are not the same. Dr. Mohler, by using the word “release”, appears to be saying that someone can be released from that attraction but not changed from the biological proclivity.

    Blessings,
    Tim

  33. Bill Mac says:

    I understand that release and change are not technically synonyms, but I certainly would have understood them in that way in this context.

    “The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible’s moral verdict on homosexual behavior.”

    Do you disagree with this statement? Would the bible’s moral verdict on homosexual behavior be changed if scientists reported the discovery of a biological factor?

  34. Tim Rogers says:

    Brother Bill,

    “The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible’s moral verdict on homosexual behavior.”

    I would say no, it will not change. However, look at the way people in academia have taken positions on evolution because of “scientific” evidences. Tim Keller is a theistic evolutionist because of a desire to balance “science” with scripture. Phillip Yancey is now speaking at homosexual sponsored conferences due to the fact that “science” appears to be calling for a biological reason for homosexual proclivity. Dr. Mohler’s statements calling for SB to repent and saying we have lied concerns me that he may be following the scientific community in trying to rationalize a science over scripture perspective.

    Blessings,
    Tim