Repent of homophobia?

[JG]

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?

The problem then, is bad journalism instead of poor word choice. Going back to the use of the term fundamentalism above? Should we now never again use the term because it has been misunderstood? Should we always concede the use of terms that can have more than one intended meaning? No. If we conceded all terms the other side uses badly, we wouldn’t have any left. For both words, we should define what we mean when we use it in audiences that may misunderstand.

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?

He did use scripture. He used this touchstone word as a rhetorical device to get people to think: to shock them out of their complacency.

[Mike Harding]

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.

Pastor, I didn’t see him giving any credence to the idea that homosexuality is a genetic necessity alone. I personally think we all have genetic proclivities to certain kinds of sins. The Fall of Adam effected everything, down to our very makeup as human beings. We are fallen down to our DNA. We were born in sin. Men tend towards sexual lust, and women tend towards gossip. This is because of their homonal and genetic makeup. Yet they are still held accountable for their actions. So I don’t think it necessarily follows that because one is genetically pre-disposed to certain sins that 1) we will necessarily sin in that way or 2) we not be held accountable anyway. Al Mohler is correct in that this sin is a choice, but that it is more than a choice. God gives fallen people over to this sin (Romans 1). To call it a mere choice without the accompanying complexities isn’t wise or well thought-through. The gospel has the power to blow away our sinful, even inherited, proclivities. It makes all things new down to our core. So I don’t fear arguments that deal with genetics. I just counter that the power of God is more powerful than genetics. I hope this makes sense. It’s something I’ve really had to think through and I may not be clear here.

I do think your fears of a homosexual agenda are somewhat founded. As for parades and such, homosexuals are having parades because they are in a common community. Adulterers don’t have parades because there is no common lifestyle among them. So it was in the time of Rome. Adultery was illegal, but men could practice homosexuality even as married men. Isn’t that wild? Sorry for the historical diversion, but I think there are very complex reasons for why homosexuals are so organized.

I think we would all like to use the same tool of society you mentioned (Mass media, education, ect.) to forward our agenda if we had the reigns of power (as we did in the 18th and 19th Centuries). The question is not whether sinners have an agenda or not, the question is what to do about it. I have a political science degree from BJU. I believe in political action. Someone’s values will be put forward, and they might as well be the right ones. That said, we’re not going to push back the tide with policies that aren’t popular. We live in a democratic republic after all, and morality cannot be enforced from the top down as much as we would like to believe in the Age of the Internet. We’re not going to win the battle of the airwaves, if the Prince of the Power of the Air has them in his grasp. We need to use spiritual tools to fight spiritual battles. Only after we have a true revival in this country are we going to push the tide of these sinful agenda’s back.

[Shaynus]

[JG]
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?

The problem then, is bad journalism instead of poor word choice. Going back to the use of the term fundamentalism above? Should we now never again use the term because it has been misunderstood? Should we always concede the use of terms that can have more than one intended meaning? No. If we conceded all terms the other side uses badly, we wouldn’t have any left. For both words, we should define what we mean when we use it in audiences that may misunderstand.

I think we should be very careful about where we use the term “fundamentalism”.

Communication is a two-way street. It doesn’t matter what you mean if the other person isn’t going to receive it that way — you haven’t communicated. Dr. Mohler’s language has gone out to a lot of people who are going to receive it differently than he intended. That’s a communication failure on his part, because he used language that was certain to have that result.

The only language that I’m not willing to abandon, if it becomes too twisted in common usage, is Scriptural language.

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?

He did use scripture. He used this touchstone word as a rhetorical device to get people to think: to shock them out of their complacency.

This word isn’t in Scripture, and is being used by the adversary to falsely portray any opposition to homosexuality as a “phobia” (or alternatively, hatred). Where in Scripture do we see anything that advocates using the evil language of the world to shock people out of their complacency? That is using the world’s methods, isn’t it?

We are to let our yea be yea and our nay be nay. That speaks against using nebulous, unclear language that has to be defined because it’s a blank slate that every perverter of truth is giving their own definition.

Given that there WILL be sloppy or dishonest journalism, given that it will be used dishonestly by advocates of unrighteousness, why do you think it is so important or valuable to use this word? I could maybe understand if Mohler were strongly anti-Calvinist, and thought that it was his responsibility to somehow make people listen and pay attention and respond. Then, you have to shock people, right? But someone who is strongly Calvinistic shouldn’t feel a need to shock people, should he? Give people the Word and let the Spirit of God work, right?

Is there any Biblical reason that using the word “homophobia” is important enough to outweight the inevitable damage and confusion that arises? I fail to see any reason why this was a good idea.

Did you watch the whole video? He used scripture in addition to this one word that you’re hung up on.

[Shaynus] Did you watch the whole video? He used scripture in addition to this one word that you’re hung up on.

But is the whole video what the world is talking about today?

Look, I agree with much of what he said (and what you are saying). Not all of it, but much of it. I don’t think Romans 1 supports the idea that people chose to have homosexual desires. They choose to act on them, but it doesn’t say they decide, “Oh, I’m going to have these kinds of desires now”. Rather, it flows out of their unthankfulness and rejection of God (verse 21), so God gives them over to sin, with one result being that these desires take hold of them.

Christians who get caught up in the “choice” argument are wasting their time. Even if someone did choose to have these desires way back when, there’s a good chance they don’t remember.

But no one can deny that they have a choice in what they >do<, and God says this is sin. We don’t argue with a drunkard whether he chose to want alcohol, we just tell him his drunkenness is sin, and that God can cleanse him, forgive him, and set him free from it. The whole “choice” argument is a waste of time, and anyone who wants to prove that a homosexual chose to be tempted in that way is going to have a hard time proving it from Scripture.

Should we cede the ground on the genetic argument? No. It’s unproven. Should we fight against it? No, it’s generally irrelevant. My answer has been that we don’t excuse drunk driving just because someone claims they are genetically predisposed to alcoholism. Whether his claim is accurate or not is irrelevant to the morality of his actions.

So you see, my problem is not so much with what Dr. Mohler was trying to communicate, and I believe probably did communicate to those who were there (and to those who will actually listen to everything he said). My problem is that he was very unwise to 1) cede ground on genetics that we shouldn’t even be arguing and 2) even more unwise to talk about repenting of homophobia, thus ending up communicating something very different to the world at large.

So now perhaps you understand more where I’m coming from, I’ll ask again. Is there any good Biblical reason to use “homophobia” in the context in which he did?

“Is there any good Biblical reason to use “homophobia” in the context in which he did?”

As you said, I think this is a wisdom issue. Your idea of wisdom is choosing one direction and I choose another. However, I do think we have indications in Paul’s rhetorical style that he occasionally used a culture’s attitude or words to explain his point. His jab at the Cretans in Titus, and his Mars Hill sermon sometimes do that. Another part of wisdom is to speak in different contexts differently. He was at the SBC, his home base. He can make points there, that wouldn’t be understood the same in the an article in the Washington Post’s “On Religion” section.

I think it’s wise to shock Southern Baptists out of complacency and have them search within themselves to see if they hold latent unbiblical hatred. To that end, using the term as he used it, and modifying the term homophobia with “a certain kind,” and the entirety of the statement, his use made sense. In the whole context of the exchange. It was absolutely clear what he meant. Any misunderstanding is willful on the part of the hearer. We are often told in scripture “Let him who has ears to hear, let him hear.” It is commonplace for those without spiritual discernment to twist words. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry about possible misunderstandings, but any reasonably knowledgable person could not mistake the point Mohler was making about homophobia. Those who are in a tiff about a use of a word they don’t like need to view communication as a two way street as you said. I don’t see how anyone can reasonably infer from his remarks anything other than what he meant. I don’t see anyone here that is genuinely confused about what Mohler was talking about. Those in this forum are only concerned with how he might have been misinterpreted, yet no one can point to an example of it actually happening.

[Shaynus] Those in this forum are only concerned with how he might have been misinterpreted, yet no one can point to an example of it actually happening.

I Googled “Mohler homophobia”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2736446/posts] Mohler says Baptists must repent of homophobia (Baptists going wobbly) — fourth choice. Both the headline and the comments show a lot of misunderstanding of what he was saying.

http://www.drudge.com/news/145448/al-mohler-calls-sbc-repent-homophobia] Al Mohler calls SBC to repent of homophobia — a little further down. The comments include some vile stuff, but show just how misunderstood he is. First comment: “Yeah, and the Klan needs to accept affirmative action. Good luck with that, buddy.”

A post from renwl.org which includes profanity, so I’m not linking it, but anyone can find it if they want. They cite significant parts of his statement, enough so anyone could see what he is saying, but then sum up with this:

So yea, things are gettin’ real thick on the white Christian right side of things. But the fact is, it only underscores the inevitable which is that gay marriage is here to stay. And religious communities around the country are coming to grips with this reality. Let’s hope they come to this conclusive reality much sooner than later.

That last one is a very good example of Pastor Harding’s warning (and Pastor Roof’s, and others, for that matter). Take out the “repent of a certain kind of homophobia” line and they would have just ignored it. But it makes a great headline for those who want to claim that even the churches are starting to accept or at least accommodate their agenda.

There’s more, but I won’t take the time.

Shock people out of their complacency with Scripture. He knows how to use Scripture, and he did here, as well. He didn’t need this.

I expect we won’t agree, and that’s ok. But when it comes to whether his choice of words was wise or not, perhaps the fact that multiple pastors have doubts about them, as well as clear evidence of misunderstandings and twistings of his meaning, should give you pause. This was not just a private message to Baptists, it was in a public forum where the world’s media is watching.

This discussion is unfortunate and possibly indicates just how much our unGodly North American culture has influenced us.

I merely posted Romans 1:26-28 above to remind us that the sin of homosexuality is not just another sin but is specifically pointed out in scripture as the end of a process of going from a natural lifestyle to an unnatural lifestyle which is centered on perversion.

God took clear and drastic action in the Theocratic kingdom to warn of homosexuality as having a defiling effect upon the land and that it must be dealt with as perversion which threatened all. It was among the capitol offenses (Lev. 18:22: 20:10-16). Adultery was also treated as a capitol offense as were other acts. All these were seen as threatening the entire society and so to be dealt with severely. God so loved the Jewish people that He desired to save them from the consequences of certain sins. If one reads Leviticus carefully they will come to understand that not all sins are treated the same. Some are seen as threatening to society and general moral order. Homosexuality is especially warned against as among perversions that had defiled the pagans and which would defile the temporal Theocracy. The listing of homosexuality among other sins in the NT does not do away with passages that also specifically point to the unnatural perversion involved in homosexuality.

The early churches took a strong and specific stand against homosexuality. This was influenced by the OT. Roman law also had the death penalty for homosexual acts. The Greeks had taken a more lenient and accepting stance.

What should the Christian approach to homosexuality and homosexuals be? We certainly must condemn it as sin. We must understand that it is seen as sin which can be forgiven and delivered from just like all other sin. That is the context of its listing in such passages as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
We must love all people in understanding that Christ died for them and did pay the full penalty for all sin. We must share the hope of the Gospel of true grace with them. But we must understand that God has informed us that it is an especially dangerous sin.

The duty to love is often in conflict with many things. There can be a conflict of duties in expressing love. It comes down to prioritizing our duties. We have a duty to love all men. We have a special duty to love our spouses and children. Part of that involves protection. We as Christians have the truth of God that informs our consciences and directs our love. We should have an understanding of the threat and evil of homosexuality that the non Christian does not. The collective Christian influence in our society has severely diminished. This has changed our cultural attitudes and laws. Those of us who are older can remember when homosexuality was thought of by the vast majority of Americans as not only wrong but repulsive. I served in a Navy where it was against the UCMJ to be one who engaged in any homosexual acts at all while in the military. It was grounds for immediate discharge. It was considered an offense against the good morale of others serving. The term “homophobia” was not even invented until the late eighties or there about. I cannot remember when the term “gay” came about as being applied to homosexuals. It was their own borrowing of the term that forever changed what was a good word into the label of perversion. It is true that some non Christians expressed their aversion to homosexuals in wrong ways. These actions were not right. Homosexual perversion today involves about 1% to 2% of our population. However, due to their aggressive and bold stance they pose a very large threat to others.

Today the Christian has a duty to recognize the danger that homosexuality poses to our families and children. The true nature of the homosexual lifestyle is shielded from the public by the media and others. When truly revealed it is seen as that which involves constant lust, depression, confusion, disease, and degradation. God has already revealed to us its past effects on other past cultures. We should understand this. God has already informed us. We are not under the law with its commands and penalties. However, as Christians we are to be informed by the law when it reveals God’s attitude and desires as can be applied to us today. It often gives us additional insight that becomes a commentary for NT interpretation and understanding. As Christians we should hate all sin. We should also understand that some sins are especially dangerous. They are to be warned against and we should protect our families from them. Homosexuality should be repulsive to us. It is an unnatural perversion. It must be recognized as being such. We are to love our families and all people by warning of its dangers. We are also to extend love to the homosexual people by not mistreating them and by accepting them for the purposes of the Gospel.

Al Mohler may just not be old enough to truly understand what dangerous changes have taken place in our society with regard to homosexuality. Reading is not the same as living. Perhaps that is why he uses such careless language and makes such a careless accusation against fellow Christians. We now bring our children up in a dangerous society where perversion is forced upon children in schools and praised in the universities. God has already warned us of the consequences in Leviticus. We had better understand what he has clearly said. Our cultural views on sex and adultery are also such a threat. But this should not diminish our view of homosexuality and its consequences.

We are to love all men including homosexuals. We must understand that loving some may mean clearly standing against those who pose a threat to others. We have a priority to love some first, and protect them. I can therefore love the homosexual person in a way that makes me not unnecessarily treat them wrongly, but recognizes their true perversion and danger to others I love. I definitely must recognize that the Gospel has forgiveness and hope for them.

There is no such thing as homophobia. God is not homophobic but Holy and all knowing. We are never wrong when we agree with God.

Our New Bird Feeder

Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 5:58 am

The besetting sin of conservatives who see what is going on around us is the sin of being strident and shrill. The besetting sin of most other conservatives is to react against that shrillness by adopting a posture of cluelessness. For has not experience shown us that as soon as someone gets a clue, they move straight into Shrill Mode?

Thus the alternative before us — to take one issue for example — is to listen to some sob sister narrative of how homosexuals are marginalized, and victimized, and so on, or to write letters to the editor with a fisted crayon, denouncing the advance of SODomy and SOCialism. So there we are, having to choose between a conservatism that sees it a principled martyrdom to be the next to last one to join the group hug, or a conservatism that writes nothing but spittle-flecked missives. Writing such letters of penetrating despair is a great way to kill time in the run-up to Ragnarok.

What we need, what we desperately need, are merry warriors. What we need is for someone to establish an alternative to “Goliath is a buddy,” on the one hand, and “Goliath is an invincible foe” on the other. No, no … Goliath is our new bird feeder (1 Sam. 17:46).

What is it that overcomes the world? It is faith, not cozy friendship. It is faith, not despairing analysis.

But when such faith in fact overcomes the world, the despairing analysts will use this as prima facie evidence to show that the world actually overcame the faith. Since it is woven into their defeatist worldview, the datum that David killed Goliath is taken, since Goliath “always wins,” as evidence that David has turned into Goliath. And matters are not helped when some PR handlers who got into the meeting somehow are urging David to become more like Goliath. “Could we not take a few tips from Goliath … common grace, after all?”

There are more options than compromise or carping.

[Bob T.] Romans 1:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Is God Homophobic? Just what does this say about homosexuality and homosexual acts?

The answer depends on our definition of “homophobia”. One of the best ways to assess current common usage is to check out http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia] dictionary.com and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia] wikipedia .

unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

Homophobia is a term used to refer to a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian and gay and in some cases bisexual, transgender people and behaviour

By these definitions, as shown by the Scriptures you’ve provided, God has a form of “homophobia”. He has “antipathy towards homosexuality”, and has “negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender behaviour”. Furthermore, He acts on those “negative attitudes” to impose consequences on those who engage in this behaviour. The world will tell us that is homophobic behaviour. By common definition of the word, therefore, God is “homophobic”.

Yet, God is an equal-opportunity God. He condemns, forgives, and cleanses all kinds of sin. Man can call Him homophobic, but it won’t stop Him condemning all perversions of His plan. It also won’t stop Him receiving all who will come to Him in faith and repentance, whatever their sins may be.

[JG] Yet, God is an equal-opportunity God. He condemns, forgives, and cleanses all kinds of sin. Man can call Him homophobic, but it won’t stop Him condemning all perversions of His plan. It also won’t stop Him receiving all who will come to Him in faith and repentance, whatever their sins may be.

The wrath of God and the mercy of God = the Gospel!

According to the “Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology;” “a phobia is an irrational fear of presumably harmless objects or situations.” P.840, 1985 edition.

The homosexuals invented the term “homophobia” somewhere in the late 1970s or 1980s. The term was not used in any way prior to its invention and use by the Homosexual community. Its use has the purpose of labeling any and all who oppose homosexuality as having irrational fears which amounts to them being prejudiced and bigoted. They then equate this with them being akin to those who were and are racially bigoted. It is an obvious tool used by the Homosexual community to defame those of good moral values. They especially like to use this label against conservative Christians.

With the use defined in this way we obviously cannot ascribe the term to God who has no irrational fears. It also does not describe the reality of the mentality of most all who oppose homosexuality.

There can be little doubt that a Christian should refrain from the use of this wrongfully invented psychological word. It has no legitimate meaning. To use the word concerning Christians who stand against the sin and defiling threat of homosexuality is unwise and factually wrong. Some Christians may at time react wrongly in dealing with homosexuality but it could never be due to homophobia since it is not a legitimate psychological condition. We should legitimately (with good reasons) fear homosexuals and hate the sin of homosexuality.

[Bob T.] The homosexuals invented the term “homophobia” somewhere in the late 1970s or 1980s. The term was not used in any way prior to its invention and use by the Homosexual community. Its use has the purpose of labeling any and all who oppose homosexuality as having irrational fears which amounts to them being prejudiced and bigoted. They then equate this with them being akin to those who were and are racially bigoted. It is an obvious tool used by the Homosexual community to defame those of good moral values. They especially like to use this label against conservative Christians.

With the use defined in this way we obviously cannot ascribe the term to God who has no irrational fears. It also does not describe the reality of the mentality of most all who oppose homosexuality.

Common usage (as I showed) would apply to the term to God and to all right-thinking individuals. Yet, the etymology (as you showed) gives the word a strongly negative connotation that does not apply to God or right-thinking people. The word has no positive value for us, and because its definition is a moving target, we should simply avoid it.

[Bob T.] We should legitimately (with good reasons) fear homosexuals and hate the sin of homosexuality.

I would agree with the latter part of your statement. But where does the Scripture tell us to fear homosexuals (or anyone else)? I don’t follow you on this. I know what the political agenda of many is, but fear isn’t the Biblical response to it. Perhaps you could clarify what you have in mind here.

[JohnBrian] The wrath of God and the mercy of God = the Gospel!

And that’s what we need to be living and talking about, isn’t it? That’s what homosexuals and everyone else needs.

In this respect, Mohler was 100% correct. Unfortunately, he said it in a way that ended up distracting from it.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=35615] Mohler: homosexuality comments reflect Scripture

Mohler defines homophobia in the church as being “afraid of the conversation and afraid of the issue” of homosexuality. He said he was not using the word “homophobia” in the context that many others use it.