Where are Southern Baptist leaders headed re: homosexuality?

[Mike Harding] 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.

The key difference is your first paragraph. Let me address it point by point.

[Mike Harding] 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.

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

HOWEVER, there may also be factors that ARE within a person’s control, and I have no doubt that many people do cultivate certain tendencies and desires in a sinful way. For example, a young man may think it’s “cool” to act somewhat effeminate and to make jokes about homosexual desires and may find himself more and more attracted along those lines.

[Mike Harding] Homosexuality is not a civil right protected in the US Constitution.

[Mike Harding] 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.

David, I am not suggesting that Mohler in anyway endorses homosexual behavior. I am saying that all sin is rooted in the sinful human nature as I carefully explained in the delineation of Total Depravity. I have already explained Rom 1:18-32 twice. If homosexuality was genetically dictated as opposed to post-birth factors and yielding to one’s sinful nature, we would expect identical twins (I have a pair) with the same DNA and in equal prenatal conditions to both be gay 100 percent of the time. The facts are that among adolescents in this category, only about 1 in 18 fit that criteria. Also, about half of the homosexual population in a non-therapeutic environment moves toward heterosexuality over a lifetime. Ex-gays actually outnumber current gays.

Greg, these are matters that I previously wrote about. No argument on post-birth factors. I completely conceded on that with Greg Long. I am in agreement that most of the factors listed by Hubbard are legitimate.

Clarification on the identical twins study. In cases where one adolescent twin is already gay, there is only about a 6 percent (1 in 18) likelihood that the identical twin will be gay. This mitigates against the genetic causality theory.

Mike,

I’ve heard arguments similar to yours before. You concede that “…all sin is rooted in the sinful human nature…” To be clear, I am not saying that there is a biological connection. I don’t know. All I am saying is if one could be found, I don’t think that changes anything you’ve said. If some people have some kind of biological factor that gives more of a propensity to certain kind of sins than others, all that proves is that human beings are in every way depraved. If someone is born a eunuch (Matthew 19:12), that doesn’t mean they won’t sin… but it does mean that they won’t likely struggle with the same kinds of sexual temptations that others would. I just don’t see how what Mohler concedes makes a difference doctrinally.
Does that make any sense?

[Mike Harding]

Clarification on the identical twins study. In cases where one adolescent twin is already gay, there is only about a 6 percent (1 in 18) likelihood that the identical twin will be gay. This mitigates against the genetic causality theory.

I’m in the process of reading Peter Hubbard’s book and wanted to hear input from others. So far I see it as must reading for all of us. Here’s the discussion:

http://sharperiron.org/article/book-review-love-light-gospel-homosexual-and-church#comment-74163

I have not read his book but I highly recommend the lectures he gave at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary for the William Rice lecture series.

http://dbts.edu/5-5.asp

After reading the latest comments, I go back to my earlier point. We are born in sin, and that could be even to our genes. If my genes are fallen, that doesn’t make me any less culpable for sin (or God any more culpable for how I turn out). All such genetic falleness would indicate is that I’m more fallen than just my soul. My body is also fallen. We get old, wrinkled and die. This is because the curse extends even to my genes.

Why is this important? Jesus Christ saves to the uttermost. In what other religion is it possible that God saves you and overcomes who you are so completely? A robust doctrine of total depravity is necessary to have complete joy in our salvation.

Greg and Greg, thanks for your interaction. I am going to close shop on this. I have said most of what I could say. I think our adversaries (not you or Dr. Mohler) on the homosexual issue will use genetic dictation or causality (which I don’t think can be proved theologically) to argue their case for special civil rights, same sex marriage, and anti-discrimination laws that will persecute Christians, churches, Christian ministries, Christian businesses. It may not make sense to us, but it makes sense to the LGBT activists that a genetic determination (“gay baby in the womb” as Mohler described it) exonerates them from moral culpability much like the genetic determination of a man’s skin color.

Shay, if you have time and the books, read McCune’s systematic theology on the doctrine of man, sin, and sanctification. That’s a robust theology. Also, read Bill Combs’ treatment of sanctification in the DBTS Journals. I think you will understand where I am coming from regarding gnosticism, the flesh, and the two natures of man.

http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/the_case_for_idolatry_why_evang…

The Case for Idolatry: Why Evangelical Christians Can Worship Idols

By Andrew Wilson | Wednesday 12 November 2014

(I really hope it’s obvious that this is a parody, but if not: it is.)

For as long as I can remember, I’ve wanted to worship idols. It’s not that my parents raised me that way, because they didn’t; I was brought up in a loving, secure, Christian home. But from childhood until today, my heart has been drawn to idolatry. In fact, if I’m honest, one of the defining features of my identity has been my desire to put something else – popularity, money, influence, sex, success – in place of God.

That’s just who I am.

For many years, I was taught that idolatry was sinful. As a good Christian, I fought the desire to commit idolatry, and repented when I got it wrong. But the desire to worship idols never went away.

I wanted it to, but it didn’t.

So it has been such a blessing to discover that worshipping one God, and him alone, isn’t for everyone. There are thousands of Christians out there who have found faithful, loving ways of expressing worship both to God and to idols, without compromising either their faith or their view of Scripture. In recent years, I have finally summoned the courage to admit that I am one of them. Let me give you a few reasons why I believe that idolatry and Christianity are compatible.