Scary! Hope?

A Baptist scholar, Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr president of an SBC seminary in Louisville, KY, says on his blog that we may be born gay, and goes on to say that doesn't justify it. I don't mean this post to question the SBC teachings on sexuality. And if you can't handle Mohler's style (I can't) here's the report in the NY Times Homosexuality may be based on biology (free registration may be required).

But then the guy says we can "treat" this in utero. Which last seems to me to be just short of full-blown eugenics. What's scary is the Southern Baptist Convention accounts for about half of all the Baptists - 16,000,000 of them. A seminary turns out clergy, clergy train the laity and, while there is a large element of individualism in Baptist tradition, that's a lot of people to be tainted with eugenics. Yes?

But there is this sign of hope (it's weak, but hopeful). As you know the whole "you choose to be this way" argument is important to many. Mohler says,

We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.

There is a statement there that you might miss in dealing with his general homophobia: We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen.

Regardless of how he moves forward from this point, this particular line makes it clear that he (a) sees a clear way to acknowledge that homosexuals exist as a class without volitional responsibility for their status; and (b) because of his religion he sees such a choice to act on such "temptations" as a sin he wants to stop it. I don't think we need a more-clear statement of Church-state clash on this issue. Many on the right attempt to appeal to "natural law" and to tradition and "common sense". But once you allow for a class to exist you have to find secular (not religious) justifications for ending that class.

To be clear: I'm generally scared of the Religious Right's theocratic ideas. Yet if more of them follow Mohler's ideas, they are painting themselves in to a corner (on this one topic, anyway).

Comments

[Thunder Pig]

I am not a Baptist, but a Pentacostal.
It is my understanding that a sinful nature is inherited by all humans at the moment of conception, and we are made accountable for it at the age of accountability.
Some of that sin may be 'written' in our genetic code by the actions of our ancestors, and the idea of manipulating the the genetic code seems like cheating to me, for there is only One Who can take away the sin of another. That is taking the place of God.
I believe that acting on one's homosexuality is a sin, but I have no right to force anyone from engaging in such behaviour. I can only witness to my understanding that it is sin, and pray for guidance if it be the will of God to lead anyone away from that lifestyle.
I have always been curious at the reactions of my homosexual acquaintances when I asked if they wanted prayer for release from homosexuality. I have yet to find a taker. Alcoholics, yes. Child Molesters, yes.
I think one of the first steps toward release and forgiveness from any sin must begin with the conviction that it is wrong, and turning away from it.

My intent is not to provoke, but to share my insight in this matter.

[Huw Raphael]

Hi, Thunder, and thanks for your comment.

Coming from a different theological tradition in Christianity, Eastern Orthodox are taught that our temptations are ours... we can not be "delivered" from temptation, but are rather to struggle through it. It is our cross that we must take up daily. We also have a different take on Original Sin than any of the Western denominations. I know other Christian traditions that would disagree with both you and I (and the Baptists).

But that's a good thing: all we can all be Christians together, nonetheless.

Yet as I said in the post, this is not about an individual church's teachings on Homosexuality: not a theological debate. Rather it was the clear admission on Mohler's part that he would use science to, in effect, enforce his belief on the unborn.

Which I found horrifying.

As well as his point admitting that it is possible that being attracted to the same sex is not a way to be that one chooses. Having allowed that option any moral choices one makes (as a Christian or not) are inherently personal - the moral choices one makes after that allowance can not in any way be enforced legally on others (which is the goal of the SBC in such areas as marriage, etc).

[Julie]

This is one reason I have always felt that it was shaky ground to build civil rights on genetic predisposition. The truth is, a pluralistic society must accommodate freedom of sexual expression between consenting adults. Whether genetic, religious, or choice sources homosexual orientation should not be the grounds for civil rights. Rather, rights must be granted to a variety of perspectives if we are to avoid a tyranny of the majority.

[Darrell Grizzle]

Huw is right: the Baptists are definitely painting themselves into a corner on this one.

Thunder Pig: As a recovering Baptist myself (from age 1 to 17), I prayed for years to be "delivered" from my homosexuality. It was only after I came to accept myself as God created me that I saw why my prayer was unanswered: my sexuality is a gift from God. Why would God give me a gift and then "deliver" me from it?

[david]

darrell wrote: "Why would God give me a gift and then "deliver" me from it?"

to me, it's not all that easy. we've been given sexuality as a gift, but it must be used as God intended. we've been given many gifts from God but we also have free will.

it's just hard for me to always equate desire with gift.

[Darrell Grizzle]

I understand what you're saying, David, but it seems that you are equating desire with sexuality. To me, sexuality is much more than just desire: it encompasses the totality of who I am and who God created me to be . It is not something to be "used," it is something I am.