Tim Mackie of The Bible Project Promotes Aberrant Teaching on Homosexuality: ‘In Jesus, There’s no Gay or Straight’

Tim Mackie run ‘Bible Project’, a popular bible-teaching YouTube channel with over 3.5M subscribers. In a recent teaching video, Mackie offers a theology of human sexuality that seems to be a ‘Side B Revoicer Special,” which holds aberrant and unbiblical perspectives on homosexuality. The Dissenter explains:

Side B Christianity is essentially the teaching of Revoice, a movement condemned as false and heretical by conservative, Bible-believing Christianity. It teaches that homosexuality as an “orientation” is normative; Christians can have strong, romantic, sexual feelings for people of the same sex. As long as they don’t actually have sex, they are not sinning. In other words, it completely denies the Holy Spirit’s power to change one’s thoughts and desires upon repentance and faith.

Earlier in the clip, Mackie says Jesus acknowledges (Matthew 19:12) that some people are ‘eunuchs by birth’ but then twists this passage to make it as though Jesus is saying that some people are homosexuals by birth.

Later he engages in a bit of bible twisting to monkey about with Galatians 3:28, rewording it to add, “there is no male or female, no slave or free, no Jew or non-Jew, no gay or straight…”

 Why is it that in the majority of American churches, single people feel isolated, and not included, and alone? Because the dominant paradigm is ‘get married and have kids- that’s the pathway to a meaningful life’. And just to be super clear, I’m really, pretty sure that Jesus doesn’t share that view. He didn’t get married, right? I mean, just like, historical fact number one.

Do you think Jesus did not have a meaningful life? Do you think Jesus actually didn’t think meaningful life was possible because he didn’t have sex and he didn’t get married? Like, we laugh at it because all of a sudden we realize that’s so ridiculous, he had probably the most meaningful human life that a human has ever had. But somehow, we don’t compute that. And so we end up creating churches where people who are not married, feel second class, and where people who are gay feel even more ostracized because they where do they fit, right?

And so here, we’re right to it. In Jesus’ view, there are multiple ways that a human can image God’s love. What does a life of singleness- whether you’re straight, whether you’re gay it doesn’t matter- what is the life of singlenes dedicated to Jesus lead to? You have enormous amounts of time and resources free now, to dedicate to serving others to loving others, in the name of Jesus.

And the history of the church is marked by incredible, incredible heroes and heroines of the faith who have done that. And their lives were not diminished in one bit. And so if I’m a follower of Jesus and I sent the High Calling to not be married and to give my life, sexual orientation, doesn’t matter. He’s calling me to not have sex with people of the opposite gender or the same gender, he doesn’t highlight one more than the other.

Just says, sex has its place within the Covenant symbol-making of the image of God. It’s not the only way to symbol the image of God, but it is that way, in Messiah Jesus, there is no male or female, no slave or free. No Jew or non-Jew, No gay. No straight. Just beautiful humans made in the image of God who are deeply flawed and who all need God’s grace.

Slowly, but surely, the downgrade marches on.

9 thoughts on “Tim Mackie of The Bible Project Promotes Aberrant Teaching on Homosexuality: ‘In Jesus, There’s no Gay or Straight’

  1. Yet another individual bending Scripture to validate his own aberrant worldview. This man is either intellectually dim or simply discounts the accuracy of the Bible – either way, Christians would do well to avoid him like the plague.

  2. Thanks for this article.

    My first thoughts on The Bible Project guys when I first encountered their videos were that they come across as a bit too wise in their own eyes, with a ‘know-it-all’ approach to their teaching videos. Despite this (minor?) red flag, I have found their videos helpful in explaining biblical themes.

    But now this! Maybe the red flag was valid.

    This is a one-strike and you’re out situation. Marked & avoided.

  3. Very deceitful, dishonest and wicked-hearted individual.

    It’s not a sin to be single. It’s not a sin to think about being single. It’s not a sin to have a desire to be single. It’s not a sin to actually practice being single. Nothing related to singleness is a sin of any sort. In fact, the Bible says for many it is better to be single.

    There’s no comparison whatsoever. But the apostates always blatantly, deceitfully, and wickedly try to promote abominable sin by conflating it with something else which they know full well isn’t sinful.

    1. As far as Eunuchs are concerned, for those reading who don’t know, the word Eunuch in the Bible refers to either an individual who is born with a defect in reproductive organs, or has been castrated. Neither of which is a sin in and of itself. The word does not mean that one is a homosexual.

      Mr. Mackie knows this full well. He’s not ignorant. He knew he was wickedly deceiving when he spoke the words, yet spoke them anyway.

      A born again Christian cannot continue in such deceit and promotion of wickedness. If he is a Christian, he needs to repent and issue public correction to any and all he so badly mislead.

      1. And Eunuchs are male. They’re not in between. Not along some contrived spectrum. They’re male.

        If castrated, then whoever was involved in that mutilation (including themselves if voluntary) would have committed an abominable sin – it was nearly always done for sinful reasons, usually as a keeper of the king’s harem. If they are homosexual, then they are an abomination. If they try to make themselves appear to be anything other than male, they are an abomination (Duet. 22:5). But simply being a Eunuch is not a sin in and of itself. He is a male with deformed genitalia.

  4. After a little digging, it seems this is not their only problem. There are more red flags.

    The article linked below has a reasonable and balanced summary of The Bible Project:


    There is also a very insightful article on TGC Australian Edition. Note that I do not trust TGC at all, but in this standout article, Richard Sweatman does a worthy job of exposing a couple of serious weaknesses in the theology of The Bible Project. The following link is provided with a warning: TGC is not on my trusted resources list:


  5. I’m sure the last thing a normal single Christian male wants is to be placed under a rainbow cloud of suspicion. Mackie has done a wicked thing here in yoking them together.

  6. Not a particular follower of Mackie; although I will say that I’ve learned some useful historical context from his Bible Project videos. I have noticed that when there is disagreement over a particular theology, he won’t address the disagreement, he’ll just pick one side and present it as the truth, and I’m no fan of that.

    That said, there is more to that video than meets the eye. He also says the following, to be clear:

    “I don’t think Jesus would recognize our culture’s redefinition of marriage and separating it from gender. And precisely not because he’s a bigot—I can’t think of a less bigoted person on the planet than Jesus—but here he is! Some people say Jesus never said anything that weighs in on the debate about the definition of marriage in our culture. And I can’t, in intellectual integrity, say that’s true.”

    – Unedited video at 58:06 https://youtu.be/1xvt6AMaBow?t=3366

    So while some of what he’s saying is still problematic, he’s not going quite as overboard as it seems in the edited video posted earlier, and I think it’s important to weigh this out before condemning someone as an agent of satan who might actually just be confused. Giving a little grace in the face of a disagreement is always part of the DNA of a Christ-follower (Ephesians 4:2, 1 Peter 4:8, Colossians 3:12, 1 Peter 3:8).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.