Evangelicals and the Gay Moral Revolution
In less than a single generation, homosexuality has gone from something almost universally understood to be sinful, to something now declared to be the moral equivalent of heterosexuality—and deserving of both legal protection and public encouragement. Theo Hobson, a British theologian, has argued that this is not just the waning of a taboo. Instead, it is a moral inversion that has left those holding the old morality now accused of nothing less than "moral deficiency."...
The fact that same-sex marriage is a now a legal reality in several states means that we must further stipulate that we are bound by scripture to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman—and nothing else.
We do so knowing that most Americans once shared the same moral assumptions, but that a new world is coming fast. We do not have to read the polls and surveys; all we need to do is to talk to our neighbors or listen to the cultural chatter.
In this most awkward cultural predicament, evangelicals must be excruciatingly clear that we do not speak about the sinfulness of homosexuality as if we have no sin. As a matter of fact, it is precisely because we have come to know ourselves as sinners and of our need for a savior that we have come to faith in Jesus Christ. Our greatest fear is not that homosexuality will be normalized and accepted, but that homosexuals will not come to know of their own need for Christ and the forgiveness of their sins.
This is not a concern that is easily expressed in sound bites. But it is what we truly believe.
It is now abundantly clear that evangelicals have failed in so many ways to meet this challenge. We have often spoken about homosexuality in ways that are crude and simplistic. We have failed to take account of how tenaciously sexuality comes to define us as human beings. We have failed to see the challenge of homosexuality as a Gospel issue. We are the ones, after all, who are supposed to know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only remedy for sin, starting with our own...
In less than a single generation, homosexuality has gone from something almost universally understood to be sinful, to something now declared to be the moral equivalent of heterosexuality—and deserving of both legal protection and public encouragement.
ReplyDeleteOne would think that asking and answering how such a radical shift came about in such a short time is of the utmost importance if one wants to turn the tide... or at least hold it off and prevent it from occurring in other areas too (e.g. abortion opinion).
He says: We have often spoken about homosexuality in ways that are crude and simplistic.
But at first glance I'm skeptical of this. What in particular does Mohler think is/has been simplistic or crude about our talk of homosexuality?
We have failed to take account of how tenaciously sexuality comes to define us as human beings. We have failed to see the challenge of homosexuality as a Gospel issue.
These two sentences are probably correct. If we hold to the beliefs that "homosexuality is wrong," we tend to do so without much conviction.
In my experience we have mostly lost the battle with the younger generation. They have been thoroughly schooled in liberal values and specifically in acceptance of homosexuality.
For instance, my nephew when he was in the first grade had a day at his public school that celebrated "differences." They took a field trip downtown where students of a local art school had done works celebrating various differences. They had your typical differences like race (black and white) and sex (male and female) but they also had one for sexual orientation with a gay couple holding hands.
And while my nephew has already started receiving pro-homosexual teaching from his public school, the church he attends has never attempted to teach him about what God says about our sexuality.
Any wonder that "In less than a single generation" we've lost that battle?
Mohler has been spending a considerable amount of time lately talking about sodomy.
ReplyDeleteMaybe because it's in the news due to the legalization of "gay marriage" in New York.
Maybe it's because of the rapid advance of the "gay agenda".
Whatever the case some of his comments on the topic have sort of left me scratching my head.
Maybe the T-blogue team is uniquely suited to analyze Mohler's stance on this topic from a philosophical/ethical point of view.
In a print article that was set forth as indicative of a shift in evangelical thought towards homosexuality Mohler was quoted as saying:
“We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophobia,” Mohler says. “We’ve used the ‘choice’ language when it is clear that homosexuality is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.”
He was subsequently questioned about this comment by Peter Lumpkins at the SBC, and while affirming the quote was his own, he seemed to qualify it a bit.
In the video he appeared to attempt to link his “lying” accusation to liberal churches who say homosexuality isn’t sin, but a valid lifestyle choice, but in my mind that doesn’t jive with the context of the original quote, not to mention that the original interview was titled and set forth as indicative of a “shift” in conservative evangelical thought towards homosexuality.
Later still Mohler offers up a piece at his blog examining the conundrum faced by the Church of England regarding "gay" clergy, where he states that the church is filled with people who struggle with same-sex attraction, but nevertheless serve the Lord faithfully, and draws a distinction between struggling with same-sex attraction and self-identifying as a homosexual.
But is this a distinction without a difference? Is a person homosexual who self-identifes as homosexual, but a person is not homosexual so long as they struggle with same-sex attraction, while not self-identifying as "homosexual"?
Is a person only a homosexual if they practice same-sex relations, or fail to struggle against same-sex attractions?
I find Mohler's stance to be rather confusing to the point of being convoluted, but since I'm not trained in philosophy or ethics maybe I'm simply failing to grasp the subtlety of his position.
Could the T-blogue team share any insights into this matter?
I wonder what sort of reaction would have occurred had Mohler been talking about a different type of sexual sin?
“We’ve lied about the nature of fornication and have practiced what can only be described as a form of fornico-phobia,” Mohler says. “We’ve used the ‘choice’ language when it is clear that fornication is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.”
“We’ve lied about the nature of incest and have practiced what can only be described as a form of incesto-phobia,” Mohler says. “We’ve used the ‘choice’ language when it is clear that incest is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.”
“We’ve lied about the nature of polygamy and have practiced what can only be described as a form of polygamo-phobia,” Mohler says. “We’ve used the ‘choice’ language when it is clear that polygamy is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.”
Again, maybe it's because this subject is the source of so much loud public debate and discussion that Mohler has taken up the gauntlet.
In Christ,
CD
Jonathan, I think Mohler's purpose in this article is really to begin to state the problem, as it is today, in a way that engages discussion, not necessarily to offer solutions.
ReplyDeleteIt is important that we have have this discussion. I try to keep in mind 1 Tim 3:14-15: "I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth" (ESV).
Our behavior in the household of God is what is "the pillar and buttress" of the Gospel. I think that's the most important thing to keep in mind.
The only thing Mohler has forgotten is that there Christians who have made a confession of faith but who identify themselves as gay and who do not agree with the conclusion that all homosexual relationships are categorically immoral.
ReplyDelete"But we are told to go and sin no more, not continue in sin!"
Yes, but again: not everyone has come to the same conclusion about constitutes sin in this modern world.
In the early church, many voices addressed the subjects of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, but their message, on the whole, was quite unified. Christian marriage, they said, is an indissoluble bond. Divorce, with the implicit right of remarriage, was not an option for Christian couples (though Origen admits some toleration existed), but permanent separation was. Remarriage after separation was considered punishable adultery or bigamy—sometimes more so for women than men. Even remarriage after the death of one's spouse was viewed by the church fathers and councils with suspicion, as "disguised adultery," in the words of Athenagoras.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/augustweb-only/46.0c.html
So what has changed? Will any denomination now bar people on their second marriage from becoming members of their congregation? Even the Catholic Church, with all its legalism, has constructed the annulment process to bypass these apparently unworkable and Draconian expectations set forth from Scripture.
The only thing Mohler has forgotten is that there Christians who have made a confession of faith but who identify themselves as gay and who do not agree with the conclusion that all homosexual relationships are categorically immoral.
ReplyDeleteHe specifically says in the article that "This is a route that evangelical Christians committed to the full authority of the Bible cannot take."
"We have failed to see the challenge of homosexuality as a Gospel issue."
ReplyDeleteI have not heard this before. I.e, that the challenge of homosexuality is a Gospel issue.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete