Where are Southern Baptist leaders headed re: homosexuality?

Mike, good questions, which is why I would suggest listening to the entire message, which is an exposition of Romans 1.

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.

I’d amend your statement to say the implication of Mohler’s fuller statement is that homosexuality (itself a term for which definitions differ depending on who is using and how) cannot be reduced to a mere choice, like the one I faced when choosing between bagels and oatmeal this morning. Nor is it directly analogous to the choice Adam faced, namely, of this you may eat, of that you may not, since Adam was created in a state of innocency.

You’re reformed-ish, right? So how does Mohler contradict the reformed notion of depravity? If our sin nature is an indelible dye tainting our nature from before birth, is it that outlandish to suggest that some people demonstrate their natures as “strays” from the womb by behaving effeminately and lacking desire for the opposite sex while strongly desiring members of the same sex? To me, that is entirely consistent with Calvin, Augustine, Paul, Jesus, even the psalmist(s) and Moses.

I’m not an expert in the Greek, but as those Romans verses are stated in English, Paul’s statements are saying that those who don’t want to retain God in their knowledge were turned over to do these unnatural things. Logically, those statements are NOT saying that anybody in that state (with those desires) got there through only that path. As Greg L. has pointed out, there are some who are saved, struggling, and *do* want to retain God in their knowledge, and still have the issue with such temptations. That alone seems to show that sinful desires can come for other reasons.

Also, speaking of the created order has limitations — the creation was perfect, but it was marred in the fall. Humans are now marred even down to their genetics. If nature itself is broken, then what is “natural” can also be broken when compared to the perfect state.

Obviously, no matter our state and how broken we are, we are responsible to God’s commands. However, when we refuse to acknowledge that nature itself is broken and can contribute to our problems, we are not always giving the right help to those who need it. God is capable of keeping those who trust him from sin, no matter the source of their temptation. However, it’s all too easy for us to call certain temptations sin in and of themselves when those are temptations we are not personally subject to. Paul said it right when he cried out “who shall deliver me from the body of this death?!” Far be it from us to say to saved and struggling individuals of certain temptations, “you need to deliver yourself, because you are not trusting and submitting to God, otherwise this would not be an issue for you.”

David, your suggestions are plausible. I have translated most of the NT over the years under the guidance of several Greek Scholars including Bill Combs, Stewart Custer, Bruce Compton. A very careful translation of Romans 1:26 goes as follows: “Wherefore God has delivered them up to passions which bring dishonor: for both their females have exchanged natural intercourse for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having abandoned natural intercourse with the female, have burned in their lust for one another, males with males perpetrating shamelessness and receiving in their person the due wages of their deludedness.”

The physical body is not portrayed by Paul as the cause of the unnatural behavior, but rather is the means and recipient of the consequences of that behavior (1:24). The fact that people worshiped the creation more than the creator was ample cause for “God to give them up” which Paul repeats three times in this pericope. God permitted these conditions to take place by withholding his preventive help which alone would mitigate such behavior. This issues in fulfilling the “desires of their hearts” which is the actual condition and character of their life. They acknowledge no higher criteria than their own wayward desires. The result is that they “dishonor their ‘somata’ (bodies) among themselves”. Again, the body is receiving, not causing the corruption. The verb here is passive and the subject is receiving the dishonor.

On account of this God gave them up unto passions that bring dishonor (Genitive of quality). “For” (gar) explains the previous judgment. “Females” (thaleiai) not “gune” the normal word for women, calling attention to the sexual differentiation, “exchanged” (echoes v. 25) natural intercourse for that which is against nature. This parallel is seen with the “likewise” phrase referring to men that follows. “”Chresis” is a clearly established paraphrase for sexual intercourse. The key terms, “phusikos” and “para phusin,” (natural and against nature) mean in accordance with the intention of the Creator. This appeal to nature is the sense of the order which God manfiested in the created world. Paul uses the same phrase in 1 Cor 11:4 (phusis autei “nature itself”) as a current condition controlling the behavior and sexual identity norms of the entire human creation. One could translate the phrase, “the very way God made us”. The decisive factor in Paul’s use of these terms is the biblical doctrine of creation. It denotes God’s inalterable order that is clearly manifested in creation currently and therefore no man or woman has an excuse for failing to recognize it and respect it.

After watching some of the videos Greg suggested we watch, my goodness. Rosaria Butterfield’s teaching on this is absolutely fantastic.

Pastor Harding, I completely agree with you that no one has an excuse for failing to recognize and respect God’s order. As I said, I won’t even try to comment on your Greek, since I’m not a Greek scholar. I was only pointing out that, unlike what most people (not necessarily you) believe, the fact that A implies B does not mean that B implies A (at least in English, and, I am assuming, in Greek as well, though it’s possible I’m wrong). I don’t read Paul’s arguments in vs. 26 as saying everyone who is given up to unnatural affection got there from the reasons before the wherefore. In other words, those that exhibited the rebellion he mentioned were given up to those things, and as you say, in this case the body is not portrayed as the cause but the means. However, I’m only saying that some people with unnatural affections don’t necessarily have to have been in rebellion that was punished in that way (at least from the way I read Paul’s argument here — obviously all of scripture should inform our thinking), and therefore would not necessarily be be part of those he is describing. Those who are trying to follow God are still subject to many temptations, apparently from what others are saying, even SSA.

I will concede that when Paul uses arguments about “natural” or “unnatural” he may be referring to nature in its perfect state. However, nature as we see it is now quite flawed. Under the fall, the way God has allowed many to be born with a lot of genetic defects, even down to the XX/XY distinction which has a number of variants as well. Even those of us that look “normal” are certainly flawed compared to Adam and Eve pre-fall, as is often discovered with certain cancers, syndromes, etc. Medicine and science do not understand all the problems that appear in our genetic code, and more are being discovered all the time. As I made clear in my other post, this doesn’t give us any cause to excuse or explain behavior contrary to what God commanded. It should, however, cause us to have more compassion for those who suffer from conditions we can’t imagine. Although it can be abused, I don’t believe that recognizing this fact means we are giving in to those who want to be in rebellion to God.

In your post earlier, which I responded to, you wrote:

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

and in a subsequent post referred to it as:

[Mike Harding] That was six months ago. This is a definite change in disposition.

In your response to my post you wrote:

[Mike Harding] ​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?

If you don’t know Mohler’s answer to these questions, why were you so hasty to throw him under the bus with your “Alarming and Sad” subject heading?

[Mike Harding] ​The implication from Dr. Mohler’s fuller statement is that homosexuality is not a choice.

[Mike Harding] His fuller statement raises more questions than it answers.

My point was (and is) that you were hasty in castigating Mohler.

Here’s another one from ABC News:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/southern-baptists-pastors-hold-l…

Mohler, the most prominent Southern Baptist intellectual, said from the stage that he was wrong years ago when he said same-sex attraction could be changed. The Rev. Russell Moore, director of the Southern Baptist’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, which organized the conference, drew applause when he condemned anti-gay bullying and called on Christians to address the problem of homelessness for gay and lesbian youth as “a human dignity issue.” He said parents shouldn’t shun their gay children.

Mohler wrote on his blog in 2007.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2007/03/02/is-your-baby-gay-what-if-you-cou…

There are several troubling things he says, not the least of which is:

1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.
2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

Here are all ten of Mohler’s points.

1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.

2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God’s judgment.

4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible’s moral verdict on homosexual behavior.

5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.

6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons — the fact that all humans are made in God’s image — reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons — whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever — are equally made in the image of God.

7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.

8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.

10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God’s moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.

Greg, is their a unique biological causation for pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, beastiality, pederasty? Are we sinning when we assert that those desires are sinful and that human beings are personally responsible for them? Where is the exegetical basis for Mohler’s accusation against believers over this? Would the Apostle Paul be guilty of this “sin”? An African American pastor said recently regarding the extension of special civil rights to LGBT communities, “Don’t compare your sin to my skin”. He was highly offended that the LGBT community said that their civil rights issues were no different that the black civil rights issues—all were biologically driven. There is a danger in making so-called scientific studies the 67th book of the Bible and then integrating that science with Scripture. We are bordering on gnosticism when we root sin in biology as opposed to the sinful nature.

I was wrong about Dr. Mohler, apparently he has been nurturing these ideas for sometime. I was honestly unaware of it until this recent conference on sexuality. When we root homosexuality in biology as opposed to the sinful nature we are giving away the farm, sheep included. Now I understand why Russell Moore called us bigots, told parents who would not tolerate a homosexual lifestyle in their home that they lacked human dignity, and that while he disagreed with homosexual marriage he would gladly attend the celebration of that marriage. Both secular and evangelical media have recognized that a shift is going on, that a “crack in the armor” is visible, that there has been a “change of heart”.

I have no angst whatsoever against Dr. Mohler, nor do I cease to give him all the credit he deserves for saving the SBC seminaries. I applaud that. Personally, I like him and admire much of what he has done and has written. That said, I think both Dr. Mohler and Moore are wrong on this aspect of the homosexual issue. Frankly, I would rather defend Moses and the Apostle Paul in what they wrote than what modern government studies are saying and how Dr. Mohler and Dr. Moore are interepreting them.

Mike, in your post above and the others on this thread, you consistently conflate desire (which is NOT inherently sinful in Scripture) and deed, as well as temptation and sin. Now, homosexual desire in general is an obviously twisted perversion of God’s original intent with one man and one woman in marriage, but so is my heterosexual desire for women who are not my wife.

You are condemning anyone who has ever had been tempted with homosexual desire as being a homosexual and falling under the condemnation of 1 Cor. 6. You are condemning those in my church who are successfully fighting homosexual desires as sinning whenever they are faced with an unexpected and unplanned temptation to homosexual lust. This is wrong.

I completely agree with you that “such were some of you.” I would challenge those I have just mentioned above if they called themselves “gay Christians” or “homosexual Christians.” (I would even agree with you, over against Mohler, that I am hesitant about using the term SSO and would encourage a Christian fighting those temptations not to use that term.) As you yourself pointed out, the terms in 1 Cor. 6 are focused on the homosexual act (both active and passive), not the temptation.

Christians who struggle against SSA are nothing more and nothing less than the rest of us, including me—Christians who have been washed, sanctified, and justified, who used to be _____________ (fill in the blank—homosexuals offenders, thieves, murderers, liars, arrogant, look at all the sins in Rom. 1). I completely agree with you that we should yield our members as instruments of righteousness and not obey the lusts of the flesh. That is exactly what I would try to help someone do who is struggling with SSA.

When we root homosexuality in biology as opposed to the sinful nature we are giving away the farm, sheep included.

Mike,
I’m not sure I agree. If we found certain people were more predisposed than others to unrighteous anger, or drunkenness, or sloth… that wouldn’t change the need to put those things to death. If we would find that there was some biological component that predisposed some people to SSA, why does that change the inherent sinfulness, any more that the stereotype of temperamental redheads means that we give them a free pass when they give in to rage and anger?

Greg, let me be clear. Homosexuality consists of both same-sex erotic attraction and sexual activity. A homosexual is one who nurtures an on-going erotic, romantic desire for a person of the same gender culminating in sexual involvement. Homosexuality is the result of a gradual sinful cultivation and conditioning vis-à-vis a natural, biological orientation. Homosexuality is not a civil right protected in the US Constitution. This equates a desired act with a constitutional right and assumes that homosexuality is an inherent part of one’s biological nature. Such reasoning would eventually be used to justify other unlawful desires such as pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia or molestation.

Homosexuality is a clear violation of the created order of God. It violates the heterosexual nature of marriage between one man and one woman (Gen 2:24), the complementarian nature of marriage where the woman is the exclusively suitable answer to man’s aloneness in marital love and physical union (Gen 2:18-20; 3:16-19; Eph 5:22-33; 1 Pet 3:1-7), and homosexuality violates the fulfillment of the dominion mandate necessitating procreation (Gen 1:28).

The first instance of homosexual behavior in the Bible is answered by severe judgment (Gen 19:4-11). The term “know” in this context clearly refers to sexual activity between members of the same sex (Gen 19:5, 8; cf. Gen 4:1, 17, 25; 24:16; 38:26). Jude 6-8 and 2 Peter 2:4-10 clarify that the cities were characterized by unnatural sexual desires. Judges 19:22-25 parallels the situation in Sodom where the men are aggressively seeking same-sex involvement. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 label homosexual behavior as an abomination along with other sexual sins. These sins violate the created order, the holy attributes of God’s nature and character, and are repeatedly mentioned again in the NT as sinful, abominable, and contrary to the will of God. Homosexuality particularly was a constant threat to the holiness of Israel from the surrounding Canaanite nations (Gen 9:20-27; Deut 23:17-18; Judges 19:22-25; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 2 Kings 22:46; 23:7; Ezek 16:50; 18:12; 33:26).

Homosexuality is repeatedly condemned by God in the NT. Romans 1:26-32 condemns the practice of homosexuality by men or women and furthers condemns the condoning of such sinful activity (vv. 31-32). 1 Corinthians 6:9 condemns both partners in the homosexual encounter. “Effeminate” and “homosexuals” refer to the passive and active sides of the homosexual relationship respectively. The “effeminate” are those who willingly allow themselves to be sodomized; whereas the “homosexuals” are those who actively engage in sodomizing the effeminate. 1 Timothy 1:10 mentions the violation of the seventh commandment to include both “immoral men and homosexuals,” citing the same Greek term used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and the Greek translation (LXX) of the Hebrew term in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Finally, 2 Peter 2:6 and Judges 7 reference the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah for indulging in gross immorality and going after strange flesh–that is men with men.

Greg Linscott,

I believe as you do that It is absolutely necessary in a militantly pagan culture to submit our sexual practice as believers to the Lordship of Christ which will result in God’s glory and our good. Natural sexual desire is a gift of God and is to be placed in the service of God exclusively through marriage. God affirms the beauty of the one-flesh relationship exclusively within the confines of God-ordained marriage (Gen 2:24-26; Song of Solomon; Prov 5:15-19; Heb 13:4; 1 Cor 7:1-6). The initial purpose for the one-flesh relationship is procreational as the natural result of sexual union and fulfilling the dominion mandate (Gen 1:28; cf. Gen 9:1). The second purpose of the one-flesh relationship is relational (Gen 2:18, 21-23), thereby alleviating man’s aloneness. The third purpose of the one-flesh relationship is social. Unrestrained sexual license greatly contributes to an undisciplined and disorderly society producing family breakdown, divorce, illegitimacy, disease, the welfare state, abuse, criminal behavior, bitterness, and slavery to sin (Matt 5:8; 5:28; Job 31:1; Ps 119:9; Gen 2:25; cf. Ps 51:10; Rom 1:18-32). Without accepted norms based on biblical prescription there will not be sufficient public restraint to control acts of sexual impropriety and immodesty in society (Ezek 16:36; 23:18; Rom 13:1-6). The final purpose of the one-flesh relationship in monogamous, heterosexual marriage is recreational. Sexual pleasure is God’s gracious gift for his image bearers to be enjoyed exclusively in marriage without fear, shame, or guilt as the ultimate expression of marital love (Song of Solomon; Prov 5:15-19; Heb 13:4; 1 Cor 7).

All other forms of sexual activity outside of monogamous, heterosexual marriage are forbidden in Scripture, including fornication (“any sexual activity outside of marriage” 1 Cor 7:2; 1 Thess 4:3), adultery (“with someone other than one’s own spouse” Ex 20:14; Matt 5:28), palingamy (“remarriage to a formerly divorced spouse after an intervening marriage” Deut 24:1-4), homosexuality (“any same-sex sexual activity” Gen 19:5-7; Lev 18:22; Rom 1:27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 7), incest (“sexual activity with family members or relatives” Lev 20:11-21; 1 Cor 5:1), obscenity (Eph 5:3-4), pornography (Matt 5:28; Mark 7:21-22; Gal 5:26; 1 Thess 4:5; Rev 18:9), prostitution (Prov 5:1-23; 7:4-27; 1 Cor 6:18), transvestitism (Deut 22:5; 1 Cor 11), criminal sexual behavior (rape, molestation, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, pederasty, etc. Rom 13:1-6; Lev 18-22), and impurity (“moral filth in one’s heart and thoughts” (James 1:21; Rev 22:11; Rom 1:24; 2 Pet 2:10).

All people, including Christians in particular, are obligated by their creaturely existence to enjoy God’s gracious gifts while gratefully acknowledging the Creator’s purposes and parameters for those gifts, particularly the gift of sexuality (Rom 1:18-32). All sexual sin is ultimately a violation of the covenantal relationship God has established with the first man and woman as representatives of the human race to whom God directly gave the gift of human sexuality within the exclusive confines of monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Those who violate God’s design for sexual activity and marriage do so at their own peril and ultimately dehumanize and degrade a person into sinful bondage and sexual slavery (Job 36:14).

All Christians struggle with sinful desires. After our salvation we are no longer totally depraved. Our sinful natures are being mitigated, but not eradicated. The new nature is growing in maturity and influence. Even Dr. Al Mohler said that we are all sexual sinners to one degree or another. The sinful nature and the new nature are two different complexes of opposing attributes. This explains the various dispositions to particular sins. None of us get a pass by looking into the human genome to explain a particular sin or in this case a perversion.

None of us get a pass by looking into the human genome to explain a particular sin or in this case a perversion.

Is this what Mohler is saying? Is it even a necessary consequence of what he says?

Homosexuality is the result of a gradual sinful cultivation and conditioning vis-à-vis a natural, biological orientation.

Is this what Paul is saying (in Romans 1)? Is it even a necessary consequence of what he says?