The Evangelical Resistance

by on

The president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, R. Albert Mohler Jr., writes in the Wall Street Journal:

In less than a single generation, homosexuality has gone from something almost universally understood to be sinful, to something now declared to be the moral equivalent of heterosexuality—and deserving of both legal protection and public encouragement. …
…we cannot accommodate ourselves to this new morality. We cannot pretend as if we do not know that the Bible clearly teaches that all homosexual acts are sinful, as is all human sexual behavior outside the covenant of marriage. …
There is no escaping the fact that we are living in the midst of a moral revolution. And yet, it is not the world around us that is being tested, so much as the believing church. We are about to find out just how much we believe the Gospel we so eagerly preach.

There you have the crux of the Christian right’s position, stated without rancor. It may do no good to argue, as many do, that Jesus never mentioned or condemned homosexuality but went out of his way to break bread with social outcasts and to charge those who would condemn a prostitute to cast the first stone if they were, themselves, without sin (as no one is). The apostle Paul, who never met Jesus in the flesh, did condemn a man who lies with a man as with a woman, but as with many Biblical prohibitions that statement is open to contextual interpretation (i.e., a condemnation of pagan practices). However, to the fundamentalist, whether on the Christian right or the politically correct left, the world is always black and white.

What particularly struck me about Mohler’s argument, however, is the underlying claim that we are in the midst of a moral revolution that is anti-gospel and therefore must be opposed. His is the same church, mind you, that about 150 years ago proclaimed that chattel slavery was Biblically sanctioned and worth fighting to maintain (although it would seem that anyone who reads the gospels without blinders could easily see how antithetical to the message of Jesus such as view was). Ending slavery, too, was a “moral revolution” that his church could not, and would not, accept.

It’s particularly sad when those who choose to dwell in darkness proclaim that their effort to keep human souls in bondage, then as now, is somehow God’s will. Here’s another Biblical verse: “Jesus wept.”

More. Bruce Bawer shares his thoughts on Mohler’s op-ed.

36 Comments for “The Evangelical Resistance”

  1. posted by Regan DuCasse on

    These people are extremely inconsistent in their convictions. Not only that, but they are selective in what they’ll accept and what they won’t when it comes to heterosexuals who ALSO meet their religious criteria, but who have the political clout to fight them.
    Our nation respects religious belief, and gives us citizens many choices in how we express it. And rightly, draws the line at infringement on the freedom and access of those citizens who do not choose it.
    Religious sin, and MORAL sin are VERY distinct things. And it’s that hypocrisy within the selective way in which Christians deal with this issue.
    On the one hand, they embrace the Constitution for themselves and it’s protections.
    And are now invoking ‘natural or ‘God’s law’ and petitioning the government to do damage to gay citizens. Who are compelled to participate in ALL the responsibility of being a citizen and human being, with none of the full rights accorded the same.

    Religious taboos are those things that are considered unhealthy or strange, or against the natural extent one’s state will take.
    For example, blood and organ donation, contraception and autopsy are forbidden.
    But those people who choose to engage the religions that do forbid these, cannot and DO NOT petition the government to ban it for other individuals, nor do they accuse those individuals and the government of taking their rights away or compromising their religious freedom when individuals take those options for themselves.
    And homosexuality, like asexuality, isn’t a matter of choice and has been a part of ALL human life and existence and hasn’t changed or evolved the way religions have. So if anything, the gay person MUST have more protection from religious denial of their rights, since BEING homosexual and being accorded what is for all other citizens, doesn’t take anything away from other citizens.

    And those people of faith, who are claiming that their motives are moral, or that denial of the same basic freedoms, rights and protections is a moral imperative, are liars or without merit in their claims.
    Results matter. And we have plenty of historical political and social precedent to show that much harm comes to gay people when these discriminatory policies are in place, and no harm comes to the religious person for the same, OR any other citizen.

    Human sacrifice isn’t allowed, although the Bible is full of imperatives to commit such sacrifices in the name of God. And it would still be wrong to do that to gay people whether figuratively, literally, socially, politically or philosophically.

    • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

      And homosexuality, like asexuality, isn’t a matter of choice

      Sure it is. Look at people like Jim McGreevey, the hero of the gay and lesbian community, or “Bishop” Gene Robinson, or even the commenter “Tom” here — all of whom were perfectly happy to have sex with and produce children with members of the opposite gender.

      Now, go ahead and whine and spin about how that wasn’t their “attraction” and how it was unfair to require them not to follow their “attraction”.

      I look forward to watching you create an argument that it is “immoral” to deny anyone the right to have sex with and marry whatever they want at any time with the evidence that will be provided that pedophilia and other sexual attractions have just as much of a biological basis as homosexuality — and thus it is hypocritical for you to support laws against those.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        Dude, what is your deal?

        You get more twisted as time goes by? Are you trying to turn straight or something? All this misdirected anger at gay people must be coming from somewhere.

      • posted by Jimmy on

        “were perfectly happy to have sex with…”

        What do you know about what anyone else feels?

  2. posted by Houndentenor on

    They are going to lash out at anyone who exposes their hypocrisy. It’s not so much that people do things they don’t approve of; it’s that some of us refuse to be big hypocrites about it like they do. The louder someone screams about others’ immorality, the bigger the skeleton in the closet.

    • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

      So since you and your fellow bigots are sitting here screaming about others’ morality, Houndentenor, what are you hiding?

      Or are you a hypocrite?

  3. posted by Houndentenor on

    LOL. Sometimes, sure. Just like everyone else.

    No, I am not a bigot. I do not support passing laws suppressing the rights of fundamentalist Christians. I wish they would extend the same courtesy to me. I do have the right to criticize them, and do. And those criticism are based on real experience since due to family obligations I do still on occasion attend a Southern Baptist Church. I do not say these things based on ignorance but on a lifetime of experience with people who say these things. I’m also privy to a lot more information (again, thanks to family connections) about the sex (and other) scandals covered up in those churches.

  4. posted by Jorge on

    “…as is all human sexual behavior outside the covenant of marriage…”

    I resent the fact that when Christian conservatives get caught napping in the battle against the destruction of marriage, they are selective in their outrage and self-flaggelation. Don’t worry, I may think the hypocrisy card is overplayed, but I will play it if I have to.

    A very interesting thing happened last Sunday. I went to church, and I saw a pamphlet on what the church teaches on cohabitation. Some of these guys don’t give up. But they are on their knees.

    with the evidence that will be provided that pedophilia and other sexual attractions have just as much of a biological basis as homosexuality — and thus it is hypocritical for you to support laws against those.

    Hmm…

    You may bring it if you’d like. But I’d rather you don’t.

    • posted by Brian Miller on

      when Christian conservatives get caught napping in the battle against the destruction of marriage, they are selective in their outrage and self-flaggelation

      Of course they are. It’s part and parcel of their schtick.

      Newt Gingrich, the thrice-“married” supposed “devout Catholic convert” will thunder about morality and traditional values, while ignoring the fact that under his own religion’s beliefs, he and his third “wife” are not technically married, but adulterers living in a state of grave mortal sin.

      Pat Buchanan will state that any marriage not created for procreation is invalid, but will bristle when you ask why his own marriage has been completely childless.

      The late Henry Hyde was quite adamant about marriage being one man, one woman for life — almost as adamant as he was about not answering inquiries into his own adultery.

      And so the story goes.

  5. posted by Rick on

    We can learn even from people with whom we disagree. There’s an important point right at the very beginning of the statement: “In less than a single generation…” Beyond all the homophobia and bigotry are real people completely unequipped to deal with what we have to admit is radical societal change. To one degree or another, all of us have trouble dealing with change. They are mistaken, we must move ahead with human rights, but it still gives me just a little compassion for them. It makes me realize this is a heart issue, not a head issue. Changing hearts is tougher work than just beating down one’s opponent.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      And I see a point in being concerned that a majority of heterosexual couples now seem unwilling or uninterested in getting married, even those who have children together. I don’t know why that is, but I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with gay people wanting to get married.

      • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

        Gee, think it has something to do with the fact that gays and lesbians have screamed and whined and thrown temper tantrums about marriage being irrelevant to childraising?

        That’s what is really funny. Gays and lesbians, to avoid and spin around the fact that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships have very different consequences for society and thus should be treated differently, insisted that children and marriage were not linked and irrelevant.

        And don’t forget that the gay and lesbian community also publicly posted that unmarried, incestuous, and plural marriages were just as “socially, economically, and spiritually worthy”, and insisted that anyone who disagreed was a homophobe.

        The marriage supporters have repeatedly stressed that children need a mother and a father and that they should be married. They have been consistent on this throughout, while gays and lesbians like Houndentenor are now being hypocritical.

        • posted by Houndentenor on

          Typical. You reference some fringe group none of us has ever heard of before as if it’s a mainstream view.

          Seriously. What is your deal?

          • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

            You probably ought to read the “Signatories” section of that, Houndentenor, especially given the number of organizations represented. Particularly note the signature of Obama administration official Chai Feldblum.

            But then again, you don’t even realize that the ACLU defended NAMBLA and also demands plural marriage, so I doubt that your response is due to Beyond Marriage being “fringe” and more on the order of willful denial.

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            Again, what is your deal.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Beyond all the homophobia and bigotry are real people completely unequipped to deal with what we have to admit is radical societal change.

      This has been Impressed upon me directly recently when I was reading some of the objections cited among the troops in the DADT study. A lot of people who have good hearts want to protect a stability that works for most people. There aren’t as many rules for how things work well when you include gays. I feel a very strong command to obey the fears that are expressed. To do that until things change means suffering under tyranny. Is it too much to ask for compassion for ourselves?

      It is no crime to be honest before a judge, human or otherwise.

      • posted by Brian Miller on

        Except the “change” isn’t all that radical. It’s literally nothing more than eliminating sociocultural gender roles as a prerequisite for a legal status.

        The creation of “no fault divorce” is far more radical a premise, and it’s highly popular amongst evangelical Christians — especially in practice, considering that evangelical beliefs are one of the strongest predictors of propensity to divorce and remarry.

      • posted by Navid on

        You couldn’t pay me to inogre these posts!

  6. posted by Wilberforce on

    His deal is far right nut kookery. His methods are cherry picking, generalizing from the specific, pronouncements without evidence, and a few other tricks. Interestingly, I’ve worked with far right people like this, and they used the exact same tactics. I think it’s because they have such an axe to grind, they don’t care about honesty or the rules of conversation.

    • posted by BobN on

      You have to admire his filing skills, though.

      • posted by Brian Miller on

        It’s not that impressive — more the symptom of some serious imbalance.

        The last time I encountered such supposed file-keeping, it was by a nutjob who claimed to “keep a list of known homosexuals.”

        • posted by BobN on

          I suppose it’s a fine distinction, but I marvel at the skill not the motivation. Well, I marvel at the motivation, too, but not in a good way.

  7. posted by Arthur on

    “We are about to find out just how much we believe the Gospel we so eagerly preach. ”

    It would be nice if they taught and tried to live the Gospel. By the way, God hates shrimp.

    • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

      Given that statement, I can say pretty unequivocally that your knowledge of the Bible AND the Gospel are insufficient to make any determinations on the matter.

      • posted by Jimmy on

        Because you’re the arbiter of such things?

        Ha!

        • posted by Brian Miller on

          Silly, ND30 lives in San Francisco, so he has unique insight on the True Gospels that you couldn’t possibly have. 😉

  8. posted by Amicus on

    Intellectually misguided fervency, in an article otherwise best titled, “Honey, I shrunk the Evangelical Church”.

    “Our greatest fear is not that homosexuality will be normalized and accepted, but that homosexuals will not come to know of their own need for Christ and the forgiveness of their sins.”

    This is partly why they ought to be irrelevant to the public discourse on the matter. We simply cannot and will not arrange our public affairs along these kinds of fears.

    And, from that perspective, the “revolution” is quite long in the tooth and doing okay, compared to, say, the neo-Stalinism of the Iranian judicial tyrant. Even in our own ambit, women even hold elected office now (even sadly composed ones!).

    Finally, the greatest tragedy of their private view is that they believe “homosexuality” requires some sort of special ‘spiritual journey in Christ’, with the startlingly prescribed end of celibacy or “modesty”.

    This is a great, great failing and one with unforgivable pardon with respect to this teaching’s impact on their own young. To tell these kids to go search for something that is already present is a grave abdication indeed.

    Pity their blindness, if you can.

  9. posted by BobN on

    1) The movement to overturn the 1500-year oppression of homosexuality is not “a generation” old. It goes back 150 years.

    2) “We are about to find out just how much we believe the Gospel we so eagerly preach. ” It would be far easier to list, say, the proscriptions in Leviticus, check off those still respected (a precious few), and declare Christianity over.

    • posted by Amicus on

      Could be, but it would be unsophisticated.

      The Levitical proscriptions, particularly the ancient ‘holiness code’, is not binding on Christians nor on many Jews.

  10. posted by Infovoyeur on

    [1.] As for Biblical inerrancy and 100% compliance vs. cherry-picking, Patricia Nell Warren wrote in the GLB Review Worldwide over a decade ago, “If America Lived By Biblical Law” (title approximate). A gem.

    [2.] The Evangelicals seem to believe that their beliefs come “down” from “theological” Heaven UP there. But they also come from the lower-down cloud of the “sociological” folkways, plus the “historical” Traditions, plus up from the “psychological” mind-set which requires Natural Law for security. Children of their time, puppets whose strings are manipulated, hostages to their psyches?… There, I just summed up most of the reasons why people believe–I think? But they don’t realize this.

    [3.] Bottom line, the or a? “Homophobia Kills Love.” Not sex lust romance, but the responsible pair-bonding which “social stability family” blah yadda etc. etc. A gross insult to full human-ity hence if recognized as such, surely a “sin” in any valid religion. Irony rampant. The In-Humane Comedy?…

Comments are closed.