A new perspective or a need for an apology?

[Alan Carter]

Al Mohler stirred up entire Southern Baptist world with this pronouncement:

PHOENIX - The president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary says his denomination needs to repent for a "form of homophobia" that has condemned homosexuals instead of embracing them as fellow sinners.
Rev. Albert Mohler told his fellow Southern Baptists at their annual meeting that they've only been halfright about homosexuality.

"We have said to people that homosexuality is just a choice. Well, it's clear that it's more than a choice," he stated. "That doesn't mean it's any less sinful, but it does mean it's not something that people can just turn on and turn off."

He continued, saying: "We have also exhibited a certain form of homophobia of which we must, absolutely must in gospel terms, repent precisely because we believe in all the scripture teaches about homosexuality, and all that the scripture teaches about sin."

Here are some different views by our blogging buddies. Wonder what the outcome will be?

Peter Lumpkins view: http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/

Wade Burleson's view: http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2011/ ... panks.html

[Jim]

To the extent that Mohler is right about specific churches and/or pastors, he is to be commended. Those who condemn homosexuality as sin, unless it is an individual preference, are wrong. In most Baptist churches, I believe, the homosexual is welcomed (okay, in many probably tolerated) but homosexual behavior is accounted as sin because it, just as lying or adultery, is condemned in both the OT and NT. There’s no argument that a small fraction of people may be “born that way,” just as in the case of other birth defects. It is right to call homosexuality a defect because if considered normal it would forestall “being fruitful and multiplying.” So, Mohler is right, but going as far as other denominations in sanctioning homosexual marriage or unions would be terribly wrong because it also sanctions homosexual behavior. Those denominations are dying on the vine, and their insistence that political correctness trumps the scripture cannot be defended.

[Wade Burleson]

[Alan Carter]

Personally I was glad to hear a Southern Baptist leader call for an end to the homophobia that we see in many churches. I don't see how we can go wrong with loving people and sharing Jesus with them. Its time for us to get serious about the things that really matter in the Christian life and one of those things is having a vibrant and living relationship with Jesus Christ. Legalism will kill the spirit quicker than anything I know.

[Dave Roberts]

I was actually impressed that Al took such a step. There may yet be some SBC surprises.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[Jerry_B]

Yeah, I'm with Big Daddy on this one. Fundamentalism is so steeped in the SBC now, I don't see how one can say fundamentalism is coming to an end in the SBC or that "their" voices are not being listened to when there is evidence to the contrary, the NIV thing just the latest example.

Nope, I'm not buying. Don't whiz on my shoes and then try and tell me it's raining.

[William Thornton]

Peter Lumpkins is a very decent guy who thinks deeply about a number of SBC issues. What he thinks on this was the subject of his blog well prior to the convention.

So, he gets to a mic and asks a question publicly of Al Mohler, same question basically that he has blogged about. Sure, others would have handled it differently. Mohler answers. I don't see a big deal out of that.

Although I was not present, I viewed the video and blogged:

I may not buy all of Peter's stuff (I don't even buy all of my own stuff at times) but I hate to see the level of rancor and ridicule that has been heaped on him. I thought that the usually gracious ("I am always gracious" he would say, almost as a mantra) Wade Burleson overreacted in the way he expressed his disagreement with Peter, an old nemesis. With some reflection, I'd bet he would handle it differently. I don't fault him for pointing his guns at what he sees as a danger to the SBC.

Others, some anonymous, have slapped Peter for his past record as if that has anything to do with this issue and a low blow, IMO. Folks have even ridiculed the way he was dressed.

We get to ask entity leaders questions at these meetings. He asked a fair, if not succinct, question. Mohler answered it.

Would anyone maintain that SBCers have not exhibited unlovely behavior and speech towards homosexuals? I think not. Have all SBCers "lied"? No, but doesn't Mohler get some homiletic license in his words? Sure. "Form of homophobia"? The "H" word is so loose and a clobber word in itself; however, some among us would surely be guilty.

We will see where this goes, but I sincerely hope that we get quickly past the ad hominems that have saturated commentary on this for the past few days.

Some SBC leader might start by explaining exactly why we codify the sin of homosexuality in our constitution and by laws and not murder, adultery, pedophilia, or gluttony. That point wasn't lost on Burleson .

Someone put a motion on the floor to repeal that little item and watch the apoplectic messengers stack up at the mics, veins a-popping. Bet we would see some homophobia then, however narrowly you might define it.

[Stephen Fox]

I placed this link in the discussion on Vines, but didn't want Wade Burleson and Dr. Thornton to miss it as it does seem to substantiate the point the SBC rhetoric is tempering a little, tamping down.

http://christianethicstoday.com/PDF/CET_Issue_082.pdf

You may have to scroll down just a tad to see the page 2 column on Vines and Hagee by Pat Anderson.

[Sandy]

[rfuss]

I have been following the discussion on homosexual behavior being no more of a sin than adultery, fornication, etc. I can see why the church should minister to practicing homosexuals also since God loves and will forgive all sins including homosexual, adultery, fornication, etc.

One aspect of this that I have not seen addressed, is the difference in the effects within the church, of the different types of sins. For instance, adulterers and fornicators generally do not try to convince others around them that there is nothing wrong with adultery and fornication. However, the homosexual situation in a church is different in that the homosexual agenda includes convincing others that homosexual behavior is not wrong since they believe God made them that way. They could even try to convince others to try it.

How is the church supposed to handle this aspect of the homosexual agenda within the church? Wade made a good case, in his blog, for treating homosexual sins the same as other sins. I am particularily interested in Wade's answer to my question as well as the answers of others on here.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[Sandy]

You mean that the fact the SBC approved a resolution that asked Lifeway stores not to carry the gender-neutral NIV translation that Zondervan just came out with proves the SBC is dominated by fundamentalists?

That's, well, ..

The NIV has, from the very beginning, done a good job of walking the fine line between being a readable, thought for thought translation that was true to the existing manuscripts. But recent developments, including the TNIV, and the idea that gender-neutral language could be inserted into the translation and still maintain that fidelity to the existing manuscripts, have taken away a lot of that credibility. Expecting Bible translations to reflect the author's intentions and language isn't a sign of "fundamentalism." Translating what the original authors wrote, and using the words that they used, are extremely important in producing a Bible translation that is reliable and dependable. It may be trendy, and even academically acceptable to mess with the original Biblical text and make the authors seem "hip" and "with it" culturally, but it isn't good Bible translation. The TNIV more or less fell flat on its face. I predict this new translation will do the same.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[Jerry_B]

Sandy, I don't think anyone has a problem with someone not liking a particular translation. The problem is that the rhetoric against the TNIV and now NIV are not inaccurate but hypocritical. The same philosophy followed by the NIV is followed by other translations sold at Lifeway. New Living, New Revised as examples. So clearly there is something else in play here.

Fundamentalism says it knows what's right and if you don't agree get out! Those who disagree or maligned and accused, usually in error or extreme exaggeration, of being something they are not. Exactly what has happened in this recent case with the NIV. Just the most recent example of how deeply fundamentalism is now engrained in the SBC.

BTW - Another indicator of fundamentalism, not being able to see fundamentalism as fundamentalism.

[Alan Carter]

If the SBC was dominated by fundamentalists as so many of you think then we would only be using the King James version. After all, that's how Jesus wrote so shouldn't we be using it?

[Wade Burleson]

[Wade Burleson]

[Alan Carter]

I agree with Wade that Jonathan is one of the new good ones. God help us if we try to make him into one of our "fundamentalist" types. I think he's seen enough of that growing up. I for one am glad that Dr. Mohler, Wade, and Jonathan are opening doors for gay believers to come into our Baptist churches without being singled out and accused of everything from being a liberal to a pedophile. Personally I don't think being gay is a choice but if we can get them to Jesus we can trust Him to sort all of that out properly.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I agree that Jonathan Merritt has a bright future.

I just can't imagine that he's going to have a bright future in the SBC - at least not at any point in the foreseeable future.

His politics are liberal - at least in the SBC context. Frankly, anyone who would strongly consider the candidacy of Barack Obama has to wear the liberal badge in that context. Jonathan did more than consider Obama.

He's not a typical social conservative. I don't know of many (any?) SBC leaders that are pro-civil unions, pro-environmentalism, pro-health care reform (as passed last year) and generally anti-nuclear, anti-war. And he does a great job of explaining the relationship between his faith and his politics.

As far as theology, it's hard to tell where exactly he falls on the evangelical spectrum as most of his articles deal with faith and cultural issues. But, I suspect that Emory's Candler Theology is doing him some good. Pretty sure he's studied some under David Key (who I'm sure some here know).

I do find it interesting, however, that Jonathan has been largely ignored by the Baptist Blogosphere up until Peter penned a few blog posts. Merritt's blog didn't even get included in SBC Voices March Madness blogger tournament. Oddly, he's not on the radar of bloggers.

Aside from Mohler and Land, Jonathan is perhaps the most visible Southern Baptist at least visible in the national media. He's written dozens and dozens of op-eds in national publications and is frequently quoted in articles about younger evangelicals.

[Alan Carter]

Well, I'll have to post a little caveat here about my feelings about Jonathan. If he's pro-Obama, anti-war, anti-nuclear, pro-Obama health care, pro-civil unions, and pro-environmentalism then he's not my kind of Baptist. I guess I'll just have to love and accept him as a young believer who is misguided on some things but right on target when it comes to gay believers. At least he stimulates our thought processes. I'll trust the Lord to work out all the other details with him since he's still doing that in my life.

[Blake]

[johnfariss]

[Neil Heath]

I think we have a software problem here. The comment above credited to Blake, with his signature quote even, was from me, not him. I don't want him to catch any flack from the error.

I've also noticed the board seems to be very slow for the past week or so. None of the other sites I visit are that way. Anyone else seeing that?

I'll bring it up to the mods and see if we can do anything about fixing it, but other input is always welcome.

Neil

[Blake]

Neil, thanks for the clarification. I just flagged it for the mods. Can my original post be found and reattributed to me or do I need to try and remember what I wrote?