I wonder, have I stepped into a beehive? I have yet to get any flack but I wonder if it is coming. I posted an article on my Facebook page titled: “Let’s Be Honest, A Lot of Christians Are Guilty of Homophobia“.
The Associated Press quotes Mohler as saying that homosexuality isn’t something that people can “turn on and turn off.” Mohler went on to say that “only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.”
At the SBC Convention earlier this month Mohler was challenged to answer for his comments. His words of defense were:
“I made those statements. They are not alleged statements. I made them.”
According to reports, he then went on to outline how Southern Baptists had been homophobic and had misrepresented homosexuality. Mohler even called the Southern Baptists to repentance on the issue. However, he did all of this while maintaining that homosexuality is a sin that needs a Savior. One report… said that the convention responded with applause.
On my Facebook post I commented that what Mohler said is also true in my denomination, the PCA, and is true of many Evangelicals. Shoot, if I am honest with myself, it is probably true of me to some degree. But the suggestion that some responses to homosexuality are themselves sinful is not tantamount to condoning homosexuality or the Gay Rights Agenda.
I appreciate what the author of the article pondered:
What did Albert Mohler say that was so outrageous? Was it the part about Jesus being the only Savior from sin? Was it the claim that our sinful nature goes beyond a simple choice? Any orthodox Christian should affirm salvation from our sin through Jesus and that we can’t simply decide to turn off our sinful nature.
That’s the thing. What is wrong with what Mohler said? Is homosexuality merely a “choice”? No doubt it is a choice in many respects. One can choose to indulge the desire or choose not to indulge the desire, just as with many expressions of sin. It is this ability to choose that makes nonsense of the assertions that the Gay Agenda is somehow equivalent with the Civil Rights Movement of the Mid-Twentieth Century. Folk could not choose to be Black of not. Folks can choose sexual behavior.
However, what Mohler is pointing out is that sin is more than our behavior. However sin is expressed it is first a condition of the heart and mind. While choosing to not engage is preferable to hedonistic indulgence. it does not rid anyone of the condition or the consequential penalty. The wages of sin are death… Period. This is true even if we suppress every inclination.
What Mohler is pointing out is that homosexuality is far more complex than a “choice” to act out on its desires and physical attractions. He is reminding Christians that we need to recognize the true nature of sin – homosexuality and all types of sin. And he is challenging us to realize we need a radical remedy. Fortunatley we have one. Mohler also reminds us of the power of the Gospel.
So, will I get any flack for concurring and posting the article supporting Mohler and his views. Maybe a little. But probably only from a few. And hopefully not from anyone who actually takes the time to read the article.