THIS WHOLE "MOHLER COMMENTS" DEAL
I'm about to head to Shelby Baptist Medical Center for an arteriogram, so don't have a lot of time to say this, but I'll start. If I'm still around, I'll finish this tomorrow. If I don't, well, I don't think they have computers in heaven, so this'll be it.
There are a lot of people trying to pick apart what he said about homophobia, and SBC's guilt for lying about homosexuality. Well, I happen to agree with him, and I think that folks who are in the ministry are reluctant to admit that (NOTE: I'm fully aware that all generalizations are false, including mine...).
From the pulpit, it may be hard to admit.
From the pew, it's easy to see.
OK, it's Saturday now, so it looks like God was merciful. As it turns out, minor obstruction of a smaller artery, and a blockage in a capillary. Doctor said nothing worthy of treatment, so I came home about 4 O'Clock yesterday. With a handy excuse for not doing anything for a few days (doctor's orders....).
Back to the subject. I agree with Dr. Mohler's assessment of the matter. Wade Burleson aptly pointed out that the restrictive definition of which churches were not "in friendly cooperation" with the SBC includes churches which " ... act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior.", but they make no mention of gluttony, drunkenness, fornication, gossip, lying, or any other transgressions against God.
I had a discussion with an SBC pastor about this, this last week. I told him I agreed with Dr. Mohler, and he said he did, too. I said that if someone came to him and admitted having a secret "affair", or secret addiction to pornography I expect he'd deal with that in a certain manner. But if, say, it was a married man admitting a homosexual affair, he might react differently.
The pastor agreed I was probably right.
Men are well known as being generally troubled by lust, as is described well in Stephen Arterburn's "Every Man's Battle". The struggle is acknowledged to be real, and an inner war that goes on in men for many, many years ... until age changes the man's hormonal balance. And the sermons I've heard dealing with the topic always address the issue as such.
Not so with sermons addressing homosexuality, nor with print expressions on the matter, as I recall. I've never seen the "inner" facet of the issue addressed. And homophobia need not be merely fear of homosexuals as people, but may also include unwillingness to deal with the issue forthrightly.
And that's where I see the church falling short.
Finally, the extent to which I've seen people complaining about this in blogdom and the press, tells me just how right Dr. Mohler is. And it's disgusting to me when folks attack him for what he may or many not have said, before.
Like my dad said, the loudest boos come from the cheapest seats.
Mark me down on your side, Dr. Mohler, for whatever it's worth.
Some further ideas, about a week later: I just looked up the words "heterosexual" and homosexual". They're defined similarly, the #1 Definitions, as " of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the ("same" in the case of homosexual, vs "opposite", in the case of heterosexual) sex.
It seems to me that if we call someone "heterosexual", we're saying that's their preference .. regardless whether they are sexually active or not. Say, they might be young and unmarried, chaste, or perhaps someone advanced in years and beyond the sexually-active time in their life. But if they're "straight", we have no trouble thinking of them in that term, anyway.
But when we refer to someone as "homosexual", it seems implicit that they are sexually active in a homosexual relationship. After all, ask the average church member if they'd want to see a homosexual member in the church, I dare say you'd get a negative answer.
Yup. I'm convinced that the folks who are hammering Dr. Mohler for his statements are either (a) Muckrakers, or (b) unable to see the problem because they ARE the problem being addressed by Dr. Mohler.