What I Told Al Mohler
I like Al. Like what he’s doing at Southern Seminary, like what he has to say most of the time, like his manner and style. I even liked the piece that he wrote that prompted my letter, but didn’t like one of the points he made. Folks, we are giving away the farm when we “fight the culture wars” on the other team’s home field all the time. Here’s the letter:
Dr. Mohler,
I so much admire all that you are doing; as an E Free pastor, I’m in line with so much of what you’re doing there in Louisville. I have a question, though, regarding your recent article on babies being “born gay”, and it’s this: why do you insist on using the very term “sexual orientation”? My thesis is that this term, though popular, is Scripturally-dubious and plays unwittingly into the hands of the homosexual movement (the likely inventors of it, or their sympathizers); if we use that term, we are “ceding the playing field” to the “gay-rights” folks. My reasoning, briefly:
Homosexual behavior (tho not attraction) is sinful. Theft (though not “attraction” to theft) is sinful. If I desire to steal, do I have a “theft orientation”? Certainly not, I’m sure that you’d agree, so why use “orientation” as a term for what we ought to describe, biblically, as a “temptation” or perhaps “attraction”? The justifying homosexual says, “I must act this way because this is who I am”, whereas the Christian says, “no, you are a homosexual because of what you do, not because of what you are tempted to do.” Yes, I understand Christ’s Sermon on the Mount teachings by which those of us who have lusted are adulterers, and who’ve hated are murderers, but that’s not the way we understand terms such as “murderer” or “thief” in contemporary parlance (which is what I’m referring to here); I’m not a murderer until I murder, nor a thief until I steal, and I don’t have an “orientation” to either (and no, again I am not referring to “original sin”, of course, but to our contemporary discourse). Why do we separate out our sexuality and call our temptations an orientation?
I’d encourage you to re-think your choice of terminology on this issue. Again, thank you for your faithfulness.
Unique visitors to post: 0
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
8 Responses to “What I Told Al Mohler”
Way to go, Mr. Smarty-pants, keeping the biblical scholars of our day in check. Way to hold his feet to the fire. So…what did he say?
Don ~ Mar 15, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Haven’t heard anything back yet; I’ll keep you posted. But instead of calling me Mr. Smarty-pants, do you agree with my thesis or not, Mr….Bumbly-fetchit?
Byron ~ Mar 16, 2007 at 8:46 am
Mr. Bumbly-fetchit? …I have no response to that. I don’t even know what it means…
What I think is that those who are follicly challenged shouldn’t split hairs.
Seriously, I think it’s much ado about nothing, and I’m guessing Big Al thinks the same, which is why you haven’t heard back from him.
…and you probably never will, and that’ my whole point.
Don ~ Mar 17, 2007 at 9:04 am
Actually, I didn’t expect to hear back from Big Al personally myself, but he did respond; here’s the link:
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/7127.article
Point 4 deals with my concern, though it includes some things that are not my concern; I do believe that there is a such thing as a “homosexual”; I don’t get the argument, and agree with Al. But here would be my follow-up question: “Al, you wouldn’t have a problem, then, speaking of a person having a ‘gossip orientation’, or a ‘lust orientation’, or a ‘fear orientation’, or a ‘presumption orientation’, then, right? And if not, WHY NOT?”
Byron ~ Mar 17, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Three things…
One, your question presupposes that homosexuality is just the same as any other sin. If Dr. Mohler had written an article on say the sin of gossip, or lust, or fear, or presumption I hardly think it would have ignited quite the fire storm as his article on homosexuality. One might make the case that in God’s eyes homosexuality is no different than other sins, but in man’s eyes clearly it is.
Second, I think Dr. Mohler provides a pretty clear explanation as to why he used this term: “There are other terms to use here, ranging from ‘sexual attraction pattern’ to ‘sexual arousal profile,’ but sexual orientation seems a bit less explicit and is generally understood within the culture.†You may disagree philosophically, but I do think this term describes the power that homosexuality holds over the individual, and like it or not, it is a generally accepted term in popular culture that most people recognize.
Third, you’ve completely missed the point. “…if a biological marker (real or not) is ever claimed to mark homosexuality in prenatal testing, widespread abortion of such babies might well follow.†To me that’s pretty sobering. I would think that this stark possibility would be of far greater concern than quibbling over semantics.
Don ~ Mar 18, 2007 at 6:43 am
Responses:
1. Going to the last point, if I thought this were about mere semantics, I’d not have posted in the first place. Apparently Dr. Mohler does; if so, I think he is wrong. I missed no point at all; I agree with him on what he says, but that’s not the point I was making. To say I “missed the point” because I didn’t address his point is erroneous; I’m concerned about his, but in making mine hope to make a different contribution to the debate.
2. Yes, it is a “generally accepted term”; does that mean that we always accept the terms that the “other side” in the culture war chooses to use? Do you call yourself “anti-abortion”? I don’t; I’m pro-life, though the MSM continually calls us “anti-abortion”. No, that’s not acceptable; I will not wear that label, because that lumps me with nutcases who bomb clinics, whereas none of those murderers can ever claim the title “pro-life”. Words mean things. I refuse to cede this issue to the homosexual lobby.
Further, on both points 1 & 2, I think you have subtly come to accept as a given something that is straight out of the homosexual lobby playbook, and that is that the temptation to homosexual behavior holds some “power” unlike other temptations. I think that’s rubbish, unsupported empirically, and an idea pushed by folks with an agenda. I assume, rather, that homosexuals are in this respect like heteros: there are varying degrees of libido, from flaming to mild. I also assume that there are people who are mildly tempted to fear, or lust, or gossip, while there are others who seem to be unable to escape these temptations. What is it about homosexual temptation that causes us to think it is so strong, UNLESS IT IS A CONCERTED EFFORT BY A STRONG LOBBY TO MAKE SEXUALITY THE BE-ALL/END-ALL CHARACTERISTIC OF INDIVIDUALS? When I identify myself, “heterosexual” comes well down the list (no wise cracks on that one, please..). I don’t buy that homosexual temptation is such a strong one in comparison with, say, pornography or fear. And I think that perhaps it is the very acceptance of this bogus term, “homosexual orientation”, that might cause us to think that it is.
3. I had no idea that any such “fire storm” was brewing over the article when I wrote my remarks to Dr. Mohler. I wrote to Tony Campolo several years ago over this very same issue, and there wasn’t any fire storm (that I know of) over whatever it was he wrote that prompted me to write. I can, incidentally, make a case on BOTH sides of the equation as to whether or not homosexuality is “just like any other sin.” All sin is equally sin; I don’t believe that all sin is equally sinFUL. Lust is 100% sin, as is adultery; adultery, though, begins with lust but goes beyond, compounding the sin, if you will. Any sex outside of marriage is sinful (and I think you’d agree that we’d help our cause by talking more about the RIGHTness of marital sex, and the WRONGness of heterosexual fornication/adultery). Homosexuality, though, takes it a step further; it is not only fornication, but it twists God’s design for sex in the first place; I think you can make this case from Romans 1, in part.
Wow, that’s windy, but maybe it explains a few things.
Byron ~ Mar 19, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I think Al Mohler is accurately reflecting Christian tradition, Bryon I think you are negating the tradition on this issue so as not concede a debate point. Christianity has always realized there are some sins which very large numbers of people are drawn to: lust, envy, pride. There are others that only a minority of people are even attracted to: pyromania, necrophilia and kleptomania being good examples. Let’s take kleptomania: almost all people are tempted by material possessions. Many would steal if they felt they could get away with it and almost all have thoughts about acquiring wealth dishonestly. Almost no one is tempted to steal mostly worthless things so frequently that discovery is almost a certainty. Theft is a temptation, kleptomania is a orientation.
Similarly with pyromania. Most people enjoy watching a fire in a fireplace and find it relaxing. Many people like barbecuing or making fires. A person who finds himself becoming increasingly obsessed with thoughts of fire, who then finds they have trouble achieving sexual release without thinking about fire, and moreover finds that the fires he needs to create have to become increasingly destructive to achieve relaxation and release; has an unusual temptation, an orientation.
Christianity has always held there is a distinction between certain sex acts that occur in the absence of woman: prison, boarding schools, military campaigns and those people who find heterosexual sex repulsive. There is nothing wrong with considering the 2nd type of person to have an orientation.
The modern position is not different from the classical in arguing that such an orientation exists. Rather it argues two things:
1) That the orientation is not in general susceptible to being cultivated or diminished.
2) That in particular it was not cultivated in early life through a taste for perversion. Rather that people are born with this orientation.
If you want to defend the scriptural position you need to argue against 1 & 2 (though IMHO I think the evidence is pretty firmly entrenched against either one) not against the existence of an orientation.
CD-HOST ~ Mar 26, 2007 at 8:51 am
CD,
Thanks for your remarks; I appreciate your taking the time to voice them. I’m not totally sure of some of the things you’re driving at, but let me try to respond. First, do understand that my beef is only with the terminology that Mohler chose to use, arguing that words mean things, and that we harm our argument when we allow those with an agenda opposed to ours freedom to set the terms of the debate, particularly when there is Scriptural terminology (as there is in this case) which is clear and helps our case. As I said earlier, to use a “for instance”, I’m not anti-abortion, although the MSM continues to use this term to describe folks like me; I refuse the label. I’m pro-life. Why? Because the Eric Rudolphs, the abortion-clinic bombers, can be said to be the former, but not the latter.
Second, the term sexual orientation is a dubious term. Here’s what Wikipedia (not noted as a conservative outfit) says: The idea that an individual might have a discreet sexual orientation is a relatively recent concept that emerges as part of the personal taxonomy projects of the 19th century. During this period a number of different classification schemes were used to describe human sexuality. Indeed, several studies have found that much of the research about sexual orientation has failed to define the term at all, making it difficult to reconcile the results of different studies. The very term itself, in other words, is ill-defined, and that is reason enough to not use it.
Third, again remembering that my beef is with the term itself, it’s hard to see how Mohler is in keeping with Christian tradition by using it. Twenty years ago, the term was not in common usage by anybody; how does this fit with “Christian tradition”?
Fourth, the term “orientation”, when referring to sexuality, is not restricted to homosexuality, but is used commonly to refer to heterosexuality as well (and there are those who would expand the list of “orientations” by adding certain other bizarre ones). As used in common parlance, the term “orientation” does not refer to folks who have some unusual proclivity (a la your prison sex and pyromania illustrations), but rather is used to describe everyone. I would be said to have a “heterosexual orientation”; all God’s children got an orientation, if we accept the common parlance (which I don’t).
As to your two points at the end, I do not concede either. I believe that there are a number of factors that contribute to a person’s sexual choices/desires, that while some are likely innate, others are directly linked to environmental factors.
Summed up, “sexual orientation” is the language of moral equivalence. It is used by many with a particular agenda in order to excuse what is Biblically sinful, namely homosexual behavior. I do not disagree with the idea that temptations to homosexuality might exist from birth; I don’t know why I am tempted to certain things, and not to certain others, and maybe I was born more susceptible to, say, gluttony than to homosexuality. But I do not couch my continual desire to overeat in language other than what it is: temptation. This is all I’m asking in this debate: for Christians to speak with clarity, to speak Biblically, and to speak using terminology that does not needlessly play into the hands of those who would normalize any illicit sexual expression outside marriage.
Byron ~ Mar 26, 2007 at 4:55 pm