Where are Southern Baptist leaders headed re: homosexuality?

Here’s a Huffington Post opinion piece noting the shift.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-groves/is-the-southern-baptist-c_b_6078108.html

Here’s the Wall Street Journal’s take:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/southern-baptists-gay-community-break-bread-at-conference-1414691923

The article opens with:

A gathering of Southern Baptists here opened this week with Albert Mohler, stalwart head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, apologizing for “denying the reality of sexual orientation,” but saying orientation “can change.”
It closed with a pastor saying “no one goes to hell for being homosexual.”

“This was an amazing event,” said Mr. Vines. “Not for the public sessions but for the private meetings. It’s not like anyone is suddenly pro-gay,” said Mr. Vines. But, he added, “it feels like a new era.”

In a sign of the practical struggles Baptists face, some of the conference focused on advice. “What if you get invited to a same-sex wedding ceremony?” Russell Moore, president of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, was asked. “In that case, I would not attend the wedding. I would attend the reception.”

What is interesting is that some media outlets began reporting earlier this year that SBC leaders were looking for ways to open dialog with the LGBT community and find common ground. Here is an MSNBC article on this.

http://www.msnbc.com/craig-melvin/new-openness-gay-worshippers

Here is another article from the liberal Cooperative Baptist Fellowship:

http://baptistnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/29393-lgbt-leaders-open-to-dialogue-with-sbc

The Baptist News is the mouthpiece for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the moderate Baptist group that formed in the 1990s in response to the conservative resurgence in the SBC. This is an SBC splinter group. It is interesting that these folks would see an opening to engage the SBC leadership on LGBT dialog. They have been noticing some cracks in the armor.

I agree that it is somewhat unclear what is happening here. But my take on it is summarized by the Ex. VP of the ERLC:

“This is the idea that we are holding on to clear Biblical principals in an unwavering way while presenting them in a winsome capacity seeking to persuade and engage and not vaporize.”

Despite newfound gay worshippers in pews, Baptist doctrine still draws hard lines against gay members. “Membership is reserved for those walking with Jesus, and anyone acting in a relationship contrary to that is not granted membership,” Bethancourt said. “We’re looking at how we can still love and serve and minister to people despite different viewpoints.”

“I think in 10 years, the SBC will be right where they are right now in holding on to the view that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Bethancourt said.

http://www.msnbc.com/craig-melvin/new-openness-gay-worshippers

Greg, “sexual orientation” has become a legal term in our society that means precisely what I have described it. When sexual orientation is legally added to legislative acts of city councils, state legislatures, etc., this is what it means. Mohler knows this. You would have to be a first class ignoramus not to, and he certainly is not that. He should have chosen a different term to explain himself. What he probably meant was same-sex sexual attraction. Major news media outlets are seeing this as a major shift in the SBC. Mohler and Moore need to be much more careful here. Now there is talk about organized collaboration with LGBT Christian organizations on social issues. Moore won’t go to a same sex wedding, but he will show up for the food.

If you don’t have 40 minutes, perhaps you have 10 minutes to watch this personal and Gospel-focused testimony by Jackie Hill-Perry:

How Does the Gospel Equip Christians Who Struggle with Same-Sex Attraction?

Thanks Greg for posting the link to the panel discussion. There are some great points made. I very must appreciate Rosaria Butterfield’s answer to the question of whether or not Christians should adopt the concept of “sexual orientation.” She is making a very important point!

I would encourage you to listen/watch Mohler’s actual presentation, rather than just go by a cherry-picked quote here and there from it. From his exposition of Romans 1, Aftermath: Ministering in a Post-Marriage Culture, here is what he actually said:

We understand that there are those who are now, in terms of these biblical texts [that condemn homosexuality] , there are rejectionists. There are those who are saying that human flourishing will only take place if these texts are stared down and rejected. And then there are others who are following a revisionist argument, saying, “No, we can make peace with this sexual revolution by understanding these texts in a way that the Christian Church never understood them before, or because data was lacking then that we have now.”

And undoubtedly, data was lacking then that we have now. One of things we should not be embarrassed to say is that we are learning. One of the embarrassments that I have to bear is that I have written on these issues now for nearly 30 years. And in a couple of points, I have to say I got that wrong, and we’ve got to back and correct it—correct it by Scripture. Now early in this controversy, I felt it quite necessary to—in order to make clear the Gospel—to deny anything like a sexual orientation. Speaking at an event for the National Association of Evangelicals twenty-something years ago, I made that point. I repent of that. I believe that a biblical-theological understanding, a robust biblical theology, would point to us that human sexual affective profiles—who we are sexually—is far more deeply rooted than just the will, as if that were so easy.

But Genesis 3 explains that. It helps us to understand that this complex of same-sex challenges coming to us is something that is deeply rooted in the biblical story itself, and something that we need to take with far greater seriousness than we’ve taken in the past—understanding that that requires a far more robust Gospel response than anything the Church has come up with heretofore.

And this is a real challenge to us on biblical authority. If the revisionist arguments are right, then we’ve got to join them. I don’t believe for a minute they are right; I’ve done a lot of writing about why I don’t believe that. I don’t believe the Christian Church has misread Scripture for two millennia. I don’t believe that there was information lacking to the Holy Spirit that would have changed the meaning of these texts, information that is now available to us. But in terms of our ministry, in terms of our faithfulness, we’ve got to take all this into consideration, and we have to do so fast.

We need to be rescued not only by Scripture, but fundamentally by biblical theology, and we need to understand that it is on that basis, on biblical theology, that someone of the stature of Wolfhart Pannenburg, the recently deceased great theologian of Germany, said that a church that accepts a revision on this issue of same-sex relationships, is a church that ceases being one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. It’s an immense statement.

I understand your point that the term “orientation” can be used in various ways and that Mohler may have caused confusion with his statement, but we must at the very least allow Mohler to tell us how he is using the term. And from this presentation, it seems that he is using the term to argue what several of us are arguing on this thread—that trying to understand where same-sex attractions, proclivities, tendencies, (even “orientation”) come from is not as simple as saying, “You chose to be that way,” but that it is much more complex than that. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, declaring with clarity and conviction that any sexual activity (including lust) outside of the bounds of heterosexual marriage is sin and can only be combated by the power of the Gospel.

I’ve really enjoyed the videos I’ve watched so far from this conference. So far they have been rooted in both biblical and theological conviction as well as sensitivity and compassion. If anyone has seen something in any of the conference videos that is concerning, please make us aware.

From Pastor Harding’s above:

“This was an amazing event,” said Mr. Vines. “Not for the public sessions but for the private meetings. It’s not like anyone is suddenly pro-gay,” said Mr. Vines. But, he added, “it feels like a new era.”

This seems to say something about the direction they are going. Matthew Vine saying it was an amazing event and that is feels like a new era, seems to be implying that while they are not suddenly pro-gay, they are moving in that direction.

Just a thought.

wkessel, did you get a chance to watch any of the videos from the conference yet?

I have not had a chance, yet. Having read summaries of the chapters of Mr. Vine’s book, it just seems disconcerting that he would have thought there to be a change in the right direction; which is what his statements seem to imply, I will endeavor to watch the videos and to get a better understanding.

Here is the conclusion drawn by the religion reporter, Sharon Groves, of the Huffington Post who attended the entire conference:

The SBC is a powerful organization that has been an unrelenting oppositional force in the culture wars, so I can’t help but listen with interest when their theological leader Albert Mohler states, “We are accustomed to thinking from a position of respect and credibility, and now we are facing the reality that, to much of America, we are speaking from a position of loss of credibility, from the underside.”

This recognition of a loss of credibility may show the kind of real humility that will make it possible for some of us to take a leap of faith that a genuine relationship can be possible. I, for one, long to see what it might look like to travel into the unknown terrain on the other side of the culture wars. We have a very long way to go, but there were signs at this conference — amidst confusing, contradictory and even harmful messages — that we might be heading in that direction.

She previously stated:

Even within this reality, the Southern Baptists we met were gracious and hospitable. They organized a behind-the-scenes conversation with an LGBT-affirming contingent that lasted well into the night; when we offered comments, they seemed genuinely pleased; they thanked us for coming and called us brave for showing up; they even retweeted our tweets without irony.

A number of them made incremental steps forward in a few key areas:

Leaders acknowledged the pain they have inflicted on gays and lesbians. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention, stated in his keynote address that he “repent[ed] denying that homosexuality was legitimate.” (Here she misquotes Mohler, but notice the impression his actual statement left with her) He and several other speakers also expressed regret over past depictions of gay people as the worst of all sinners.

They revised some of their longstanding messaging about gay youth. While they still depicted LGBT children as something negative, speakers stated emphatically that it is wrong to blame bad parenting for the sexual orientation of children. The president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), Russell Moore, even went so far as to say that “gay and lesbian homelessness is an issue that the Christian church ought to care about.”

They addressed their public image problem often in honest and self-reflective ways. Russell Moore told the group in his closing sermon that the best way to stop “seeming like a bigot” is to stop being a bigot.

(in)Frequently Asked Questions About the SBC (excursus)

A couple of them purport to quote Al Mohler–or someone else purportedly quoting him—repenting for “denying that homosexuality was legitimate,” or something similar. None of them actually agree on his exact words. Actually, they all get them wrong.

[Mike Harding] Alarming that Mohler would repent of previously not acknowledging the legitimacy of sexual orientation.

and

A number of months ago I discussed this issue at the lunch table with Dr. Mohler. He made no excuses or allowances for same-sex attraction. He then addressed a small group of believers in an extemporaneous speech about the issue and condemned the same-sex marriage proponents in the strongest of terms. That was six months ago. This is a definite change in disposition.

Shouldn’t we be a bit more skeptical of media outlets with a vested interest in creating an illusion of SBC softening than we are of someone like Al Mohler, who’s been crystal clear for years on a whole array of issues related to biblical morality?

Yesterday (Thu, 11/06/2014) at 4:31pm Greg Long posted the text of the video referenced in this article. Watching the video of his speech shows that he has not changed his “disposition.”

I am disappointed that there are amongst us those who were willing to assume the worst of Mohler based on a misrepresentation of what he actually said.

Yes, I’d rather watch Mohler in his own words rather than go by a Huffington Post reporter, especially as she blatantly misquoted him.

Today I’m watching Moore’s interview with Rosario Butterfield, which is quite interesting, as she talks about how she was a tenured professor at Syracuse U and was a lesbian feminist. After she wrote an article in a local paper blasting Promise Keepers, a local pastor invited her over to dinner with him and his wife. That was the beginning of a relationship that led to her conversion. It is a model of how we should interact with our homosexual “enemies” (as she was not just homosexual, but outspokenly antagonistic to Christianity).

This is the third full-length video I will have watched, and I am yet to find anything I don’t wholeheartedly concur with. But as I said, if anyone sees/hears anything of concern, please let us know.

Again, if you don’t have time to watch the entire 40 minute panel discussion, at least watch Rosaria Butterfield’s answer concerning the term “sexual orientation” at the 16:35 mark here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJdEZv_24Uk&feature=youtu.be&t=16m35s (note, this was immediately after someone from the audience rudely shouted out something that interrupted the panel discussion, so if it seems awkward that’s why).

Now, someone may legitimately say, “Wait a minute, I thought Mohler was now accepting the term ‘sexual orientation,’ while Butterfield is rejecting it.” I think this is a valid point, but this goes back to the conflicting uses of the term. I might even agree with you, Mike, that I personally would have avoided using the term. But even if we object to the use of the term, once again we must at the very least try to understand what he meant in his use of it. He is NOT using it in the sense of an unalterable condition or identity that fixes and excuses one’s sexual behavior. You can’t possibly listen to his message and come away with that conclusion. He means exactly what everyone else on the panel believes, that there are predilections, inclinations, attractions, and temptations that are complex, that are not merely external, and that are not merely a choice of the will, that we must try to understand and help people fight and overcome by the power of the Gospel.

I just thought of a comparison, and I’m wondering if anyone sees this comparison as valid. When I was younger, I was taught that any mental difficulties a person had, such as depression, were completely due to spiritual factors, such as a lack of trust in God. I have since come to realize that there are actual physical, medical issues involved in mental illness, but that doesn’t stop me from also giving spiritual advice to those afflicted with such issues. Could this be the same thing that is happening here with homosexuality. Instead of saying that homosexuality is completely a choice to rebel against God’s design, Mohler is acknowledging that deeper physical issues (such as orientation) may be at play, but that wouldn’t stop Mohler from bringing in spiritual answers to the problem. Now, all that the secular people might be seeing is a softening of the position, but that doesn’t mean there is a softening of the actual, ultimate spiritual solution to the problem.

John, The RNS which I initially sighted did not misrepresent what he had said. The Huffington Post did which I recently pointed out. Even in the lengthy Statement provided by Greg (thank you by the way), It is hard to figure out what exactly he is repenting of. What is his personal definition of “sexual orientation”? Why did he not affirm it before and affirms it now? What data changed his mind? What new data would contradict or reinterpret what the Apostle Paul says in Roman 1:18-32 where Paul clearly traces homosexual desire and behavior to human corruption based on Total Depravity? The implication from Dr. Mohler’s fuller statement is that homosexuality is not a choice. We all acknowledge influences in our lives that can lead to sin—Influences which affect us mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. Nevertheless, homosexual behavior certainly is a choice and homosexual desire is sinful. What I don’t see in his statement is that homosexual desire or attraction (if that is what he means by orientation) is unnatural, contrary to the created order, and should not be equivocated with heterosexual desire which is natural and in keeping with natural law and the created order, albeit can be directed in sinful ways. Is he interpreting the social sciences from Scripture or is he synergizing the social sciences with Scripture? His fuller statement raises more questions than it answers.

And undoubtedly, data was lacking then that we have now. One of things we should not be embarrassed to say is that we are learning. One of the embarrassments that I have to bear is that I have written on these issues now for nearly 30 years. And in a couple of points, I have to say I got that wrong, and we’ve got to back and correct it—correct it by Scripture. Now early in this controversy, I felt it quite necessary to—in order to make clear the Gospel—to deny anything like a sexual orientation. Speaking at an event for the National Association of Evangelicals twenty-something years ago, I made that point. I repent of that. I believe that a biblical-theological understanding, a robust biblical theology, would point to us that human sexual affective profiles—who we are sexually—is far more deeply rooted than just the will, as if that were so easy.