Where are Southern Baptist leaders headed re: homosexuality?

[wkessel1]

I think one of the major differences between debating with evolutionist and a theological dialog with gay Christian group is the premise that there is some common ground and we can come to some level of agreement. The evolutionist isn’t saying he is a pro-evolution Christian and that we can have common theological ground together. He is saying science says you Christians are wrong and we don’t agree. Theological dialog would seem to be more akin to we can agree about certain aspects but we are going to differ on the specifics where Scripture may not be as clear. I don’t see how that can be done, when just the idea of “pro-gay” Christian is against Scripture.

Are you saying that having common ground makes it more difficult to speak with them? I’m not sure I understand.

I won’t say more difficult to speak with. When I think of a theological dialog, there is a common ground of Scripture that each have. As Pastor Harding pointed out a pro-gay group would be considered apostate, so I don’t think what you could have a theological dialog with them. Maybe more of a debate, since it would be debating a non-Scriptural position with a Scriptural one. I guess the difference comes down to dialog vs. debate. Just my thinking on the matter.

Ricky, if you want to discuss these issues with Gay-Christian organizations, feel free. I would rather do so with individuals. I think I would be more successful in communicating God’s word and my intent. Over the last 36 years of being a fulltime pastor, I have talked to dozens of practicing homosexuals about the Lord and have won several to the Lord and have also helped believers who had temporarily fallen into homosexual sin. The media observers of this conference comment on the shift in the SBC, particularly Moore and Mohler.

It all depends on what a person means by “sexual orientation.” Obviously, if a person means “I am born that way, I am that way, and I can’t help myself,” then none of us would see that as Scriptural, and I don’t think Mohler would either. If a person means, “I have certain temptations, certain tendencies, you might even say a certain orientation to same-sex attraction that I didn’t ask for, don’t understand, and constantly battle” [as I have had men say to me] , then that is NOT sin unless they give in to temptation in thought or deed. I’m going to give Mohler the benefit of the doubt, based on everything he has said and done up to this point, that that is what he talking about when he talks about SSA/SSO.

First, I personally had a hard time reading the onenewsnow.org article because it was not reporting so much as scolding and that irritates me about a news site, but oh well, they all do that. Second, I believe we ought to wait and allow Mohler and Moore to clarify and qualify. I too find myself in agreement that reparative therapies probably don’t work most of the time and even if they do, I believe them to be unbiblical. The goal is sanctification in Christ-likeness regardless of the sinful struggle, not to simply turn the lust from men to women (or vice versa).

Yet I think it very important that Christians talk clearly about what “natural” means both in general and in the context of Romans 1. Yes, homosexuality is unnatural, but so is pedophilia, beastiality, S&M, etc. But wasn’t Jesus also teaching in the Gospels that adultery is unnatural, polygamy unnatural when he said, “it was not so from the beginning”? and that in the beginning (natural state) God made them one male and one female. The only “natural” sexual expression is one man +one woman for one lifetime in the covenant of marriage. Frankly, the only thing that is natural before God is sex in the marriage bond for a lifetime. This of course does not mean that there are not various levels of sexual deviancy and depravity and that somehow there is not greater expressions of rebellion and sinful sexual gratification any more than though anger and murder are both sin, one is obviously a greater expression of the depraved nature of a man. That is what I believe Romans 1 to be addressing. That man’s rebellion grows deeper and deeper evidenced by the increasing slide of angst against God, finally manifesting itself in throwing off the natural use of the woman and the man. That is using the sexual components God has given in a most rebellious and overtly depraved way. To burn in lust toward the same gender (not just to find oneself attracted toward the same gender). IOW, I think Romans 1 is more than desires and temptions, but is describing rebellion against God as Creator. I get the feeling by some Christians (not anyone writing on this board, please don’t misread me) that heterosexual lust is to preferred over homosexual lust. I wonder at this…is not all lust depraved and to be hated?

The bottom line is that homosexual lust, while not categorically the same as heterosexual lust must be dealt with Biblically as lust either way and therefore; I believe we do a disservice to our struggling brothers or sisters when we seek to change the nature of the temptation (reparative therapies) rather than give them spiritual tools to fight the temptation however it manifests itself. This was what I thought when reading what Dr. Moore and Mohler were expressing. This is how I have sought to counsel those with both struggles, to give them the gospel and then teach them the gospel identity according to Ephesians. I tell them that their homosexual desires are not God’s ordered design as none of our sexual desires outside of the covenant of marriage are God’s ordered design. I tell them that in a sense, their homesexual desire is a mark of a growing cultural and rebellion against God. If they are believers I tell them that they may never stop being attracted to the same gender, but that God provides grace and means in the Word, prayer, and church to struggle against those desires and to embrace singleness as a gift unless they believe they can live in a marriage covenant with a wife openly about their struggles (most cannot, I am aware).

Just my two cents

Greg, our theological opponents mean by “orientation” that God made them homosexual at birth, that their natural desires are homosexual and therefore are not inherently sinful or contrary to the created order. The question is how will Matthew Vine et. al. interpret Mohler’s public repentance on the concept of sexual orientation? Contrariwise, heterosexual desire is not inherently sinful or unnatural or contrary to the created order. Certainly, heterosexual desire can be used sinfully in multiple ways and should be condemned, but the desire itself is a God-given gift, inherent in the created order, to be righteously fulfilled in marriage for the purpose of recreation and procreation. The same cannot be said of homosexual desire. To equivocate between heterosexual desire and homosexual desire is to violate the created order.

Is homosexual temptation in and of itself sin?

I believe homosexual temptations, inclinations, attractions (even “orientation”) are due to a number of complex factors. The best explanation of this that I have read is in Peter Hubbard’s Love Into Light: The Gospel, the Homosexual, and the Church. He presents this diagram, not to say that everyone who struggles in this way has all of these influences, but that a combination of these influences may result in homosexual temptations/attractions/sin.

He writes, “The evidence points toward an enigmatic merging of a variety of influences. Certain influences may be real, but not determinative. Our hearts are both vulnerable and culpable. We are swept along, but our hearts are also actively making choices. And we are responsible for those decisions.”

I should note that he uses the term Same-Sex Attraction (SSA) throughout the book. It really is a great book and ties both the problem and the solution into the Gospel; I would highly recommend it.

P.S. By “Gay Gene” he does not mean he believes there is such a thing, but that the culture communicates that message and influences a person so that they come to believe they were born that way.

I believe that sin is any lack of conformity to the moral law and character of God, either in act, disposition or state [Rom 5:13-14; 7:22; James 4:11-12]. Sin is called an act (Romans 7:19), a disposition/state (Jer 17:9; Ps 51:5; Rom 7:8-10, 17), conscious or subconscious thought (Matt 5:27-28; 15:19), an affection (Exo 20:17; 1 John 2:15-17), an omission (James 4:17), an involuntary act (Luke 12:48; 2 Pet 3:5) or any combination of these. Sin is any being, action, or disposition that is unlike God.

Sin entered the universe as a result of the fall of Satan (1 John 3:8), and sin entered the human race as a result of the fall of Adam (Rom 5:12). Personal, individual sin originates from the human heart (Mark 7:21-23; James 1:14) and is rooted in selfishness and self-autonomy (Isa 14:12-14; 2 Th 2:3-4; Deu 6:4-5). God permitted sin to enter the universe through the free, willful, and uncoerced act of Satan and subsequently of Adam (non-constraining determinism), and it was right for God to do so though the reason will forever remain a mystery to finite creatures (Judges 18:25; Deut 29:29; Prov 25:2).

I believe that Adam’s first sin, the one sin of the one man, comprehended the whole human race. Adam acted as the representative of the race, and his sin is immediately imputed to the entire race (original sin - Rom 5:12-19). Depravity, condemnation, and death came to the race as a result of Adam’s sin. Hereditary depravity (complex of sinful attributes) issues from the judicial solidarity between Adam and all men (Rom 5:19). Since Adam’s sin is imputed immediately to the race, all men are born totally depraved (Rom 3:23; Eph 2:1). Depravity is total in that it has penetrated and affected the entire race (Gal 3:22; Rom 3:10; Psa 14:1-3; 1 Ki 8:46) and the whole of man’s being (Isa 1:6; Eph 4:17-19). Depravity has effected man’s body (Rom 8:10; Eph 4:19) resulting in entropy and death, man’s mind (Titus 1:15; Rom 8:5-7; 1 Cor 2:14), man’s will (John 8:34; Jer 13:23) and heart (Jer 17:9). Man, therefore, has the native capability of committing the most vile sins (Rom 1:18ff; 3:10-18). When unregenerate man does “good” via common grace (Gen 6:3; Rom 2:14-15; Matt 7:11), it is for selfish purposes and not for God’s glory (Isa 64:6; Matt 6:5; Prov 21:4). Thus, man has no possible means of salvation or recovery within himself and is utterly incapable of meriting God’s favor or contributing to his salvation (Matt 19:25-26; Rom 1:18; Rom 7:18; Eph 2:1, 8; Tit 3:5; Heb 12:2).

I agree with all that, Mike. But if you are counseling a man who says with tears in his eyes, “I am tempted to lust after other men. I don’t know why. I have been this way for as long as I remember. I don’t want this temptation. I have pleaded with God over and over and over to take these temptations away. I fight them as best I can.” What do you say? Should his temptations be counted as culpable sins?

Greg, I agree that most of those influences listed by Peter Hubbard contribute to the problem of homosexual desire and behavior.

One part of Romans 1 that is often overlooked (Mike Harding alluded to this) is that homosexuality along with homosexual desires are not only deserving of God’s judgment but are God’s judgment. Douglas Moo, in his commentary on Romans 2 also captures this thought. Early Christians, such as John Chrysostom, connect homosexuality to opulence, a refusal to acknowledge a Creator God, and unthankfulness for God’s common blessings on all mankind. Americans live at a level of opulence that is unprecedented in the history of mankind.

I have found that the starting point to meaningful change in desires is to reverse Romans 1:21 “because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful… V24 Therefore God gave them up to…”

So a reverse of Romans 1 would look like this:

Because they knew God and glorified Him as God and were thankful… God guarded their desires and their bodies to do what is honorable… God guarded their passions… God guarded their minds to think and desire in a ways that are proper.

[Greg Long]

I agree with all that, Mike. But if you are counseling a man who says with tears in his eyes, “I am tempted to lust after other men. I don’t know why. I have been this way for as long as I remember. I don’t want this temptation. I have pleaded with God over and over and over to take these temptations away. I fight them as best I can.” What do you say? Should his temptations be counted as culpable sins?

Let’s substitute a few words in that statement Greg:

“I am tempted to lust after other women who are not my wife. I don’t know why. I have been this way for as long as I remember. I don’t want this temptation. I have pleaded with God over and over and over to take these temptations away. I fight them as best I can.”

Is that lust sin?

Even if never acted on overtly?

Of course lust is sin, Don—heterosexual or homosexual. That’s not what I was asking. I was asking if the temptation to lust is sin. Do you believe the temptation to heterosexual lust is sin?

Temptation is external, what you do with the temptation is internal.

I only changed the object in one sentence. The two scenarios are exactly the same as you described them. What you are describing the homosexual saying is sin. Until he sees it as such I doubt he can make much progress to victory.