Where are Southern Baptist leaders headed re: homosexuality?

Read most of the original articles related to this. Alarming that Mohler would repent of previously not acknowledging the legitimacy of sexual orientation. The Bible does not attribute homosexual sin to a natural sate of birth. Quite the opposite. Several times Paul says they are forsaking the natural use of the man and woman–that this sin is against nature (Rom 1:18-32). Paul echoes the same truth in 1 Cor 11 “does not even nature itself teach you” regarding the differences between men and women. He reminds us that males being effeminate is sinful (1 Cor 6). Once you give in on orientation as a natural state equal to race, then the race card will be thrown, and you will be considered legitimate bigots. Mohler knows this.

It is not right to dialogue with gay Christian groups. Those who practice sexual sin and give approval of such will not inherit the KOG (Rom 1, Gal 5, 1 Cor 6). Our tone has to be Scriptural and Christ-like, I agree, particularly when witnessing to someone practicing sexual sin. Nevertheless, change of tone has led to change of position. How far will it go. Are we going to grant orientation to pedophiles, necrophiliacs, bestial behavior as well? How about orientation to murder? That was Cain’s problem. You can think murderous thoughts and hate your brother in your heart as long as you don’t actually kill somebody. I think Jesus talked about that. The disposition to sin is sin and we must agree, admit, ask forgiveness, and act to turn in our hearts and bodies from sin. I don’t think you will hear John MacArthur saying these kinds of things. Russell Moore scares me, and I wonder if he is influencing his previous mentor.

Could it be that there is a difference between “same-sex attraction” and “homosexuality”? The first being a temptation; the second, yielding to the temptation.

[Mike Harding]

Read most of the original articles related to this. Alarming that Mohler would repent of previously not acknowledging the legitimacy of sexual orientation. The Bible does not attribute homosexual sin to a natural sate of birth. Quite the opposite. Several times Paul says they are forsaking the natural use of the man and woman–that this sin is against nature (Rom 1:18-32). Paul echoes the same truth in 1 Cor 11 “does not even nature itself teach you” regarding the differences between men and women. He reminds us that males being effeminate is sinful (1 Cor 6). Once you give in on orientation as a natural state equal to race, then the race card will be thrown, and you will be considered legitimate bigots. Mohler knows this.

It is not right to dialogue with gay Christian groups. Those who practice sexual sin and give approval of such will not inherit the KOG (Rom 1, Gal 5, 1 Cor 6). Our tone has to be Scriptural and Christ-like, I agree, particularly when witnessing to someone practicing sexual sin. Nevertheless, change of tone has led to change of position. How far will it go. Are we going to grant orientation to pedophiles, necrophiliacs, bestial behavior as well? How about orientation to murder? That was Cain’s problem. You can think murderous thoughts and hate your brother in your heart as long as you don’t actually kill somebody. I think Jesus talked about that. The disposition to sin is sin and we must agree, admit, ask forgiveness, and act to turn in our hearts and bodies from sin. I don’t think you will hear John MacArthur saying these kinds of things. Russell Moore scares me, and I wonder if he is influencing his previous mentor.

[Ron Bean]

Could it be that there is a difference between “same-sex attraction” and “homosexuality”? The first being a temptation; the second, yielding to the temptation.

Sexual attraction is a gift of God (Genesis 1-2; Eph 5; 1 Cor 7:1-6). Unnatural sexual attraction is perversion (Lev 18-22). Nothing new here. It’s been going on for thousands of years. 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. Re-read his two presentations at Salt-Lake City. In his desire to avoid “red-neck theology” he has made a major concession. It appears that the only one doing any repenting at this conference is Al Mohler himself. Haven’t heard about any repentance from the pro-gay Christian groups who attended.

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

The article by Butts, quotes Vicari, who may have read more into what Mohler said than he actually said.

It appears the discussion was about the value of reparative therapy, so both Mohler and Moore’s comments may have had to do more with that issue than sexual orientation itself.

[Mike Harding] 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.

I was writing the above while you were posting this.

This sounds more like Mohler and seems to indicate that Vicari is not representing him correctly. The other option is that in the short span of 6 months he completely changed his view. I am not buying that!

Apparently, the word from the big conference Russell Moore oversaw last week is that the SBC is moderating on the whole LGBT issue. Here’s an article from last Friday in RNS.

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/31/southern-baptists-lgbt-activists…

Note the comments about Albert Mohler and how he is quoted: Even the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., the veteran culture warrior and president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., seemed to have a change in tune, if not an outright change of heart.
“Early in this controversy, I felt it quite necessary, in order to make clear the gospel, to deny anything like a sexual orientation,” Mohler told the crowd. “I repent of that.”

Matthew Vine’s tweet about Mohler is interesting, “Finally had the chance to meet w/ @albertmohler this morning. Appreciate his willingness to dialogue & continue the conversation.”

Here’s another commentary from RNS:

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/30/southern-baptists-change-tone-su…

This quotation from the article pretty much summarizes this opinion piece: “And while Southern Baptists seem to be moving past same-sex marriage as a culture war issue, they’re not moving past their opposition to homosexuality. Among the various speakers, there were certainly mixed messages.”

Yet the conference was remarkable for two notable shifts: a change in tone — call it a kinder, gentler opposition to homosexuality — and a pragmatic concession that the fight over gay marriage is largely lost.

[Mike Harding]

It is not right to dialogue with gay Christian groups…Our tone has to be Scriptural and Christ-like, I agree, particularly when witnessing to someone practicing sexual sin.

How do you reconcile these two sentences? How are we to witness without dialogue? Snubbing your nose at them and refusing to talk with them hardly seems to be what Christ did.

Ricky, there is a huge difference between witnessing to a person and entering into theological dialog with gay-Christian organizations.

We are born in sin. We are sinners deep down, and I think that means even to our genes. It is not inconsistent to say that some are born with proclivities to sin (whether genetic proclivities or environmentally created ones or a mix) AND to say we are responsible for those proclivities to God and are damned because we’re sinners justly and rightly.
In Romans 1, Paul does talk about what is unnatural, but I think that he’s making an argument from nature in that “the parts don’t fit.” He’s not making an argument about what fallen humans naturally do. He’s actually making the argument that fallen humanity falls into an ever deeper cycle of sin, and I don’t think it follows that there is no role to play in our genetic dispositions. What do you think about that Mike?

Pastor Harding, I don’t see a difference. Your opportunity to witness to one of them individually will be severely hindered if they see you refusing to enter into a theological dialogue with an organization of which they are apart. A theological discussion sounds like a great opportunity. It can be done effectively if approached in the right manner.

Ricky, in my understanding a gay-Christian organization is in apostasy; therefore, I couldn’t enter into theological dialog with it. However, I could individually witness to any person regardless of their circumstance, lifestyle, or beliefs. Theological dialog with apostate Christian organizations usually leads to compromise along the Hegelian paradigm: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. I think this conference points that out to some degree and future meetings will only increase it. Theoretically, you have a reasonable point. Practically, the conservatives seem to be the ones who do the repenting.

The problem I see with this is that Christians often get pumped up about debating an evolutionist. We praise the Lord that we are able to spread the Gospel in that type of environment. We are happy to have theological discussions with denominations or religions that believe differently than we do. However, when it comes to homosexuality our treatment of them (or lack of addressing them) tends to put us in the same category as the “preacher” in NC that wanted to throw them inside an electric fence and drop them some food every now and then. I know this is not what you intend but it is certainly the perception that is given to them when we refuse to even talk with them. To say that “It is not right to dialogue with gay Christian groups” is just taking it too far and is not backed by Scripture. Furthermore, the fact that someone else caved and compromised does not warrant a complete isolation or untouchable approach (think the caste system). It should mean the exact opposite….there is even more of a need now for them to hear the truth.

Shaynus,

Paul attributes human corruption to not honoring God and their foolish hearts being darkened (Rom 1:21). Therefore, God gave them over to their sinful desires to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another (v. 24). They exchanged the truth of God for a lie. Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts, exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones, inflamed with lust for one another, committing indecent acts (men with men; women with women) and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. It is because they did not retain the knowledge of God that God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done, and eventually approve of those who do the same things. The bodies are not the cause of the sin, but rather are the means of the sin and receive the consequences of the sin. The body itself is not inherently sinful and therefore can be presented to God (Rom 12:1-2).

Paul uses the term “exchange” to depict the tragic reversal in sexual practice as that which is “against nature”. As Moo argues, Paul is using the words “nature” and “natural” to describe the created order and the way things are by their intrinsic state at birth. Jewish authors often used “nature” or “natural law” as a divine mandate applicable to all people. Violating natural law was a clear transgression of God’s will. Heterosexual desires observed normally in nature are traced back to God’s created order. Paul is appealing to the created order applicable to all people. Paul associates homosexuality with the perversion of the true knowledge of God. Sexual perversion may indeed be God’s punishment in and of itself. Paul describes their desire as “they burned in their desire, men with men, doing that which is shameful and receiving in themselves the just penalty.” God could not allow his created order to be so violated without there being a just punishment. Sexual immorality, particularly that which defies nature, natural law, and the created order, has its roots in the rejection of the true God in favor of gods of their own making.

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.