Tag: choice

Are We Guilty of Homophobia?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, recently was quoted as saying the following in an interview about homosexuality.

“We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophobia… We’ve used the “˜choice’ language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.”

He was then asked to defend this statement in the recent SBC Annual Convention. The video of the exchange with SBC pastor and blogger, Peter Lumpkins is here.

I happen to agree with Mohler, especially as he clarified his statements. The Associated Baptist Press summarized Mohler’s response to the question by Lumpkins:

Mohler said at the convention “there is no way anyone in fair mindedness can be confused about what I believe about homosexuality,” because he has written more than 200 articles about it, but that “the reality is that we as Christian churches have not done well on this issue.”

“Evangelicals, thankfully, have failed to take the liberal trajectory of lying about homosexuality and its sinfulness,” Mohler said. “We know that the Bible clearly declares — not only in isolated verses but in the totality of its comprehensive presentation — the fact that homosexuality not only is not God’s best for us, as some try to say, but it is sin.”

“But we as evangelicals have a very sad history in dealing with this issue,” he continued. “We have told not the truth, but we have told about half the truth. We’ve told the biblical truth, and that’s important, but we haven’t applied it in the biblical way.”

“We have said to people that homosexuality is just a choice,” Mohler said. “It’s clear that it’s more than a choice. That doesn’t mean it’s any less sinful, but it does mean it’s not something people can just turn on and turn off. We are not a gospel people unless we understand that only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.”

Mohler said churches have not done their job until “there are those who have been trapped in that sin sitting among us.”

Now the use of “homophobia” is a sticky subject, for sure. But I do agree that Mohler is right. And in this, I echo the sentiments of blogger Elijah Friedeman, and want to quote him at some length (HT: The Aquila Report).

I realize that much of what Mohler said flies in the face of conservative Christianity. No one likes to be called homophobic. And religious people especially don’t like to be called to repentance. But Albert Mohler is absolutely right.

What did Albert Mohler say that was so outrageous? Was it the part about Jesus being the only Savior from sin? Was it the claim that our sinful nature goes beyond a simple choice?Any orthodox Christian should affirm salvation from our sin through Jesus and that we can’t simply decide to turn off our sinful nature.

I know that many conservative Christians want to turn homosexuality into an easy choice. But it doesn’t work like that. Don’t get me wrong. Everyone has a choice about whether or not to engage in sexual acts outside of marriage. But not everyone has a say about whom they’re sexually attracted to.

There are a lot of people in the world with addictive personalities – they’re addicted easily – these people don’t have to give in to their addictive temptations, but they have a problem that can’t be solved with a choice – a problem that only Jesus can fix.

Homosexuality is much the same. Homosexuals have deep-rooted attraction to the same gender that they can’t solve with a choice. Mohler stated that homosexuality, like any other sin, requires a Savior. When did that become a radical sentiment? Last I checked, it’s a biblical concept.

But I have a feeling that most people disagreed with Mohler, because he labeled Southern Baptists as homophobic.

I can’t speak to homophobia in Southern Baptist churches. I’ll have to trust Mohler on that front (apparently he explained exactly how Southern Baptists are homophobic, but I can’t find the transcript). But I know from what I’ve seen, read, and heard, a form of homophobia is very present in many conservative churches.

For some reason there is an irrational fear of and extreme aversion to homosexuals in a lot of churches. We may not come right out and say that we think homosexuals are nasty creatures, but if you read between the lines, it’s pretty easy to pick up on. This is homophobia.

We should not elevate homosexuality above other sins. If we condemn homosexuality as sin, we must also condemn other forms of sexual immorality as sin.

I’ve seen many religious people castigate homosexuals, but turn a blind eye to the other, more pervasive, forms of sins in the church. I’m more concerned about the prevalence of divorce in churches than I am about a few cases of homosexuals trying to silence their critics.

What do you think? Is Mohler totally off base? As for me, I’m standing with him on this one.

For more on this question, see other articles on homosexuality I’ve posted here on my blog. You’ll find reviews of two helpful books I’ve read on this topic.

“Infinite Playlists: How to Have Conversations [Not Conflict] with Your Kids About Music” by Todd Stocker

~ Bob Hayton ~ 25 Comments

In our day, few matters divide generations more readily than music. Each age group has its own musical preferences which the others don’t get, and often can’t appreciate. For Christians, this problem is even more pronounced. The Christian’s submission to Scripture leads inevitably to ethical questions surrounding various elements of modern culture, especially music. This is complicated by the tendency of some Christians to denigrate certain music styles as intrinsically evil.

When it comes to parenting, and dealing with teenagers in particular, it would be easy to ignore the issue of music altogether. Many Christian parents just suffer with whatever music choices their children make, even if they offer an occasional frown. Not a few parents take the opposite approach, and operate like the musical police. This can raise barriers between parent and child, fostering bitterness and resentment. For most of us, we’re not exactly sure how to handle the thorny topic of music.

This is why I was intrigued by the title of a new book from Kregel Publications by Todd Stocker (with notes from his son Nathan): Infinite Playlists: How to Have Conversations [Not Conflict] with Your Kids About Music. The title gets right to the point, and when you open the front cover Stoker wastes no time in confronting the issue head on. In fact, the book is only a short 89 pages, but for many parents and teens today, a shorter book may have a better chance at being picked up and read. Whatever the case, even in these few short pages the book more than adequately covers the problem at hand.

Todd Stocker starts out by describing his love for music and how his Christian faith made him reevaluate his musical choices. His son Nathan’s affinity for hard rock brought him to the place where he had to start working through what music he’d allow his children to tune in to. The book moves on to describe music as a gift from God, but a gift that has been distorted by fallen man. There is a spiritual battle going on over music, and recognizing music’s ability to capture our souls with wonder should help us approach the topic soberly. Make no mistake, however, Stoker is not about a kill joy approach to music. “God never intended Christians to live cloistered.” (pg. 25)

Stocker goes on to trace the emotional, physical and spiritual impact of music, often quoting secular experts and personal experiences to add flavor. He explores various musical genres, and the question of Christian vs. secular music. He understands that the attitude and ethos created by the song conveys some meaning, but ultimately the lyrics make the predominant difference. Yet “God is not in one thing and not in the other”, and so even secular music can be redeemed for His purposes.

The meat of the book comes in his discussion of the working guidelines he’s come up with for his family. They are:

  • What do the lyrics say?
  • What picture does the song paint?
  • What is the mood or feel of the song?
  • Will the song cause others to stumble?
  • Who is the artist or group?

Stocker is careful to convey that a firm, hard line is not easy to achieve. He prefers to discuss these questions with his son Nathan, and together agree on the verdict. Ultimately he has parental veto power, however. Including the children in the decision both empowers them and teaches them how to exercise discernment for themselves.

Stocker finishes the book by encouraging Christians everywhere to take the copyright laws seriously when it comes to music.

Some additional helpful features of the book include the chapter recaps, notes by 13 year old Nathan Stocker sharing his perspective on music at various points in the book, and a chapter exercise for working through the five guidelines and applying them with an actual song. The book also includes some helpful resources in the end-notes.

Before I close this review, I would want to encourage parents to pick up this book and use it as a tool in developing their own approach to how to parent their children when it comes to the arena of music. Stocker’s exhortation is worth quoting here at some length:

God has placed great importance and responsibility on your parental position within the family. Therefore, it is not OK to allow your children to listen to lyrics that could poison their souls. Think of it this way: you would never allow your children to drink gasoline even if it was their choice to do so. Neither should you let your children drink music that could cripple them forever. (pg. 58)

I can’t recommend this book more. It could perhaps have included a bit more material, but that’s the only complaint I’d have. It reads very easy, and manages to tackle a difficult topic with grace. It is immensely helpful, and definitely worth picking up at Amazon.com, or direct from Kregel Publications.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Kregel Publications for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.