Where are Southern Baptist leaders headed re: homosexuality?

Greg,

That is the point I was driving at earlier. If we define lust as an inordinate desire, either a legitimate desire that has been allowed to wander out of bounds (such as anger that seeks vengeance) or an illegitimate desire (such as homosexuality), then the lust indicates an area of my heart that is not conformed to the image of Christ. This is an area that is still in need of sanctification. I don’t see how we can call that anything other than a violation of God’s holiness, and missing the mark like that is always sin. If on the other hand, I am confronted with an opportunity to sin, a temptation, and there is no corresponding desire in my heart drawing me to miss the mark of holiness in the area at that moment, then we can say the temptation to lust there did not reveal any sin in my heart or produce any sin in my thoughts or actions.

[Don Johnson]

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.

Jesus was tempted. He did something with it. I think Don should have the answer to his own question.

Are you saying the Lord’s temptation was something inside him? A proclivity to something?

I think that would be a low view of Christ. The temptation is an external test. The problem is the perverted affections that all humans but Christ have.

So heterosexual temptation is external only? There is nothing inside of me that has a proclivity to that temptation?

Chip, again you are confusing the sinful nature with acts of sin. Of course we are totally depraved, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Of course our desires are sinful through and through. The question is whether or not I am morally culpable for committing an act of sin when I am tempted to lust, whether homosexually or heterosexually. I can’t imagine how you could possibly say yes.

Ok, let me say that I am not sure about the “only external” aspect of my argument.

I don’t have time to do the research in the Scriptures to see if this theory can hold water. James 1.13-15 surely has a bearing, but perhaps it shoots me down, too.

In any case, my main point is that the scenario you described is not describing some kind of innate predilection. My restating your statement and simply changing the object shows that the “always felt that way, can’t change” is sin. In fact, it is implicit in the conscience of the speaker, he is praying to God to remove this desire from him, so he knows it is sin. His conscience tells him so, and rightly so, I think.

So, if there is a predilection of some sort, it has to be expressed differently to somehow be 1) a natural thing he is born with 2) non-sinful in itself. Quite frankly, I don’t believe such a thing exists. It isn’t genetics, it isn’t natural, it is a cultivated desire (from various factors), that in itself is wrong. I would say the same is true of anyone whose favored sin is immoral relations with people of the opposite sex. The only difference is that the cultivated desire is being expressed more naturally, but still is sin.

You will have to wait awhile for any further engagement from me on the topic, I will be sans internet most of the day tomorrow. Likely the conversation will have moved on from this point by then, so this may well be all I have to say at this time.

Thanks, Don. Yes, I think James 1 is instructive here, and very clearly separates temptation from sin.

To paint another scenario, let’s say I am at my computer and through no fault of my own, a sexually explicit pop up ad appears. Instantly I am tempted to look longer at it (lustfully), but in that same instant, I overcome that temptation and immediately click to close the ad (and then investigate further what I can do to stop any such ad from appearing again!). I hope no one would say that I sinned in that instant (or else you’d have to say that Jesus sinned when he was tempted, too). Now, simply change the scenario to someone who is, for various reasons, tempted homosexually, and a pop ad appears with a sexually explicit male posing, and I hope you wouldn’t say that person sinned if he was tempted to look but overcame that temptation and closed the ad.

Back to my counseling scenario: Note that I didn’t say what I, the counselor, would say in response. On the one hand, I would not dismiss his statements out of hand and say, “That’s impossible; every time you are tempted it’s because you choose to be tempted homosexually” which in effect condemns him for being tempted. On the other hand, neither would I shrug my shoulders and say, “Well, I guess that’s just how things are for you. Just be sure you don’t give in to that temptation.” No, we would work on strategies to fight that temptation, which in many cases, over the course of time, would serve to lessen the frequency and possibly even change the nature of the temptations. From what I understand, many men with SSA report that their desires can shift to a greater or lesser extent from homosexual to heterosexual. Then again, others (including a man in my church) report that the desires/temptations lessen but never fully disappear, and that they must constantly be on guard to fight those temptations with the power of the Word through the Spirit, putting on the full armor of God—just like any of us must do with heterosexual temptations.

I believe there is a proclivity in relation to our temptation. Some are situational, and some are innate within each of us. If you look at the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4, the first temptation was to turn stones into bread. This was a situational proclivity. If Christ was at the marriage feast, being tempted to turn stones into bread, it would have been meaningless, because bread was all around him. But he had a situational apparent weakness in Matthew 4 because he was fasting, and the desire for food at that moment was unique to him and his situation.

I believe the innate issue is something that is seen in Scripture as well as in practical areas of everyone’s lives. There are those I know who struggle with addiction. Their personalities and who they are make them more susceptible to this condition, than say myself. Many men struggle with impure thoughts of woman. Many individuals would say that this is because of an innate desire in men and their attraction to woman. Yet there are many men who do not suffer from this at all. In fact there are some men who have no attraction to woman (and no attraction to other men either). That doesn’t provide an excuse in my opinion or legitimizes any sin whatsoever, it is just that we all struggle with various temptations that are unique to us as an individual. Because we are born into sin, our current nature, including physically is corrupted. There are females born with male body parts, there are individual born with severe mental issues or even severe physical issues which torment them and make them more susceptible to sin and temptation than others. A child that is raised in an abusive home suffers from trauma and different temptations than those who are raised in a loving home.

If Jesus could be tempted in all areas like us, and yet remain without sin (Hebrews 4:15), then I think that there has to be a dichotomy between internal and external sources of temptation. Jesus could have no internal sources because of the virgin birth - he did not inherit Adam’s sin nature. And we all know that there were external sources of temptation from Matthew 4 (Satan would qualify as an external source, right?).

Now, if we affirm total depravity (which I think we all do), then I don’t see how Shaynus could be wrong in that the fallenness / sinfulness of mankind extending to even our genetic makeup. We are all under a curse, as well, correct? Are we not subject to futility?

I haven’t done any counseling yet along these lines, but I think I would approach SSA / SSO the same way I would approach my own sinful temptations to heterosexual lust. I’ve just never seen a huge difference there except in terms of the object.

Greg, there is such a thing as a besetting sin, a sin that one person is more likely to commit than another person. Many factors influence our lives making us susceptible to different sins. When our theological adversaries speak of sexual orientation, however, they are speaking of an inherent biological tendency or necessity to have homosexual desires which then issue in homosexual acts. I don’t see that argument in Scripture. Quite the opposite. Whatever Dr. Mohler meant in his public repentance on the concept of sexual orientation, its does not bode well for his position. I respect Dr. Mohler for taking such a clear stand on the homosexual issue over the years. This was a great disappointment to me and appears to be a serious compromise. Maybe he will clarify his confession or walk it back. I will be interested to see if he does.

Don Johnson is correct on the temptation issue. The external aspect is not sin; however, when we are drawn away of our own lusts, that is sin. This is why the Gospel is our only hope. God never promised to redeem us from a so-called “orientation”; he promised to save us from our sin.

[dgszweda]

I believe there is a proclivity in relation to our temptation. Some are situational, and some are innate within each of us. If you look at the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4, the first temptation was to turn stones into bread. This was a situational proclivity. If Christ was at the marriage feast, being tempted to turn stones into bread, it would have been meaningless, because bread was all around him. But he had a situational apparent weakness in Matthew 4 because he was fasting, and the desire for food at that moment was unique to him and his situation.

I believe the innate issue is something that is seen in Scripture as well as in practical areas of everyone’s lives. There are those I know who struggle with addiction. Their personalities and who they are make them more susceptible to this condition, than say myself. Many men struggle with impure thoughts of woman. Many individuals would say that this is because of an innate desire in men and their attraction to woman. Yet there are many men who do not suffer from this at all. In fact there are some men who have no attraction to woman (and no attraction to other men either). That doesn’t provide an excuse in my opinion or legitimizes any sin whatsoever, it is just that we all struggle with various temptations that are unique to us as an individual. Because we are born into sin, our current nature, including physically is corrupted. There are females born with male body parts, there are individual born with severe mental issues or even severe physical issues which torment them and make them more susceptible to sin and temptation than others. A child that is raised in an abusive home suffers from trauma and different temptations than those who are raised in a loving home.

It’s interesting to me that on the one hand we would categorically reject any kind of inborn tendencies or proclivities towards certain specific kinds of temptations when it comes to homosexuality, but then on the other hand most Christians would have no problem understanding what someone means when they say, “Yeah, I struggle with anger—I am Irish, after all” (or “…a hot temper has always run in our family.”)

Now, to be clear, that does NOT mean that innate tendencies are the ONLY reason for homosexual temptations—just see the chart I posted above that there are probably a number of complex factors involved—internal, external, hereditary, historical, environmental, etc. Also, this does NOT excuse any sinful thought or action, regardless of any innate tendencies, proclivities, attractions, orientations, etc. (whatever you want to call it).

Mike, I understand that our “adversaries” use the term “orientation” in certain ways to excuse or justify sin. That does not necessarily mean that Mohler is using that term in that way, however. And it doesn’t mean that the term “orientation” itself necessarily means those things.

[Greg Long]

It’s interesting to me that on the one hand we would categorically reject any kind of inborn tendencies or proclivities towards certain specific kinds of temptations when it comes to homosexuality,

I agree. I am not sure we can just reject the fact that individuals are born with a proclivity towards certain situations. I agree it was never so from the beginning, but that doesn’t mean that sin doesn’t corrupt even our natural selves. It wasn’t from the beginning that individuals were born with two sets of sexual organs. But they are. And they are faced with tremendous challenges. I think that we would be naive to think that sin cannot corrupt us even to this core. Now whether there is a gene or not, I don’t know, nor would I even care to speculate. I just know that for myself I have struggled with certain sins all of my life. That doesn’t provide one ounce of excuse or indicate that I should be absolved of giving into my temptation, but when looking at my siblings, I have even noticed that each one of them, even though they are saved and we were raised in the same type of house, we each have our own struggles. The sin that my brother struggles with it, I have absolutely no issues with. Why do we treat homosexuality any differently.

Hi Greg, I thought we are getting off topic with our discussion here, so I replied to your post in a new thread here.

As to the topic, the seeming change by Mohler and other Southern Baptists is astonishing. Hopefully some of them at least are not communicating clearly or have been somehow misquoted.

Here are the videos from the various sessions:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCutFChK6m2a_8PFcLIu_g_w

I have only had time to watch this one video from the conference, but I would HIGHLY recommend it. It is a panel discussion of four Christians who have struggled with SSA and/or have come out of the gay lifestyle (three remaining single and celibate; 1 who is married). They directly address some of the issues we are raising on this thread. Again, very helpful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJdEZv_24Uk

• The Asian man on the panel, Christopher Yuan, wrote this book that I thought was also helpful: Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God; A Broken Mother’s Search for Hope
• One of the women on the panel, Rosario Butterfield, has written about her journey from being a lesbian to becoming a Christian, getting married, and becoming a pastor’s wife: The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert
• Sam Allberry’s story is here: http://www.livingout.org/stories/sam
• Jackie Hill Perry’s story is here: http://www.humblebeast.com/jackie-hill/