Mohler on Sexual Orientation

In general I agree with him. But I still don’t think I would call it sexual orientation. As that makes it seem like it is something natural about us that we can do nothing about. Whereas it is a corruption of our natural desires.

My take on Mohler’s position:

• Ill-defined or poorly defined terms
• No exegesis
• Flawed anthropology

I’m with Jim. And the scary thing is that you can get almost exactly where Mohler ended up by taking a close look at Romans 1, Genesis 19, and elsewhere. As a homeschooling dad, and having been a mathematics and engineering instructor, I’ve got to plead with him; show your work, Albert!

Even as I agree with Nick that I am personally hesitant about using the term “orientation,” and would only do so with qualification, what Mohler writes here is basically where I fall on the issue.

Bert, really? Did you read the entire article to the end? It is full of biblical references and theological arguments for his position.

It is disingenuous to claim any sinful desire is something we did not choose. This directly contradicts personal responsibility. I agree there are many influences in our lives, but the bottom line is we ultimately decide which way we will go. This does not mean that, post-decision, we do not become enslaved to the very desire we have chosen and may even struggle against it when we later change our minds, but we are the ones, personally and individually, who initially open our hearts to the sinful desires that seem later to control us. In this way, I see “sexual orientation” in much the same light as i see drug addiction.

I had previously denied the existence of sexual orientation. I, along with many other evangelicals, did so because we did not want to accept the sexual identity structure that so often goes with sexual orientation. I still reject that notion of sexual identity.

When it comes to a same-sex attraction, the orientation is sinful because it is defined by an improper object — someone of the same sex.

The concept of sexual orientation is not only helpful, it is in some sense essential. Even those who argue against its existence have to describe and affirm something tantamount to it. There is a pattern of sexual interest and attraction that is discovered in early adolescence. It is not something that is, in itself, freely chosen. That does not mean that the individual is not completely responsible before God for how that orientation is then handled.

It may be that those who are bothered by Mohler’s repenting of denying orientation are understanding his 2 words as synonyms.

Jim may be correct in noting:

Ill-defined or poorly defined terms

[Greg Long]

Bert, really? Did you read the entire article to the end? It is full of biblical references and theological arguments for his position.

Read it twice, and stand by what I said. There is a difference between listing verses related to the topic and exegesis. Mohler does the first, but he does not attempt a solid exegesis of what passages like Genesis 19 and Romans 1 mean to the question of whether homosexuality is an orientation, whether it’s a consequence of sin, or whether it’s a sin independent of any orientation.

He’s doing basically this:

Here’s the link: http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.html

Bert, did you watch his exposition of Romans 1 at ERLC? Have you read his chapter “Homosexual Marriage as a Challenge to the Church: Biblical and Cultural Reflections” in Sex and the Supremacy of Christ (eds. John Piper & Justin Taylor)? To say that Mohler hasn’t done his biblical and theological homework just boggles the mind.

We can go round and round on this all day. For me, the central and essential question is, Do you think that homosexual temptation (NOT lust, but temptation) is, in and of itself, culpable sin? My understanding of the Bible and theology tells me that no, it cannot be. And because of that, I must ask the question, where do these temptations come from? I agree with those who say they come from a VARIETY of complex factors. Perhaps one of the many complex factors might be a propensity or inclination towards certain kinds of temptation that are passed on through the sin nature. But this is only one factor, and in no way excuses any kind of sin for any reason, any more than someone who has a propensity towards anger is excused when getting angry.

If you believe homosexual temptation is, in and of itself, culpable sin, that has tremendous theological and pastoral implications.

Please, please, please…watch the ERLC videos. If you can come away from watching those videos and argue that Mohler, Moore, and the others in the conference are somehow “soft” on homosexuality, then I guess we just won’t be able to come to an agreement here. Remember that the panel discussion involves four people who have struggled with SSA, but two of the four are married and the other two are celibate, and all of them urge anyone struggling with SSA to fight those temptations through the Gospel.

(Another disclaimer: Perhaps someone thinks I’m defending Mohler so strongly because I pursued a degree at SBTS. Actually, I came to this conclusion through my own study of Scripture, theology, and resources on this topic, and wasn’t even aware Mohler had this view until it surfaced in the last few weeks.)

I don’t think anyone would say that we choose our sin nature. Or that we choose which issues of total depravity has most effected us as individuals. We don’t choose what sins we struggle with. All of our sinful desires are based on proper God given desires that have been corrupted. This corruption can manifest itself in various ways that are tied to both biology and personal circumstances. This is no excuse for our sin this is just how we as individuals differ in our struggles. We are all still responsible for our personal struggles and must seek to overcome them with the help of Christ in our personal sanctification. Where Mohler is wrong is simply in his use of the word orientation as that is a term that connotates something that is natural and designed within the person. Whereas in reality it is the corruption of the natural orientation of the individual.

Recommended reading list on homosexuality (please feel free to add)

• Butterfield, Rosaria Champagne. The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert. Crown & Covenant Publications, 2014. (I haven’t actually read this one yet, but from what I’ve read about it and hear from Mrs. Butterfield, I can only assume it will be helpful.)
• Dallas, Joe. When Homosexuality Hits Home: What to Do When a Loved One Says, “I’m Gay.” Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2015.
• Dallas, Joe. Desires in Conflict: Hope for Men Who Struggle with Sexual Identity. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003.
• Hubbard, Peter. Love into Light: The Gospel, the Homosexual and the Church. Greenville, SC: Ambassador International, 2013.
• Mohler, R. Albert. “Homosexual Marriage as a Challenge to the Church: Biblical and Cultural Reflections.” In Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005.
• Yuan, Christopher, Angela Yuan, and Kay Warren. Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God. A Broken Mother’s Search for Hope. Colorado Springs: WaterBrook Press, 2011.

Greg, that’s a bait and switch. You asked whether I’d read the article, and when I noted I had and exactly what problems I had with it, you link me to….OK, how many hours is it going to take for me to figure out that he has indeed done his homework?

Which is my basic point, and Jim’s. The column does not “show his work.” And quite frankly, if Christians are going to engage on this, Biblically, we are going to have to go back to AP style and say what’s important first. If we are going to argue that Romans 1 argues for a sinful sexual orientation—and I would join in doing so—then we need to get good at saying, concisely, that Paul gives us a list of consequences of ignoring God, and that damaging sexual desires are among those consequences.

Is that so hard?

Maybe we can find a bit of common ground here. Ed Welch, in his book Blame it on the Brain? Distinguishing Chemical Imbalances, Brain Disorders, and Disobedience, argues strongly against the use of the term “sexual orientation,” believing it opens the door to the acceptance of homosexuality and justifies a Christian for “being angry at God for giving them an orientation they may not live out.” Neither I nor Mohler agree with those arguments, but even granting them…

He also says this:

But a very significant question remains: Why does it feel natural? The biblical answer is relatively straightforward. Like many other sins, homosexuality does not have to be learned. The child who never witnesses a temper tantrum can be proficient at throwing them; it is an instinctive ability of the human heart. Homosexuality is natural in the same way that anger of selfishness is natural. They are embedded in our fallen humanness. Indeed, homosexuality is “natural,” but only in the sense that it is an expression of the sinful nature.

The fact that most homosexuals cannot remember consciously choosing homosexuality is also readily explained by Scripture. Most sin works on a level where we do not self-consciously choose it. To use Old Testament language, our sin can be “unintentional,” but that does not make us less responsible for our violation of God’s will (Lev. 5:14-19; Num. 15:22-30). Sin is more than mature, rational, conscious decisions. It is our moral inclination from birth. (pp. 160-161)

Welch then reviews the research that some use to justify a biological basis for homosexual orientation. He notes that the research proves homosexuality is “not caused solely by genetics.” He also goes on to say:

In the case of homosexuality, it is even possible that a certain brain type is necessary to express homosexual intent. Nevertheless, this brain or genetic hardware is not sufficient to cause homosexuality.

Am I now suggesting that it is biblically possible for the body to cause homosexuality? Indeed, I am, provided—and read carefully—the word “cause” in this context means “biologically shape or influence,” not “irresistibly compel.” Used this way, there is nothing shocking about what I am saying. Our sinful hearts express themselves in behavior via hundreds of factors, biology being one. A person whose sinful hearts acts out in murder may have been influenced by unjust treatment, by parents who allowed him to vent his rage on siblings, and by Satan’s incessant suggestions to kill [and I, Greg Long, would add perhaps by a biological disposition to anger inherent in the sin nature]. But none of these influences remove his personal responsibility for his intentions or actions. The ultimate cause of sin is always the sinful heart.

To use the more scientific terms of necessary and sufficient, biology may be necessary for some homosexuality, but biology is not a sufficient cause in and of itself. Consider the following illustration. If I am going to wash my car, I will need a pail of water. A bucket of soapy water will be necessary. If I don’t have it, I won’t be able to wash the car. Of course, there are a number of other necessary conditions that must be in place if I am to wash my car, such as good weather, available time, and a dirty car. That is, none of them can irresisitibly force me to wash it. The sufficient condition for me to wash the car is that—in addition to all the necessary conditions—I have the intention or motivation to wash it. I must want to wash the car. In the case of homosexuality, the sufficient condition is the function of the heart, and that is something for which I am always responsible….

A biblical view acknowledges that there may be psychological and biological influences in the development of homosexuality. In fact, the Bible would warn us not to take lightly the vast number of possible influences. However, Scripture states adamantly that such influences are not what make us “unclean.” Instead, “from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality….All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean’ ” (Mark 7:21-23). This means that our sinful orientation has innumerable expressions in our lives. With some people it is greed or jealousy, with others it is sinful anger, and with others it can be expressed in homosexual desire. (pp. 169, 172-173)

So again, I am willing to concede that the term “sexual orientation” is fraught with difficulty, and I would personally avoid using it. But I also believe that Mohler is using the term to refer to what Welch describes in the above quote—a bent, inclination, or propensity that is inherent in the sin nature that is just one of many factors that lead to homosexual temptation.

[Bert Perry]

Greg, that’s a bait and switch. You asked whether I’d read the article, and when I noted I had and exactly what problems I had with it, you link me to….OK, how many hours is it going to take for me to figure out that he has indeed done his homework?

Which is my basic point, and Jim’s. The column does not “show his work.” And quite frankly, if Christians are going to engage on this, Biblically, we are going to have to go back to AP style and say what’s important first. If we are going to argue that Romans 1 argues for a sinful sexual orientation—and I would join in doing so—then we need to get good at saying, concisely, that Paul gives us a list of consequences of ignoring God, and that damaging sexual desires are among those consequences.

Is that so hard?

“When it comes to a same-sex attraction, the orientation is sinful because it is defined by an improper object — someone of the same sex. Of course, those of us whose sexual orientation is directed toward the opposite sex are also sinners, but the sexual orientation is not itself sinful.” Correctly said and theologically sound.