Repent of homophobia?
- 3 views
Peter Lumpkins, the fellow in the video who asked the question of Mohler, was/is one of the strongest defenders of Ergun Caner’s ‘misstatements’
Here is more on Lumpkins:
from http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/ his own blog “sbc tomorrow”
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/06/encouraging-a-c… Encouraging a Culture of Intimidation in the SBC by Peter Lumpkins
and from Jared Moore
http://jaredmoore.exaltchrist.com/2011/06/16/video-peter-lumpkins-got-m… Peter Lumpkins Got Mohlered
p.s. on Lumpkins blog search for ‘Caner’
Here is more on Lumpkins:
from http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/ his own blog “sbc tomorrow”
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/06/encouraging-a-c… Encouraging a Culture of Intimidation in the SBC by Peter Lumpkins
and from Jared Moore
http://jaredmoore.exaltchrist.com/2011/06/16/video-peter-lumpkins-got-m… Peter Lumpkins Got Mohlered
p.s. on Lumpkins blog search for ‘Caner’
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
It is interesting to see the actual exchange and then re-read the original commentaries about the exchange.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Al Mohler, as Lumpkins (and as to Lumpkins, whatever “controversy” surrounds him I do not believe is cogent to the greater concern so I will leave the fractional blip on the radar) identified, is a man who is a gifted teacher and whose theological articulations are premium. And as Mohler said he has written profusely on the topic of homosexuality (200 articles, as he states, which either are about the subject or refer to the subject). He has obviously made clear, over and over that it is sinful.
But…
His choice of words are wrong, here. Joe Roof is right. The words homophobia and homophobic are disingenuous words. They are tools of social and moral warfare, weapons to be precise. The word homophobia is a pseudo-psychological word, not with the intent of identifying someone who has an irrational fear of something (and here a phobia or irrational fear of homosexuals or their behavior) but of labeling those who object to, for whatever reason, homosexual behavior.
The homosexual political lobbies and the gullible or intentionally sympathetic media use the word dishonestly as to what they claim is it’s stated meaning verses its genuine employment. In other words, as already pointed out, if homophobia means what they claim it means, then if someone suffers from a genuinely irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals, they need psychological help and we should approach them sympathetically and not by vilifying them.
But of course that isn’t the case, is it? Because it isn’t a real psychological condition to which they are referring when they use the word against others. It is a label for condemnation.
So the homosexual lobby and its agents do not use the word sincerely. Therefore, Mohler’s seeming naivety in the matter is his undoing. He normally is much more careful in his approach with such matters and takes time for thorough investigation before accepting terms and their definition upon himself or in fact upon Christian thought.
Of all his strengths he does have an Achilles heal, he is a diplomat to a fault. This may indeed be why he has succeeded to the great degree he has in leadership (understanding that this alone is not his only gifting contributing to his rise by any means but possibly a great catalyst). Even his diplomacy, his statesman poise and reach to the other side is truly a strength but I believe it has overreached here.
He has allowed himself to use a term that those, insisting he accommodate it, refuse to use honestly themselves. He got sucker punched. I do hope he refines what he said but I will not hold my breath.
As to what he said, yes, I have no doubt the physiological elements of what possibly contributes to individual interests in homosexuality are minimized by some Southern Baptist (if not many believers) with no sympathy at all by some. What Mohler is really asking is that believers (SB in particular) repent of lacking sympathy with sinful struggles. Hopefully he is not asking our sympathy lie in understanding that the physiological realities are rationalizations of sorts for minimizing the realities of choosing to engage in homosexuality.
I watched the video and it is worth watching. Mohler’s fault here, though not erased by it, is but one part of an encompassing response that reflects much of what believers have taught and believed regarding the gospel and that it is what we are agents of, the transforming power of redemption in Christ. Still, there does seem to be a few mixed signals that are concerning in his response. Possibly in the future he will address “homophobia” and its illegitimate use by many homosexual groups and the media and his use of the word.
But…
His choice of words are wrong, here. Joe Roof is right. The words homophobia and homophobic are disingenuous words. They are tools of social and moral warfare, weapons to be precise. The word homophobia is a pseudo-psychological word, not with the intent of identifying someone who has an irrational fear of something (and here a phobia or irrational fear of homosexuals or their behavior) but of labeling those who object to, for whatever reason, homosexual behavior.
The homosexual political lobbies and the gullible or intentionally sympathetic media use the word dishonestly as to what they claim is it’s stated meaning verses its genuine employment. In other words, as already pointed out, if homophobia means what they claim it means, then if someone suffers from a genuinely irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals, they need psychological help and we should approach them sympathetically and not by vilifying them.
But of course that isn’t the case, is it? Because it isn’t a real psychological condition to which they are referring when they use the word against others. It is a label for condemnation.
So the homosexual lobby and its agents do not use the word sincerely. Therefore, Mohler’s seeming naivety in the matter is his undoing. He normally is much more careful in his approach with such matters and takes time for thorough investigation before accepting terms and their definition upon himself or in fact upon Christian thought.
Of all his strengths he does have an Achilles heal, he is a diplomat to a fault. This may indeed be why he has succeeded to the great degree he has in leadership (understanding that this alone is not his only gifting contributing to his rise by any means but possibly a great catalyst). Even his diplomacy, his statesman poise and reach to the other side is truly a strength but I believe it has overreached here.
He has allowed himself to use a term that those, insisting he accommodate it, refuse to use honestly themselves. He got sucker punched. I do hope he refines what he said but I will not hold my breath.
As to what he said, yes, I have no doubt the physiological elements of what possibly contributes to individual interests in homosexuality are minimized by some Southern Baptist (if not many believers) with no sympathy at all by some. What Mohler is really asking is that believers (SB in particular) repent of lacking sympathy with sinful struggles. Hopefully he is not asking our sympathy lie in understanding that the physiological realities are rationalizations of sorts for minimizing the realities of choosing to engage in homosexuality.
I watched the video and it is worth watching. Mohler’s fault here, though not erased by it, is but one part of an encompassing response that reflects much of what believers have taught and believed regarding the gospel and that it is what we are agents of, the transforming power of redemption in Christ. Still, there does seem to be a few mixed signals that are concerning in his response. Possibly in the future he will address “homophobia” and its illegitimate use by many homosexual groups and the media and his use of the word.
Alex,
If he defines the way in which he uses the term homophobia in his answer, then he can use the term that way. This he did. This is a fundamental way we all use language. If we know a term is loaded, we make qualifying remarks about the term. Another perfect example may be “fundamentalist.” It’s a term that we can use in conversation, but we know it will be very much misunderstood by the vast majority of people. But in our “insiders” know what we mean by the term.
I did some google searches to try to find pro-gay blogs or news stories to see if anyone on the other side had even heard of this or is misunderstanding this in ways that you and Joe think they will, and I can’t find anything. I think you’re over-analyzing how this comes accross to the homosexual lobby. They’re not going to mistake this as any kind of victory for the acceptance of homosexuality in the SBC.
Shayne
If he defines the way in which he uses the term homophobia in his answer, then he can use the term that way. This he did. This is a fundamental way we all use language. If we know a term is loaded, we make qualifying remarks about the term. Another perfect example may be “fundamentalist.” It’s a term that we can use in conversation, but we know it will be very much misunderstood by the vast majority of people. But in our “insiders” know what we mean by the term.
I did some google searches to try to find pro-gay blogs or news stories to see if anyone on the other side had even heard of this or is misunderstanding this in ways that you and Joe think they will, and I can’t find anything. I think you’re over-analyzing how this comes accross to the homosexual lobby. They’re not going to mistake this as any kind of victory for the acceptance of homosexuality in the SBC.
Shayne
I remember some broohaha when John Piper came out with “Christian Hedonism”, and I wonder now as I did then of how much value it is to use loaded terms and attempt to redefine them… because then one has to expend effort to explain, clarify, and debate terms and definitions, instead of a more productive conversation about the issues at hand.
I would agree that some people, Christians and non-Christians, view homosexuality with an overt disgust that leeches in to their mistreatment of individuals. You want to hear homophobic speech? Head to your nearest construction site and listen for a few. Yowsers.
I would agree that some people, Christians and non-Christians, view homosexuality with an overt disgust that leeches in to their mistreatment of individuals. You want to hear homophobic speech? Head to your nearest construction site and listen for a few. Yowsers.
[Shaynus] Alex,
If he defines the way in which he uses the term homophobia in his answer, then he can use the term that way. This he did. This is a fundamental way we all use language. If we know a term is loaded, we make qualifying remarks about the term. Another perfect example may be “fundamentalist.” It’s a term that we can use in conversation, but we know it will be very much misunderstood by the vast majority of people. But in our “insiders” know what we mean by the term.
I did some google searches to try to find pro-gay blogs or news stories to see if anyone on the other side had even heard of this or is misunderstanding this in ways that you and Joe think they will, and I can’t find anything. I think you’re over-analyzing how this comes accross to the homosexual lobby. They’re not going to mistake this as any kind of victory for the acceptance of homosexuality in the SBC.
Shayne
As to the misuse of the term homophobic or homophobia, a comedian just recently was excoriated and accused of homophobic humor because homosexuality as a prop in one of his jokes. Insensitive to homosexuals might be a chargeable offense in their convoluted world of double-standards but homophobic, no. It was used as a weapon to keep him in line.
And you couldn’t find anything? Really? Sorry if my cynicism is heightened but it feels a bit baited by such dubious claims. I almost feel like no matter how much evidence of such dishonest use of the word is presented you’re not interested in being brought to a place of admitting it is so or somehow minimizing it as an anomaly among the usually “honorable” and “stand-up” homosexual groups.
So it really doesn’t matter Mohler’s explanation of his use (though in the video I do not agree he did an adequate job of explaining his use vs the dishonest use of many homosexual groups) because in the end he is still employing an illegitimate word; one that has a double-meaning and intent. He needs to use fair and honest vocabulary. My wish for him to clarify himself is after the fact of its use, not that I believe its use is expedient.
Now lets go to this list you could not find of dishonest and weaponized employment of the words, homophobic and homophobia:
http://www.tmz.com/2009/05/07/carrie-prejean-miss-california-gay-marria… Carrie Prejean — The Origin of Homophobia - TMZ founded by…surprise, surprise, Harvey Levin an outspoken homosexual! While Carrie Prejean herself is controversial that particular facet is irrelevant here so lest you be tempted to go off on an ad hominem tangent on Prejean herself, let’s avoid that, her case is being used as an example, her person is not being exalted. Her statement about homosexual marriage was:
Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a womanI know, a pop-cultural issue so you don’t have to take it seriously right? Even though the charge of “homophobia” or “homophobic” was attached to her and her comments by The Advocate, the leading homosexual magazine in the nation.
Oh does Rick Warren being called a homophobe because he opposes homosexual marriage and the practice of homosexuality, calling it a sin when he was chosen for the inaugural prayer? Because you do know who called him that, right? It was homosexuals and agents sympathetic to homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. Did you watch the media repeatedly ask him and at times accuse him of being “homophobic”? All because he objects to it.
You see, Shayne, there is a double-standard. For the homosexual lobby and those supporting them it is either, “You are with us or we are against you no matter what you say”. They change the rules in mid-stream. Neither Rick Warren or Carrie Prejean stated they feared or had any irrational notions about homosexuals yet, they were given that label.
Yes, I can do more for you but I suspect no matter how many cases, no matter how widespread, you will find away to plead their case.
Fine.
Mohler make a mistake accommodating their deceptive language.
I find it hard to believe anyone thinks it is a good idea to say people need to repent of homophobia.
We repent of sin. Sin is defined by God.
Homophobia is a word which has been invented by those who wish to promote unrighteousness and attack those who speak truth. They use it to describe sinful behavior (violence, hatred, etc) and they use it to describe righteous behavior, such as telling sinners they need to repent and that Christ can free them from their sin. People put on the word whatever meaning they want.
What’s the point of saying people need to repent of such a nebulous word? Sure, he defined what he meant, but so what? People won’t accept his definition, will they? And they will use his words to tell people:
1) Saying homosexuality is sin is homophobia.
2) Even Mohler says Baptists should repent of homophobia.
3) So stop saying it is sin.
Does anyone really doubt that this twisted line of argumentation will be used over and over, whatever he said to define what he meant by it?
How about instead giving the Scriptural rebuke for the sin that you feel needs to be confronted, and saying that people need to repent of the sin that the Bible mentions? God is the one who tells us what sin is, so let’s talk about repenting of the sins He tells us about, rather than repenting of some invented word.
When we talk about repenting, we’re talking about sin. We’re talking about truth. We’re talking about Scripture. It’s no place for loaded and twisted words like homophobia.
We repent of sin. Sin is defined by God.
Homophobia is a word which has been invented by those who wish to promote unrighteousness and attack those who speak truth. They use it to describe sinful behavior (violence, hatred, etc) and they use it to describe righteous behavior, such as telling sinners they need to repent and that Christ can free them from their sin. People put on the word whatever meaning they want.
What’s the point of saying people need to repent of such a nebulous word? Sure, he defined what he meant, but so what? People won’t accept his definition, will they? And they will use his words to tell people:
1) Saying homosexuality is sin is homophobia.
2) Even Mohler says Baptists should repent of homophobia.
3) So stop saying it is sin.
Does anyone really doubt that this twisted line of argumentation will be used over and over, whatever he said to define what he meant by it?
How about instead giving the Scriptural rebuke for the sin that you feel needs to be confronted, and saying that people need to repent of the sin that the Bible mentions? God is the one who tells us what sin is, so let’s talk about repenting of the sins He tells us about, rather than repenting of some invented word.
When we talk about repenting, we’re talking about sin. We’re talking about truth. We’re talking about Scripture. It’s no place for loaded and twisted words like homophobia.
[Alex Guggenheim]That’s cave man for “Mohler made a mistake…” :)
Mohler make a mistake accommodating their deceptive language.
Shayne,
I doubt if most Christians would object to the way you have interacted with your co-workers. You are proclaiming the gospel and calling them to repentance. That is very commendable. As a pastor I have dealt with just about every conceivable sin in the lives of people. I urge them to receive Christ with a repentant heart over their sin. On the other hand, I believe the LGBT lobby has an agenda to destroy Christian churches and schools. They want approval of their lifestyles including pedophilia. Al Mohler handed that group several clubs with which they continue to beat down the Christian community. The first club is the improper use of the perjorative “homophobe” and the second club is the implication that homosexual behavior not being a pure choice is a genetic disposition that could be classified with “race”. In my understanding that is comparing apples with bowling balls. Mohler did us no favor in this particular piece. I think I will classify Mohler’s recent blog on homosexuality with the signing of the Manhattan Declaration–two monumental errors that reveal a profound lack of judgment.
I doubt if most Christians would object to the way you have interacted with your co-workers. You are proclaiming the gospel and calling them to repentance. That is very commendable. As a pastor I have dealt with just about every conceivable sin in the lives of people. I urge them to receive Christ with a repentant heart over their sin. On the other hand, I believe the LGBT lobby has an agenda to destroy Christian churches and schools. They want approval of their lifestyles including pedophilia. Al Mohler handed that group several clubs with which they continue to beat down the Christian community. The first club is the improper use of the perjorative “homophobe” and the second club is the implication that homosexual behavior not being a pure choice is a genetic disposition that could be classified with “race”. In my understanding that is comparing apples with bowling balls. Mohler did us no favor in this particular piece. I think I will classify Mohler’s recent blog on homosexuality with the signing of the Manhattan Declaration–two monumental errors that reveal a profound lack of judgment.
Pastor Mike Harding
And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. I Kings 14:11-12
Too bad Asa didn’t have the modern counsel of a Dr. Mohler. If Asa had benefitted from that, he would have known he needed to be enlightened and repent.
Too bad Asa didn’t have the modern counsel of a Dr. Mohler. If Asa had benefitted from that, he would have known he needed to be enlightened and repent.
[Mike Harding] Shayne,Pastor Harding, (First, I greatly respect you and your ministry.)
I doubt if most Christians would object to the way you have interacted with your co-workers. You are proclaiming the gospel and calling them to repentance. That is very commendable. As a pastor I have dealt with just about every conceivable sin in the lives of people. I urge them to receive Christ with a repentant heart over their sin. On the other hand, I believe the LGBT lobby has an agenda to destroy Christian churches and schools. They want approval of their lifestyles including pedophilia. Al Mohler handed that group several clubs with which they continue to beat down the Christian community. The first club is the improper use of the perjorative “homophobe” and the second club is the implication that homosexual behavior not being a pure choice is a genetic disposition that could be classified with “race”. In my understanding that is comparing apples with bowling balls. Mohler did us no favor in this particular piece. I think I will classify Mohler’s recent blog on homosexuality with the signing of the Manhattan Declaration–two monumental errors that reveal a profound lack of judgment.
Here’s the problem. Your fear is an irrational one and thus, it’s exactly the kind of homophobia that should be repented of. Do you really think the average homosexual (even the politically active one) has any desire to legalize pedophilia? That’s totally ridiculous. I’ve had conversations about this perceived pedophilia connection with many of these friends. Further, the largest and best funded gay activist association, the Human Rights Campaign (their HQ in DC is HUGE), advocates against making pedophilia legal. Maybe you can find some extreme examples of this to point to, but such ideas would be totally abhorrent to most homosexuals. The LGBT community doesn’t haven an agenda to destroy churches and schools either. We may think that their other aims may do this, but that’s not their intent. It’s like saying “Barack Obama is trying to destroy America.” It’s a false statement because what we really mean by that is that “Barack Obama is destroying America.” Only the crazies really think he really is trying to destroy America. To accuse homosexuals in general of trying to destroy churches is making a statement about intentions that are unprovable. I do think they continually will lobby to be accepted by society, and this makes sense from their perspective.
Further, we wrestle not against flesh and blood. Don’t use the world’s methods of political posturing and communications campaigns to try to defeat the LGBT community. If Mohler is speaking the truth, and I think he is, he should not worry about that truth being twisted as much as he should speak the truth in love. Not only will it not work, but it tends leave gospel witness as the red headed stepchild to political action. Mohler is right that only the gospel can work here. Other methods will fail and are failing.
I went to a lot of meetings of conservative lobbyists during the push for the Federal Marriage Amendment. In these meetings, conservative Christians were making the argument that “hey we just want to leave marriage up to the states. They can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t effect the rest of the country. We should be able to make our own laws.” I was furious. These Christians were ceding the morality debate for a libertarian answer. They ran a communications campaign based on this argument. And now, seven years later polls show that gay marriage is that much closer to being the the majority view in the United States. The communications campaign failed because there was no gospel and all politics in the Christian conservative DC machine. And it’s backfired terribly.
[Shaynus] [The LGBT community doesn’t haven an agenda to destroy churches and schools either.
No, that isn’t their agenda. Their agenda is to silence churches from giving the truth. They don’t think that is destroying, they think that is making churches better, but it is still their agenda.
And it is an agenda to destroy churches, whether they understand it as such or not. To say so is not “irrational fear”.
In Britain, the agenda is far advanced. Churches can still refuse to hire a homosexual pastor, but for any other position (school teacher, youth worker, janitor, whatever), we cannot legally discriminate against homosexuals in hiring. Christian printers cannot refuse to print invitations for “gay weddings”. Christian bed and breakfast owners cannot refuse to provide accommodations for homosexual couples.
One couple that refused lodging to any unmarried couple was sued by two homosexuals, and the court ruled against them. They were then besieged by LGBT couples trying to make reservations so they could sue them when they refused and force them out of business.
Should we fear them? No, but neither should we go out of our way to use language that is going to help them accomplish these purposes.
If Mohler is speaking the truth, and I think he is, he should not worry about that truth being twisted as much as he should speak the truth in love.
We are also commanded to be wise. His use of “homophobia” (which you endorse and are following here) is extremely unwise, for the reasons Pastor Harding has cited. You can’t say, “But he defined it.” Google “Mohler” and “homophobia”, and just read the headlines. Remember that many, many people will never read the article, they’ll just see the headlines. What message will they get? Then, remember that many of those who report this won’t give a true picture of his definition. What message will their readers get?
Further, we wrestle not against flesh and blood. Don’t use the world’s methods of political posturing and communications campaigns to try to defeat the LGBT community.
You are 100% correct. But let’s talk about what Al Mohler was trying to do. He was trying to address what he sees as real Biblical and spiritual problems among Southern Baptists. Why use the world’s method by talking about “homophobia”? Why not instead use Scripture?
Regardless of whether or not ‘homophobic’ was the right word for Mohler to use, I find it interesting that at least two out of only twenty-seven posts on here have been using Scripture out of context to infer either that 1) homosexuals should be ‘taken away’ out of the US or 2) that we should proudly wear the name ‘homophobic’ since God is so clearly homophobic - both of which comments show a mindset not likely to ever reach homosexuals with the Gospel and very likely to convince homosexuals that read such things that we do, in fact, hate and fear them. No one seems to be too keen on calling them on it either. We’re much more concerned with splitting hairs over whether or not Mohler should have used the term ‘homophobic’ than questioning statements and mindsets that could, perhaps justly, be seen as undermining Christians attempts to love homosexuals as Christ loved us.
Shayne,
Thank you for your post. I appreciate you and your father very much and have very high regard for both of you. As I said before I don’t think most genuine Christians have any objection to your approach with your co-workers. I have interacted with numerous homosexual men in a similar fashion. The NT church should have converted homosexuals in their membership and I have several in our church as well as converted adulterers and fornicators. On the other hand, I am well aware of the influence of the LGBT lobby in my own state. It advocates lowering the age of consent, the indoctrination of children via public education progams on this subject, the legalization of gay marriage, and the silencing of churches and schools to speak against homosexual behavior. You are quite correct that many practicing homosexuals would not advocate these things, but the militant political arm does. I am glad to hear that the group you are familiar with does not. Frankly, I wish my concern was an “irrational fear,” because I certainly have better things to do than fight the public promotion of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle that has the moral equivalency of race. Frankly, I think such a comparison is an insult to any racial minority.
On the original subject, Al Mohler should not have publicly accused the Christian community of homophobia; nor should he have given any credence to the idea that homosexuality is a genetic necessity. He is simply feeding the propaganda machine fueled by the left-wing media, liberal education, liberal politicians, and the corrupt entertainment industry–all of whom have an agenda to force the acceptance of homosexuality as normative upon all institutions.
Homosexuality is rightly called perversion. Yes, there are other sexual perversions in the world as well that are equally abominable to God. Many, however, involved in this particular perversion have organized themselves into a powerful force to mandate that their perversion be accepted, endorsed, embraced, and integrated into every aspect of society. Adulterers don’t do this. Pedophiles don’t (NAMBLA excepted), etc. etc. We don’t have adulterer parades in the major cities of America, at least not yet.
I think we have to make a sharp distinction between an individual who is tempted or practicing homosexual behavior and the militant groups who advocate the practice and its whole-hearted acceptance by society. Certainly, that is what I have done for the last thirty years of pastoring. Anyone caught up in this sin or any sin should be presented the whole gospel with compassion and conviction, speaking the truth in love, understanding that but for the grace of God there go I.
Again, thank you for your thoughts on this subject. Even though we have not fully agreed, you have helped me think more carefully about it. For that I am thankful. A subject like this can get very personal. I have some friends in the ministry whose children have adopted a homosexual lifestyle. It has been a terrible heartbreak for them on many levels, the most important of which are the implications for eternity. Nevertheless, there is always hope with the Gospel. All sexual sin is very enslaving and we all have to fight sin by faith in the promises and pleasures of God. Small potatoes will not do.
Thank you for your post. I appreciate you and your father very much and have very high regard for both of you. As I said before I don’t think most genuine Christians have any objection to your approach with your co-workers. I have interacted with numerous homosexual men in a similar fashion. The NT church should have converted homosexuals in their membership and I have several in our church as well as converted adulterers and fornicators. On the other hand, I am well aware of the influence of the LGBT lobby in my own state. It advocates lowering the age of consent, the indoctrination of children via public education progams on this subject, the legalization of gay marriage, and the silencing of churches and schools to speak against homosexual behavior. You are quite correct that many practicing homosexuals would not advocate these things, but the militant political arm does. I am glad to hear that the group you are familiar with does not. Frankly, I wish my concern was an “irrational fear,” because I certainly have better things to do than fight the public promotion of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle that has the moral equivalency of race. Frankly, I think such a comparison is an insult to any racial minority.
On the original subject, Al Mohler should not have publicly accused the Christian community of homophobia; nor should he have given any credence to the idea that homosexuality is a genetic necessity. He is simply feeding the propaganda machine fueled by the left-wing media, liberal education, liberal politicians, and the corrupt entertainment industry–all of whom have an agenda to force the acceptance of homosexuality as normative upon all institutions.
Homosexuality is rightly called perversion. Yes, there are other sexual perversions in the world as well that are equally abominable to God. Many, however, involved in this particular perversion have organized themselves into a powerful force to mandate that their perversion be accepted, endorsed, embraced, and integrated into every aspect of society. Adulterers don’t do this. Pedophiles don’t (NAMBLA excepted), etc. etc. We don’t have adulterer parades in the major cities of America, at least not yet.
I think we have to make a sharp distinction between an individual who is tempted or practicing homosexual behavior and the militant groups who advocate the practice and its whole-hearted acceptance by society. Certainly, that is what I have done for the last thirty years of pastoring. Anyone caught up in this sin or any sin should be presented the whole gospel with compassion and conviction, speaking the truth in love, understanding that but for the grace of God there go I.
Again, thank you for your thoughts on this subject. Even though we have not fully agreed, you have helped me think more carefully about it. For that I am thankful. A subject like this can get very personal. I have some friends in the ministry whose children have adopted a homosexual lifestyle. It has been a terrible heartbreak for them on many levels, the most important of which are the implications for eternity. Nevertheless, there is always hope with the Gospel. All sexual sin is very enslaving and we all have to fight sin by faith in the promises and pleasures of God. Small potatoes will not do.
Pastor Mike Harding
The concern about the sexualization of children is valid. No one wakes up in the morning and decides to become a pedophile- it takes time for barriers of morality and propriety to wear down and be breached. And it starts with programs aimed at children, like http://www.newday.com/films/Its_Elementary.html “It’s Elementary” produced by http://groundspark.org/ Groundspark .
This and other programs in schools also encourage children as young as 6 years old to ‘choose their gender’ and their sexual orientation. Exactly how naive do you have to be to think that any attempt to sexualize children will not eventually lead in the direction of the acceptance of pedophilia?
Individuals may not realize where some of this is heading, and may in good faith think that kids in programs like these are just learning not to bully others. But tell me- do you have to teach children about homosexuality in order to address bullying? Why not just have rules of conduct and enforce them? Let the parents address their child’s motivations and character. That IMO reveals the agenda- they simply can’t pass up the opportunity to get their foot in the door with children.
Just as we complain about an unthinking allegiance to IFB traditions, many LGBT feel that they must support the agenda of lobbyists they believe represent their interests, even though they themselves are not on board for everything this entails, IF they have even considered the underlying philosophy and eventual consequences.
It’s Elementary takes cameras into classrooms across the U.S. to look at one of today’s most controversial issues - whether and how gay issues should be discussed in schools. It features elementary and middle schools where (mainly heterosexual) teachers are challenging the prevailing political climate and its attempt to censor any dialogue in schools about gay people… the film takes the point of view of the school children, starting as young as first grade. The results are surprising … Third graders’ jaws drop when they find out some of their favorite celebrities are gay; second graders react to a book about a girl who gets teased because she has two moms; fourth graders say it makes them “feel weird in your stomach” when other kids yell “faggot” on the playground and teachers don’t do anything about it; eighth graders fire a barrage of poignant questions to the gay guest speakers who visit their social studies class; third graders passionately debate the current events issue of the day: should gays be allowed to get married? It becomes quite clear that most children are affected by anti-gay prejudice in some way, and that they are very responsive to a curriculum that teaches respect for everyone, including lesbians and gay men. Assistant Secretary of Education, Kevin Jennings, says It’s Elementary, with its refreshing child’s eye-view of a topic that sends some adult racing to their school boards, “is the most important film dealing with LGBT issues and safe schools ever made.”Someone please tell me why 8 year olds need to know which one of their favorite celebrities has a particular sexual preference? Do you want your children’s teachers, straight or gay, to discuss their sex lives with their students? What is this if not encouraging adults to discuss their personal sexual preferences and habits with children?
This and other programs in schools also encourage children as young as 6 years old to ‘choose their gender’ and their sexual orientation. Exactly how naive do you have to be to think that any attempt to sexualize children will not eventually lead in the direction of the acceptance of pedophilia?
Individuals may not realize where some of this is heading, and may in good faith think that kids in programs like these are just learning not to bully others. But tell me- do you have to teach children about homosexuality in order to address bullying? Why not just have rules of conduct and enforce them? Let the parents address their child’s motivations and character. That IMO reveals the agenda- they simply can’t pass up the opportunity to get their foot in the door with children.
Just as we complain about an unthinking allegiance to IFB traditions, many LGBT feel that they must support the agenda of lobbyists they believe represent their interests, even though they themselves are not on board for everything this entails, IF they have even considered the underlying philosophy and eventual consequences.
Discussion