Mohler on Sexual Orientation

[paynen]

I don’t think anyone would say that we choose our sin nature.

[paynen]

Or that we choose which issues of total depravity has most effected us as individuals. We don’t choose what sins we struggle with.

18 suppress

20 have been clearly perceived
21 did not honor or give thanks
22 Claiming
23 exchanged
25 exchanged and worshiped and served
26 exchanged
27 gave up/ committing
28 did not see fit to acknowledge
32 know/ do/ give approval

[paynen]

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.

I’m not sure you understand what sin nature is. Sin nature is corrupted it is not something that is chosen it is in its originality a consequence of sin in the case of Adam, and since then is the driving force of sin. We sin because we choose to obey our sinful nature… but our sinful nature is not something we choose to have. You don’t choose to have any specific temptation you can just choose to give into it or cling to the hope that is in Christ. One doesn’t choose to struggle with homosexuality. They just choose to give into it. Basically what you said is that each of us have the ability to choose our sin nature. That is almost pelagian in its process. We inherit our sin nature biologically from Adam. There is no point in time for us to choose it. Our choice is to whom we obey… our sin nature or our new nature in Christ.
There is evidence that our sinful desires are related to both biology and circumstances. You are entirely missing the point, because your last sentence is true “We all face influences, and we are solely responsible for our responses to those influences in our lives because we make choices about which ones to harbor and pursue and inculcate into our lives.” Were your wrong is that people tend to struggle differently with different things. What is a struggle with one person is not even an issue with another. This is obvious evidence in Science. We are not all the same starting out.. We are all different not cookie cutter splices of the same man. We have different personalities different ways in which we learn and understand things. Some of us are outgoing, some of us are not. This is due to a mixture of our biology and our upbringing. Its unavoidable. Any person who argues against this would have to basically say that we should all be exactly the same… but we are not… And logically if we are different people with different minds, temptations and struggles are the same way. Just the fact that you said “we make choices about which ones we harbor and pursue and inculcate into our lives” proves the point. Why would we choose to harbor and “choose” to struggle with different sins… if we were not in fact different people with tendencies towards different struggles.
You can also easily say that all sinful desires are based off of God given desires… You may not be able to connect each individual one yourself. But to deny that sinful desire have come about do to the corruption of the natural way God gave us to experience emotion and pleasure is a basic denial of total depravity and instead stating that sin created something new inside of us instead of corrupting what was already there.

Maybe I am being overly simplistic in my approach, and certainly I am learning about the subject, but I am going to put my thoughts in writing. Perhaps they could be of benefit to some.

I think there are 3 categories of homosexuals.

First, there are those that in a sense both chose their desires and also their behavior. This is a real category and some statements some folks have said here imply it doesn’t exist. But I am 100% confident this one does, based on both Romans 1 and personal experience. See there is something called sexual addiction. It is a terrible sin. I know because I was addicted to pornography over 10 yrs ago. It destroys your soul, rearranges your sexual thoughts, and always craves for more and more. The fantasy ends up twisting nature. There is no telling where a sexually addicted person will end up. Some men seem normal, but their mind, when they look at a woman, is always in the gutter. Women are purely objects. I was there. Others will surely end up in prostitution (that is an obvious “upgrade”). The seek of the thrill will always be there, looking for more ways, even unnatural ways. Hence there are porno movies with plenty of homosexualism/lesbianism, and there are, underground, those movies with bestiality. Only the grace of God makes sure not everyone ends up in the worst state possible. But some, like Ted Bundy, do. God literally turns them over.

Anyone who has experience sexual addiction, and who is now a believer free by God’s grace from that sin, should have no problems acknowledging that they experienced the “turning over” of Romans 1 in some sense — even if in a small sense. One sin led to another.

As far as I know the artist Madonna belongs to this category. I don’t think she started out either lesbian or bysexual (not sure which one she ended up). But it seems to me hers was a choice, both the doing and the desire. Not in the sense that she woke up one day and said “I am going to start desiring women”, but in the sense that her previous actions, willfully chosen, led to her waking up one day and actually sexually desiring women.

I think it is wrong to use the term “sexual orientation” for that first category. But the term could refer to the next two categories.

The second category is what I would call “society” being turned over to sin. God doesn’t just treat us as individuals, but as a community. And sometimes he punishes the whole community. There are those men that were raped as children by other men. And, from what I heard, they end up with the unnatural desire towards other men. Also apparently the lack of one of the parents in a household can influence some, so that apparently they seek a father figure in other men. Their sinful desires are influenced by external circumstances. In some respects they don’t feel they individually chose those desires. But of course, they can always choose to act those desires or not.

Please note that this second category would, in other circumstances unrelated to political correctness, be classified as something of a trauma. And psychologists would be willing to do therapy on those people. Which is partly why I am bothered by Moore and Mohler statements against therapy (perhaps they are against a particular type of therapy and not all therapy?). It is not so much that I am so in favor of psychology (I am not), but rather that I would not be surprised if either Moore or Mohler would be in favor of psychological therapy for other psychological traumas. Why not this one?

Then there is a third category, those that are biologically influenced (but not determined). It is my understanding that there are people who are born hermaphrodites. If so, it is not hard to conceive of people born with, say, hormonal deficiencies. And of course, that can have an impact on one’s desires, so that one didn’t quite “choose” to feel a certain way (although one does choose what to do with those desires).

It seems to me the minority of homosexuals fall into this category. The perversion going on in homosexual marches tells me those folks in the marches are sexually addicted — regardless of any other potential influences. Perhaps the “quiet” homosexuals belong to this category.

I would classify this third category as an abnormality or a disease. It seems to me that in every other context not corrupted by political correctness, that’s exactly how it would be classified.

I don’t have a problem with the concept of a disease that can influence one to more sin (but again, it is not determinative or coercive). All diseases are ultimately a result of sin (our parent Adam’s sin) — they are all a result of the Fall. They are all the punishment of God in an ultimate sense (part of the curse). And if a disease (a punishment) aids us into more sin — well that’s what Romans 1 says God would do as part of his punishment, turn us over to more sin, doesn’t it? True, it doesn’t fit the Romans 1 pattern as neatly as those sexually addicted, but I still see this category as a compatible with a biblical understanding.

I’m still somewhat baffled by the backlash against therapy from Christians. What’s wrong with treatment for an abnormality or a disease? What if there is hormonal treatment? Are we against that? Are Moore and Mohler against medicines for depression? Perhaps I am misunderstanding Moore and Mohler in their disapproval of therapy. Perhaps they are disapproving of some wicked, pornography-laden therapy. If so, good for them. But if they want to say that homosexuals can end up having sexual desires they don’t choose, then, IMHO, I think it would be wise to call those categories diseases, traumas, and the like, and to be willing to allow for the possibility that some sort of medical or psychological therapy could help (not for the first category, but for the last two that Moore and Mohler call by “sexual orientation”).

If we say that people can have unnatural sexual desires that they did not choose, but we are not willing to call the immediate causes leading to those unnatural desires a disease, abnormality, trauma, or the like, then it seems to me we are contradicting ourselves. We are in essence saying that their desires are not so unnatural after all.

[Mike Harding]

“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.

“Actually, the Bible speaks rather directly to the sinfulness of the homosexual orientation — defined as a pattern of sexual attraction to a person of the same sex. In Romans 1:24-27, Paul writes of “the lusts of their hearts to impurity,” of “dishonorable passions,” of women who “exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,” and of men who “gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.” A close look at this passage reveals that Paul identifies the sinful sexual passion as a major concern — not just the behavior.” Again, well said.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

paynen wrote:

I don’t think anyone would say that we choose our sin nature.

Actually, we humans did. Adam and Eve were created innocent and chose to rebel corrupting themselves before God.

paynen wrote:

Or that we choose which issues of total depravity has most effected us as individuals. We don’t choose what sins we struggle with.

Actually, we do. We decide which counsel of the wicked to walk in, which way of sinners to stand in, and which seat of scoffers to sit in to paraphrase Psalm 1:1. This is the whole premise behind personal responsibility. We are born sinners who willfully rebel against God. Go back and look again at the verbs listed in the Romans 1 description. They are active, not passive, as they describe the actions of men. These are all activities that sinners chose to do, not circumstances that happened to bring them to the point of condemnation. The passive verbs describe God’s response.

18 suppress

20 have been clearly perceived
21 did not honor or give thanks
22 Claiming
23 exchanged
25 exchanged and worshiped and served
26 exchanged
27 gave up/ committing
28 did not see fit to acknowledge
32 know/ do/ give approval

paynen wrote:

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.

I’m not sure that you can directly relate all sinful desires to legitimate desires, but the point is irrelevant. What is relevant is that A) there is no evidence in scripture or science that our sinful desires are related to biology in any way, and B) personal circumstances are influences, but they are not determinative. We all face influences, and we are solely responsible for our responses to those influences in our lives because we make choices about which ones to harbor and pursue and inculcate into our lives.

You ask [I’m of course abbreviating this dialogue]: “When did these temptations begin?”

The response: “I know exactly why I have them. When I was six-years-old, I was sexually abused by a stepbrother. I remember it vividly. When I reached puberty I realized to my own horror that I was attracted to boys, not girls. Of course I hid this from everyone up until very recently. Yes, I have given in to these temptations many times and have even done things to feed them. But I know that God condemns homosexuality in his Word and I want to fight these temptations.”

Based on what you have written here, I would think part of your response might be: “First of all, it is a choice to be tempted by homosexuality. You chose those desires when you reached puberty. It is sin even to be tempted in that way. So you need to make the choice to stop being tempted in that way to begin with…”

Please correct me if I misunderstand the practical outworkings of your position.

Would it be helpful to clarify what is being referred to here? James 1:13-15 indicates that temptation is internal and comes from our desires. We are tempted by something that we desire. The fact that a desire entices us does not have to be sin. We must “abort” the desire before the sin is conceived in our minds, and then by our bodies. We do have control of what are our greatest desires. We have the ability to make a choice to delay and deny our desires, whatever they may be, so our desires may live within the boundaries that God has declared for them.

Yes, Steve, that is exactly what I have been saying on related threads. You run into some very serious theological errors (Jesus must have sinned) and pastoral problems if you do not clearly separate temptation and sin.

Greg,

Why don’t you don’t take that up with Dr. Mohler? I already made my case.

I’m sorry, Mike, I don’t know what you’re responding to.

Greg, Is the desire for food inherently sinful? No. Can the desire for food lead to sin? Yes. Is heterosexual desire inherently sinful? No, it is the gift of God for the procreation of the human race and marital oneness. Can heterosexual desire be set upon the wrong object? Yes, someone other than one’s wife or husband. Is homosexual desire inherently sinful? Is the desire for sex with animals, children, dead bodies inherently sinful? I would argue yes. It is the corruption of the created order. That is what I cited from Mohler.

And yet, somehow Mohler is able to reconcile the statements you quoted with his belief in the possibility of innate proclivities towards SSA due to the corruption of the sin nature.

Greg, you are correct on that. On innate proclivities I had the opportunity last week to discuss that very issue with several profs from DBTS. One said that it was basically irrelevant; another acknowledged that there was some homosexual behavior in the animal world, but didn’t necessarily think it was a carry over into the human world based on the imagio dei. Study the amorous behavior of dogs and you will understand what I mean. Perhaps there are human hormonal imbalances in some cases and certainly there are genuine birth defects in regard to gender (about 1 in 2000 births), but the genetic dictation (gay gene)/biological causation theory I do not hold to for reasons I have previously explained. I thought these two recent posts by Dr. Mohler were very good. Post-birth factors and the sin nature appear to be the most influential forces in regard to homosexual behavior.

Thanks Mike. I have appreciated the interaction and your perspective has sharpened my thinking.

Likewise, I learned from you and have incorporated some of your wording into our statement on Marriage and Sexual ethics.