Culture,  Theology/Bible

Mohler’s Gay-Baby Article

The Associated Press has been reporting on the response to Dr. Albert Mohler’s essay, “Is Your Baby Gay?” As the AP reports, two arguments from Dr. Mohler’s article have been particularly controversial:

(1) Dr. Mohler suggests that it may very well be proven that there is a biological basis for sexual orientation. This idea has sparked resistance from conservatives and evangelicals who like to think that homosexuality is rooted in human choice alone, and not in any genetic or biological predispositions.

(2) Dr. Mohler says that “If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use.” Homosexual activists and supporters of gay rights are criticizing this statement as akin to the brutal policies of Nazi Germany.

You can read Dr. Mohler’s original article here. You can read the Associated Press report here. You can see all the other media outlets that are picking up the story here.

This is a hot potato, but I think it will be a useful conversation.

Update: Mohler Responds, “Was it Something I Said?”

9 Comments

  • R. K. Brumbelow

    I question Dr Mohler, and wonder if he thinks there will be a time that we find a gene for sin in general and if so could we fix it so that man no longer needs a Saviour? Obviously, he would not go this far, yet one wonders how far down the slippery slope he is willing to travel.

  • Kyle Barrett

    How is this a slippery slope? If in fact they can show that there is a “gay” gene all that proves is that sin has corrupted us to the degree that our very DNA has been altered by it.

  • Everett

    Everett says,

    Hey Denny, just a heads up. Russell Moore commented on Mohler’s article today (3-15)while hosting Mohler’s radio program. It seems that the Louisville was abuzz about this issue as well. Moore also mentioned that Mohler intends to have a show completely devoted to clarifying what he was not saying as well as what he intended to say.

    Blessings

  • Gordon Hackman

    Hello,

    I saw a link to this over on Scot McKnight’s blog and came over to check it out. I’m don’t consider myself a huge Mohler fan in general, but I like what he has to say on this topic.

    I agree with the comments by Kyle over against R. K. Brumbelow. I don’t see this as a slippery slope as much as I do an acknowledgement that the fall affects every area of our lives.

    I’ve heard too many stories about fellow believers who have genuine struggles with homosexual attractions, even when they don’t want them, to buy into the notion that homosexual feelings are simply something we choose. The important thing is rather or not one chooses to act on those feelings or attractions.

    I like Dr. Mohler’s statement because it simultaneously recognizes that our biology is an inescapable part of who we are, but also recognizes that biology doesn’t have to be destiny.

  • R. K. Brumbelow

    Dr. Mohler first wrote:
    “If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.”

    This is a very slippery slope, especially the last sentence. However, I am more concerned with Dr. Mohler’s reply peice where he states:
    “In one article, I was said to advocate genetic therapies. I never said that, and I resolutely oppose such proposals. I would not advocate the use of genetic therapies to create heterosexual babies — or any other therapy of this type. ”

    These statements appear to my senses to be contradictory in the p=!p fashion.

    Now I like Dr. Mohler and generally repect him, though I am still waiting on a statement from him regarding the seeming embracing of the emergent movement by his denomination the SBC, and the silence from him regarding leaders of the SBC allowing the likes of Modalist T.D. Jakes in the pulpit (for example Jack Grahm and Ed Youngs Jr and Sr.) An anglican in exile, I have returned to the OPC for the time being. All in all, I chalk this up to Dr. Mohler’s 20%, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be called on any of this.

  • Andrew

    whether or not mohler meant one thing or another is unfortunately irrelevant at this point. when he’s being attacked from every side, it’s apparant that he was not clear enough for most people to understand what he was saying. my vote is that al mohler sticks to theology and leaves genetics to the experts.

  • R. K. Brumbelow

    “Whether or not mohler meant one thing or another is unfortunately irrelevant at this point. “(sic)

    No Andrew, that is exactly the point.
    1) Dr. Mohler is enough of a rhetorician (and I do not mean that disparagingly) that he should say precisely what he means. He is sitting on 2 strikes we ill have to wait and see where it all goes with the next pitch.
    2) Dr. Mohler has been “softballing” issues for a while now – emergence, modalism, calvinism etc in what seems to me to be an effort to be eccumenical while still guiding in the right direction.
    3) The Gospel is not a softball issue, its hardball of the major league variety: Sin, Rebellion, Justification, Repentance, Resurrection, Life, Death, Heaven and Hell
    4) Every theologian has his 20% and unfortunately Dr Mohler blogged in his 20% sphere. Dr. Mohler just needs to admit that he fouled and work on his swing some more ( I don’t know what up with the baseball references today)

Leave a Reply to Kyle Barrett Cancel reply