Posted on 06/18/2011 12:15:44 AM PDT by balch3
PHOENIX (ABP) – The president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said June 15 that Southern Baptists need to repent of a “form of homophobia” that keeps gays and lesbians out of their churches.
Albert Mohler responded during his report to the Southern Baptist Convention to a question from Peter Lumpkins, a Southern Baptist blogger, about whether comments attributed to him in a March 24 Christian Science Monitor article were accurate.
Writer Jonathan Merritt, a Southern Baptist minister and well-known social critic, quoted Mohler as saying “We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophobia,” and “We’ve used the choice language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.”
Mohler said at the convention “there is no way anyone in fair mindedness can be confused about what I believe about homosexuality,” because he has written more than 200 articles about it, but that “the reality is that we as Christian churches have not done well on this issue.”
“Evangelicals, thankfully, have failed to take the liberal trajectory of lying about homosexuality and its sinfulness,” Mohler said. “We know that the Bible clearly declares – not only in isolated verses but in the totality of its comprehensive presentation – the fact that homosexuality not only is not God’s best for us, as some try to say, but it is sin.”
“But we as evangelicals have a very sad history in dealing with this issue,” he continued. “We have told not the truth, but we have told about half the truth. We’ve told the biblical truth, and that’s important, but we haven’t applied it in the biblical way.”
“We have said to people that homosexuality is just a choice,” Mohler said. “It’s clear that it’s more than a choice. That doesn’t mean it’s any less sinful, but it does mean it’s not something people can just turn on and turn off. We are not a gospel people unless we understand that only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.”
Mohler said churches have not done their job until “there are those who have been trapped in that sin sitting among us.”
Lumpkin said in is blog June 16 that Mohler’s answer was not what he expected to hear and something “I’ll be digesting a long time.”
Mohler has appeared on television programs and been quoted in mainstream media many times over the years in opposition to gay marriage, ordination of gay clergy and other aspects of what he has called attempts to “normalize” homosexual behavior.
As recently as May Mohler described a decision by the Presbyterian Church (USA) Presbytery of the Twin Cities in Minnesota to ordain persons without regard to sexual orientation as “yet another tragedy in the sad history of mainline Protestantism’s race toward total theological disaster.”
In June Mohler objected to use of the term “clobber scriptures” to describe Bible verses that label
That's all well and good but isn't the sinner told to stop the sinning and repent his/her sins and go forth and sin no more?! If the sinners were to do that then I believe they would be accepted and welcome. After all, practicing homosexuality is a sin isn't it?!
Very well and simply put.
After all, the church is for the repentant sinner, which is what all saints are. It is not for the unrepentant sinner.....the world is their church.
With statements like this, I might as well stay a methodist.
When you adopt the language of the sodomites as legitimate, they’re half way to having you.
To a certain extent he’s correct. The temptation to engage in homosexuality is not purely a matter of choice. Temptation can be managed and even redirected in Christian ways, but that usually takes faith, time, and discipline. In other words, I can’t entirely control it if I’m attracted to a pretty woman who is not my wife.
Fortunately, temptation is not sin. What is a matter of choice is how I react to the temptation. If I choose to act on it or even wish I could act on it, that’s sinning. Sometimes I wish I could turn off temptation—it’s annoying—but I know God will not allow me to be tempted beyond what I can resist. He’s promised that.
As for bringing homosexuals into the church, I see nothing wrong with it so long as they’re repentant. However, I believe homosexuality is a disorder so pernicious I would be very, very hesitant to put even repentant homosexuals in leadership positions. That’s not incompatible with scripture, because scriptural says only the best of the best should be given such leadership roles in the church.
The churches I know are open to repentant homosexuals, just like they’re open to any other repentant sinner, aka Christian.
And why would we, when our massive out-of-control building programs demand sources of steady income?
The Church no longer proclaims, it panders.
Well, if you were the apostate Broadway Baptist Church in Ft. Worth, you would consider church directory pictures including homosexual couples. Barring that, you wouldn't let any married couples be pictured together in the directory, so as "not to offend."
This is where they're heading. Broadway Baptist was expelled from the SBC a couple of years ago for their affirming of homosexuality. Now? I'm not so sure this would happen, if Mohler had a say.
Really? For say this?
We are not a gospel people unless we understand that only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.
Am I missing something? What, exactly, is the Baptist preacher suppose to say? And what did Jesus normally say to those who begged him to heal them of their sin.?
There is a great video on YouTube of Sy Rogers (former transsexual turned Christian minister) interviewing a married couple who evangelize IN homosexual bars. Now this is the kind of bold evangelism that honors Christ; taking it to the enemy on his turf.
At the SBC convention in Phoenix, a non-binding resolution was passed. The Convention only had 44,000 delegates, compared (I think) to about 70,000 at most conventions. It was the smallest since World War 2.
A resolution was introduced making political statements about illegal immigration. I object to any resolution that focuses on politics rather than morality, but oh well...
Most of the delegates were not there at the time - only 1,500 were present to approve/disapprove. Most were not aware of the text in advance. My pastor was there, had read the text and objected to to statement:
“That we ask our governing authorities to implement, with the borders secured, a just and compassionate path to legal status, with appropriate restitutionary measures, for those undocumented immigrants already living in our country;”
which followed:
“That we ask our governing authorities to prioritize efforts to secure the borders and to hold businesses accountable for hiring practices as they relate to immigration status”.
Both were political statements, but anyways...after the debate that followed, my pastor’s amendment striking the first quote was defeated 766-723 (51.3 percent to 48.4 percent). So by a 43 vote margin, 1,489 people out of 44,000 delegates voted to approve the language of the first statement.
They then approved of an amendment that added:
“RESOLVED, That this resolution is not to be construed as support for amnesty for any undocumented immigrant”.
Frankly, they were still wrong. A person who attended emailed me saying:
“I was disappointed how important resolves were presented to us with the assumption everyone had read them in advance, which we hadn’t (at least many of us). An affirmative action-type Executive committee resolve slipped through on Tuesday with little discussion. I had no time to respond....I was sickened that we were being asked to go on record in favor of legalizing everyone in this country illegally!”
There is plenty wrong with the non-binding resolution in many ways, but it isn’t quite the same as “Southern Baptists support amnesty for illegals”. Not when only 1,500 delegates out of 44,000 were even present (with a 43 vote margin of victory), and not when many of those present to vote didn’t see the resolution in advance.
I would call it a case of the Resolution Committee ‘cheating’ to get passage of something a committee member wanted without letting it be reviewed by very many people.
The final resolution (non-binding on any Baptist or member congregation) reads:
“ON IMMIGRATION AND THE GOSPEL
June 2011
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011, call on our churches to be the presence of Christ, in both proclamation and ministry, to all persons, regardless of country of origin or immigration status; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we declare that any form of nativism, mistreatment, or exploitation is inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we deplore any bigotry or harassment against any persons, regardless of their country of origin or legal status; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we ask our governing authorities to prioritize efforts to secure the borders and to hold businesses accountable for hiring practices as they relate to immigration status; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we ask our governing authorities to implement, with the borders secured, a just and compassionate path to legal status, with appropriate restitutionary measures, for those undocumented immigrants already living in our country; and be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution is not to be construed as support for amnesty for any undocumented immigrant; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we pray for our churches to demonstrate the reconciliation of the Kingdom both in the verbal witness of our gospel and in the visible makeup of our congregations; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we affirm that while Southern Baptists, like other Americans, might disagree on how to achieve just and humane public policy objectives related to immigration, we agree that, when it comes to the gospel of Jesus Christ and to His church, the message, in every language and to every person, is “Whosoever will may come.””
The utter failure is in his following "but...."
Adam and Eve's first sin was the standard by which we all fell. And it was just the eating of fruit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.