I agree that the evangelical I agree that the evangelical church, especially the leaders, should be doing more to counter the nuance-less and inflammatory rhetoric of people like Mohler. It’s frustrating to see his words showing up everywhere when I find them so troublesome. Simultaneously, though, it’s just a fact that media outlets (ie HuffPost) will instantly post any story about a Pastor making disgustingly homophobic comments (even if the church is small and fringe) but will almost certainly overlook a sermon wrestling with the texts and encouraging the church to greater love and grace. Thus, the silence isn’t necessarily due to the complete absence of evangelical voices, though I think we fail to have sufficient volume and repetition due to our general failure to really understand the magnitude of both LGBTQ suffering (historically and presently) and the ugliness of our public perception. Nor do I think we realize how much our silence (and culpability) in regards to the former is a primary cause of the latter.
Many within the conservative evangelical church (myself included) cringe at the language of “homosexuality is a sin” because the way Mohler uses that word “homosexuality” is so broad and unspecific that it can only cause horrible problems. Does he mean attractions to the same-sex are sinful? Just same-sex sex? Would going to a wedding of a same-sex couple be sinful because one is supporting “homosexuality”?
My problem with Mohler is not just that he says a lot of ignorant things, it’s that he’s been saying them for so long and hasn’t changed his language even though I’m positive he doesn’t want it to come across as it does.
I wonder if we’ve moved past the point where the conservative evangelical ethic (which I guess means different things within that demographic) can ever be seen as “good news” even if it is divorced from the homophobia and stigma that plague it.
I’m not sure how you define I’m not sure how you define “silence.” The blogosphere is full of evangelicals espousing a queer-friendly view of scripture. Rachel held Evans and Dianna Andreson are good places to start.
I can tell you that Mohler’s column didn’t receive much attention because it got lost in the online news cycle. LIberal evangelicals have spent the bulk of the past week or so discussing and debating purity culture and its underlying misogyny, and that pushed other issues aside, especially since the boy scout issue had already been discussed last month.
Mohler says offensive things on a regular basis, and after a while what seems new and shocking to you becomes white noise to us. But if you search online you’ll find a lot of liberal evangelicals discussing and defending homosexuality on theological grounds.
Sarah Caldwell
The majority of arguments on The majority of arguments on both sides are bogus Neither side uses their best Christian argument. Instead they pluck emotional strings that the New Testament specifically renders illegitimate in Christian dialogue.
The professional anti-gays dwell on the disgust/purity aspect of human moral thinking and on the sanctity of marriage. Jesus spit on mud and anointed a blind man’s eyes. Even today, that’s pretty disgusting. Eating with non-believers was disgusting in His day, but God went further in Acts 11, by declaring all the unclean foods of Jewish law to be acceptable. As for the evangelical worship of marriage and family, Jesus removed those from the center of religious life. Being part of a community, but without a significant other for comfort or distraction, is what we see and Paul’s oft-quoted preference for celibacy. Add the evanglicals’ acceptance of divorce among their ranks, and the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy.
Meanwhile gays direct their arguments toward individual liberty and equality with others. While these are great American arguments, they would have little resonance in the New Testament. Freedom to indulge one’s passions–for sex, for food, for drink, for material possessions–is considered slavery to sin to the “things of earth,” which not only distract us from helping others but put us on the path to use others in that indulgence. The fact that the “other” may also be indulging is not considered a mitigation, but rather another sin–just as when the drug dealer’s desire for money is matched by the addict’s desire to pay for drugs. Each is seen as reinforcing the sin of the other. Christianity, though personal, is not an individual religion.
The anti-gay’s best argument is “Your sexuality is not the most important aspect of your life.” Of course, they’d fly in the face of hundreds of years of Western art and literature and in the evolutionary imperative to breed, which presents its own difficulties since many don’t believe in evolution.
The gay’s best argument is “If I am welcome in the congregation, trust God to reveal any sin in my life to me as I’ll trust Him to reveal yours to you.”
Andy
What this article is What this article is dismissing as “right wing evangelicalism” is actually historic, mainstream Christianity. “Progressive evangelicals” have not supported the LGBT agenda because they recognize that to do so is to violate their commitment to the truthfulness of Scripture (Hoffman’s tired screed notwithstanding). What Hoffman and the author of this piece are offering is not an alternative to evangelicalism, but a deviation from the historic church. No wonder so few follow… We can welcome all without affirming all of who they are and do.
David Green
Albert Mohler was a once Albert Mohler was a once-promising graduate student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who sold his soul to fundamentalism and worldly political powers within the Southern Baptist Convention. He received in exchange the rewards and vanities of the world. How do you sleep, Al, and do you fear Judgment Day?
Kevin
I’m sure Al doesn’t fear I’m sure Al doesn’t fear judgement. Why would he. He’s right!
Wesley
But since when does the But since when does the Southern Baptist Church represent the modern Evangelical church?
It only represents Southern Baptists, a denomination that throughout history has found itself at long odds with the trending evangelical opinions. Especially when we look back at civil rights in the 50s, and recently the Iraq War.
I note that your blog calls I note that your blog calls for an alternative theology that addresses the concerns of the LGBT community. I believe that the Gay and Christian website (www.gaysandslaves.com) provides such an alternative theology.
Briefly, the website acknowledges the biblical condemnation of same-sex activity and says that this condemnation does not apply to gays and lesbians today, just as the biblical acceptance of slavery does not apply today. This is partly because our modern cultures are very different from the cultures of Bible times. It is also partly because love and sex between men, and between women, usually causes no more harm than love and sex between a man and a woman.
Andy
Unfortunately for Colin, the Unfortunately for Colin, the analogy between the biblical perspective on slavery (and divorce for that matter) and homosexuality has been amply refuted by Robert Gagnon (see his website). Better analogies are incest, polygamy and other illicit sexual practices. So called alternate theologies are based on such flimsy foundations.
MICHAEL FERRI
Evangelical and Evangelical and fundamentalist teaching is so “sex negative” for anyone not in a heterosexual marriage and in general for that matter, just like Roman Catholic sexual teaching. Single heterosexuals and homosexuals are condemned to eternal hell fire for having sex outside marriage – this is their literal interpretation of the relevant Bible verses, no matter how few there are in comparison to other Biblical prohibitions. The Old Testament authors, whomever they may be, or the author/authors of St. Paul, whomever he/they may actually be, in the New Testament LITERALLY do contain these injunctions against homosexuality. Cherry picking aside, how does a Biblical literalist in all honesty not interpret these verses as an injunction against homosexuality? They are committed to a literalist interpretation – they do not look at any of this as metaphor; as mere guidance from past “holy men” or teachers; they do not see the Bible as a record of ancient Hebrew social, sexual codes that apply only to the historical time they were written in; they see these as unchanging, God transmitted laws that are ‘written in stone’ as it were for the direction of mankind for all eternity. That is their world view.
It seems to me that the situation is akin to the Catholic Papal infallibility issue. The Pope is not about to change the teaching of the “magisterium” on homosexuality because it has been touted as part of infallible Catholic teaching. Remember Pope Paul VI’s commision on birth control? They recommended an acceptance of birth control near the end of Vatican II Council in the 60s but Cardinal Otavianni, leader of the conservative wing of the College of Cardinals, reminded the Pope that up to that time the Church condemned to hell fire those using birth control. If the Pope were to change the teaching on contraception he in essence admits to error and his infallible power is lost before the People of God. People would start to question all of Catholic doctrine and hierarchal control that the Bishop of Rome and the Curia have assumed for centuries would end. Humanae Vitae continued the ban on birth control. Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists have their ‘set in stone’ ways of viewing Scripture also – it would seem to me to be too threatening to re-interpret such clear but rare Biblical injunctions. And given their uncomfortableness with sexuality in general, especially with sexuality when others are engaging in it – women and gays and lesbians for instance – how do you expect them to change?
To be very honest here in your dialogue with the literalists aren’t you telling them that their literalist view of the Bible is incorrect. You have obviously given up on the literalist view point of Scripture yourself, which I applaud you for doing. The literalist Abrahamic interpretation of religion of the three different branches, has been and continues to be, in my opinion, one of the most destructive scourges of the earth. And don’t get me wrong, I am NOT referring to religion in general but to backward, ignorant religious LITERALISM among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. You are not just questioning the issue of homosexuality here and asking literalists to love their gay and lesbian fellow beings out of a sense of Christian charity and love, you are asking them to give up their literalist approach to understanding the Bible. Surely this is a huge threatening leap for way too many of them.
Andy
Two quick responses for Two quick responses for Michael.
First, he dismisses the biblical prohibitions of homosexuality based in part on their scarcity. Why equate scarcity with lack of importance or relevance? Prohibitions of rape in the Bible are also rare. Probably because what was so commonly understood does not need to be repeated.
Second, he is dismissive of a “literal” reading of the Bible. I would like to hear him articulate what he means here, because I suspect that is a straw man. Also, are we to read his comment literally, or are we free to interpret it metaphorically in any number of different directions?
Andy
I am curious to see if you I am curious to see if you post my comment from the other day and whether you welcome voices of dissent.
Comments (12)
Jordan
I agree that the evangelical
I agree that the evangelical church, especially the leaders, should be doing more to counter the nuance-less and inflammatory rhetoric of people like Mohler. It’s frustrating to see his words showing up everywhere when I find them so troublesome. Simultaneously, though, it’s just a fact that media outlets (ie HuffPost) will instantly post any story about a Pastor making disgustingly homophobic comments (even if the church is small and fringe) but will almost certainly overlook a sermon wrestling with the texts and encouraging the church to greater love and grace. Thus, the silence isn’t necessarily due to the complete absence of evangelical voices, though I think we fail to have sufficient volume and repetition due to our general failure to really understand the magnitude of both LGBTQ suffering (historically and presently) and the ugliness of our public perception. Nor do I think we realize how much our silence (and culpability) in regards to the former is a primary cause of the latter.
Many within the conservative evangelical church (myself included) cringe at the language of “homosexuality is a sin” because the way Mohler uses that word “homosexuality” is so broad and unspecific that it can only cause horrible problems. Does he mean attractions to the same-sex are sinful? Just same-sex sex? Would going to a wedding of a same-sex couple be sinful because one is supporting “homosexuality”?
My problem with Mohler is not just that he says a lot of ignorant things, it’s that he’s been saying them for so long and hasn’t changed his language even though I’m positive he doesn’t want it to come across as it does.
I wonder if we’ve moved past the point where the conservative evangelical ethic (which I guess means different things within that demographic) can ever be seen as “good news” even if it is divorced from the homophobia and stigma that plague it.
Jordan
Christian Vagabond
I’m not sure how you define
I’m not sure how you define “silence.” The blogosphere is full of evangelicals espousing a queer-friendly view of scripture. Rachel held Evans and Dianna Andreson are good places to start.
I can tell you that Mohler’s column didn’t receive much attention because it got lost in the online news cycle. LIberal evangelicals have spent the bulk of the past week or so discussing and debating purity culture and its underlying misogyny, and that pushed other issues aside, especially since the boy scout issue had already been discussed last month.
Mohler says offensive things on a regular basis, and after a while what seems new and shocking to you becomes white noise to us. But if you search online you’ll find a lot of liberal evangelicals discussing and defending homosexuality on theological grounds.
Sarah Caldwell
The majority of arguments on
The majority of arguments on both sides are bogus Neither side uses their best Christian argument. Instead they pluck emotional strings that the New Testament specifically renders illegitimate in Christian dialogue.
The professional anti-gays dwell on the disgust/purity aspect of human moral thinking and on the sanctity of marriage. Jesus spit on mud and anointed a blind man’s eyes. Even today, that’s pretty disgusting. Eating with non-believers was disgusting in His day, but God went further in Acts 11, by declaring all the unclean foods of Jewish law to be acceptable. As for the evangelical worship of marriage and family, Jesus removed those from the center of religious life. Being part of a community, but without a significant other for comfort or distraction, is what we see and Paul’s oft-quoted preference for celibacy. Add the evanglicals’ acceptance of divorce among their ranks, and the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy.
Meanwhile gays direct their arguments toward individual liberty and equality with others. While these are great American arguments, they would have little resonance in the New Testament. Freedom to indulge one’s passions–for sex, for food, for drink, for material possessions–is considered slavery to sin to the “things of earth,” which not only distract us from helping others but put us on the path to use others in that indulgence. The fact that the “other” may also be indulging is not considered a mitigation, but rather another sin–just as when the drug dealer’s desire for money is matched by the addict’s desire to pay for drugs. Each is seen as reinforcing the sin of the other. Christianity, though personal, is not an individual religion.
The anti-gay’s best argument is “Your sexuality is not the most important aspect of your life.” Of course, they’d fly in the face of hundreds of years of Western art and literature and in the evolutionary imperative to breed, which presents its own difficulties since many don’t believe in evolution.
The gay’s best argument is “If I am welcome in the congregation, trust God to reveal any sin in my life to me as I’ll trust Him to reveal yours to you.”
Andy
What this article is
What this article is dismissing as “right wing evangelicalism” is actually historic, mainstream Christianity. “Progressive evangelicals” have not supported the LGBT agenda because they recognize that to do so is to violate their commitment to the truthfulness of Scripture (Hoffman’s tired screed notwithstanding). What Hoffman and the author of this piece are offering is not an alternative to evangelicalism, but a deviation from the historic church. No wonder so few follow… We can welcome all without affirming all of who they are and do.
David Green
Albert Mohler was a once
Albert Mohler was a once-promising graduate student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who sold his soul to fundamentalism and worldly political powers within the Southern Baptist Convention. He received in exchange the rewards and vanities of the world. How do you sleep, Al, and do you fear Judgment Day?
Kevin
I’m sure Al doesn’t fear
I’m sure Al doesn’t fear judgement. Why would he. He’s right!
Wesley
But since when does the
But since when does the Southern Baptist Church represent the modern Evangelical church?
It only represents Southern Baptists, a denomination that throughout history has found itself at long odds with the trending evangelical opinions. Especially when we look back at civil rights in the 50s, and recently the Iraq War.
Colin Smith
I note that your blog calls
I note that your blog calls for an alternative theology that addresses the concerns of the LGBT community. I believe that the Gay and Christian website (www.gaysandslaves.com) provides such an alternative theology.
Briefly, the website acknowledges the biblical condemnation of same-sex activity and says that this condemnation does not apply to gays and lesbians today, just as the biblical acceptance of slavery does not apply today. This is partly because our modern cultures are very different from the cultures of Bible times. It is also partly because love and sex between men, and between women, usually causes no more harm than love and sex between a man and a woman.
Andy
Unfortunately for Colin, the
Unfortunately for Colin, the analogy between the biblical perspective on slavery (and divorce for that matter) and homosexuality has been amply refuted by Robert Gagnon (see his website). Better analogies are incest, polygamy and other illicit sexual practices. So called alternate theologies are based on such flimsy foundations.
MICHAEL FERRI
Evangelical and
Evangelical and fundamentalist teaching is so “sex negative” for anyone not in a heterosexual marriage and in general for that matter, just like Roman Catholic sexual teaching. Single heterosexuals and homosexuals are condemned to eternal hell fire for having sex outside marriage – this is their literal interpretation of the relevant Bible verses, no matter how few there are in comparison to other Biblical prohibitions. The Old Testament authors, whomever they may be, or the author/authors of St. Paul, whomever he/they may actually be, in the New Testament LITERALLY do contain these injunctions against homosexuality. Cherry picking aside, how does a Biblical literalist in all honesty not interpret these verses as an injunction against homosexuality? They are committed to a literalist interpretation – they do not look at any of this as metaphor; as mere guidance from past “holy men” or teachers; they do not see the Bible as a record of ancient Hebrew social, sexual codes that apply only to the historical time they were written in; they see these as unchanging, God transmitted laws that are ‘written in stone’ as it were for the direction of mankind for all eternity. That is their world view.
It seems to me that the situation is akin to the Catholic Papal infallibility issue. The Pope is not about to change the teaching of the “magisterium” on homosexuality because it has been touted as part of infallible Catholic teaching. Remember Pope Paul VI’s commision on birth control? They recommended an acceptance of birth control near the end of Vatican II Council in the 60s but Cardinal Otavianni, leader of the conservative wing of the College of Cardinals, reminded the Pope that up to that time the Church condemned to hell fire those using birth control. If the Pope were to change the teaching on contraception he in essence admits to error and his infallible power is lost before the People of God. People would start to question all of Catholic doctrine and hierarchal control that the Bishop of Rome and the Curia have assumed for centuries would end. Humanae Vitae continued the ban on birth control. Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists have their ‘set in stone’ ways of viewing Scripture also – it would seem to me to be too threatening to re-interpret such clear but rare Biblical injunctions. And given their uncomfortableness with sexuality in general, especially with sexuality when others are engaging in it – women and gays and lesbians for instance – how do you expect them to change?
To be very honest here in your dialogue with the literalists aren’t you telling them that their literalist view of the Bible is incorrect. You have obviously given up on the literalist view point of Scripture yourself, which I applaud you for doing. The literalist Abrahamic interpretation of religion of the three different branches, has been and continues to be, in my opinion, one of the most destructive scourges of the earth. And don’t get me wrong, I am NOT referring to religion in general but to backward, ignorant religious LITERALISM among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. You are not just questioning the issue of homosexuality here and asking literalists to love their gay and lesbian fellow beings out of a sense of Christian charity and love, you are asking them to give up their literalist approach to understanding the Bible. Surely this is a huge threatening leap for way too many of them.
Andy
Two quick responses for
Two quick responses for Michael.
First, he dismisses the biblical prohibitions of homosexuality based in part on their scarcity. Why equate scarcity with lack of importance or relevance? Prohibitions of rape in the Bible are also rare. Probably because what was so commonly understood does not need to be repeated.
Second, he is dismissive of a “literal” reading of the Bible. I would like to hear him articulate what he means here, because I suspect that is a straw man. Also, are we to read his comment literally, or are we free to interpret it metaphorically in any number of different directions?
Andy
I am curious to see if you
I am curious to see if you post my comment from the other day and whether you welcome voices of dissent.
Comments are closed.