North Point Community Church ‘impastor’ Andy Stanley continued his wretched job of smarmily making his way into the consciousness of Christendom, this time by lauding up the faith of gay Christians as exemplary, over and above that of straight ones, while dismissing and brushing off certain scriptures as “clobber” verses.
Speaking at the Drive 2022 confernece, he explains.
(If we could) figure out how to get straight people as excited about serving and engaging as the gay men and women I know, we would have a volunteer backlog. That’s my experience in our churches. Let me just read it to you. A gay person- when I say gay, men and women, okay? A gay person who still wants to attend church, after the way the church has treated the gay community, I’m telling you, they have more faith than I do. They have more faith than alot of you. A gay person who knows, ‘you know what, I might not be accepted here, but I’m going to try it anyway.’
Have you ever done that as a straight person? Where do you go where you’re not sure you’re going to be accepted, and you go over and over and over and over? Only your in-laws house, that’s the only place you go where, you know you’re not completely accepted but you go over and over and over and it’s because you have to. But other than the in-laws, what environment do you continue to step foot in knowing at any moment, you may feel ostracized? No place.
I’m telling you, the gay men and women who grew up in church and the gay men and women have come to faith in Christ as adults, who want to participate in our church, Oh. My. Goodness.
He continues, calling certain portions of the scriptures “clobber passages.”
I know 1 Corinthians 6 and I know Leviticus and I know Romans 1– so interesting to talk abut all that stuff (Editor’s not. Pay attention to his tone there) but just-oh my goodness, a gay man or woman who wants to worship their Heavenly father, who did not answer the cry of their heart when they were 12 and 13 and 14 and 15?
God said ‘no’, and they still love God? We have some things to learn from a group of men and women who love Jesus that much and who want to worship with us. And I know the verses. I know the clobber passages, right. We got to figure this out, and you know what? I think you are.
What on earth… let this be a lesson. Much evil can be done against you, others and your church under the banner of evangelism. pic.twitter.com/EArWfpTc7r
What on earth… let this be a lesson. Much evil can be done against you, others and your church under the banner of evangelism. pic.twitter.com/EArWfpTc7r
Progressives are up in arms after NHL player Ivan Provorov did not don an LBGTQ jersey for a pre-game warm up and postgame auction, the only Philadelphia Flyer player refusing to do so. The Flyers were celebrating PRIDE night at the arena, decking it out in rainbow hues in order to raise money for gay charities.
Provorov, who is Russian orthodox, told reporters: “I respect everyone. I respect everybody’s choices. My choice is to stay true to myself and my religion.”
Philadelphia Flyers player refusing to wear a rainbow jersey for Pride night. What the Hell is happening to hockey?? pic.twitter.com/gcrOaLKfHm
In response to this, hockey analysts were livid, with Pierre LeBrun, TSN and RDS Hockey Insider and Senior NHL Columnist for @TheAthletic writing:
Likewise Greg Wyshynski, Senior NHL Writer at ESPN, said that Prororov owed these charities a donation and was irked and aghast he didn’t wear the jersey.
Head coach John Tortorella offered that he respected Prorovov for his stand, and did not consider benching him for his stance.
With Provy, he’s being true to himself and to his religion. This has to do with his belief and his religion. It’s one thing I respect about Provy: He’s always true to himself. That’s where we’re at with that.”
Regular pew-sitters like myself have long been the beneficiaries of the unafraid, unapologetic wisdom of pastor Doug Wilson. We live in a church age where, as Wilson aptly noted in his blog post discussed below, the prizing of feminine characteristics in church leadership has created a “third sex” in evangelicalism. It is in this sea of weakling pastors that large numbers of evangelicals like myself are drawn to Doug Wilson’s brand of plain, masculine immovability – evangelicals likely to blast me for what is to follow.
The “Unnecessary” Controversy
One of the blessings of the internet (among its vast array of dangers) is the ability to keep tabs on the teaching of public Christians over time. Our current speaking and writing occur at the same time past versions of ourselves continue to teach from videos and articles we long ago forgot. Our digital expressions have no natural end, and at any time the Ghost of Teaching Past might return to remind everyone of our past errors. For the mature person, this return of the “ghost” leaves only two options: humbly repent and retract this prior error, or continue to cover it up in so much additional content that maybe no one will notice we’ve changed (or worse, that we haven’t). For Christians, the first is the only true option.
Such is the case with the recent rebuttal offered by Doug Wilson in response to a public challenge by Jared Moore on Jon Harris’s podcast (and to a lesser extent on ours) regarding the nature of so-called homosexual “orientation,” and the reemergence of old statements Wilson offered on the issue of homosexual concupiscence (strong desire) and its relationship with fallen human nature, temptation, and lust. Wilson was named alongside John Piper and Kevin DeYoung as a trusted pastor who has given ground on the issue, evidenced most pointedly by an answer he gave in a Q&A posted to YouTube in 2019 regarding whether a person could be both gay and a Christian. In his answer, Wilson indicated his acceptance of the existence of homosexual orientation and that homosexuals can avoid sinning merely by refusing to “express their sexuality in any kind of external way.” In 2022, Wilson responded to a question about homosexual concupiscence with an answer indicating he believes homosexual desire is mere temptation, which if resisted does not equate to sin.
What follows is an examination of this published response to the “unnecessary controversy,” in which Wilson starts by downplaying the seriousness of the issue before engaging in the kind of rhetorical obfuscation that is, well, vintage Doug Wilson.
A Novel Lexicon
Consistent with the “intuitive art” approach to hermeneutics popular among Federal Visionists (a label Wilson abandoned even as he claimed to have not really changed his beliefs), his response plays fast and loose with terminology (orientation vs identity, for example), is full of self-referencing and garrulous qualifications (I actually like this quirk in Wilson’s writing), and seemingly employs the same novel lexicon that found him using terms like “general equity theonomist” (as if the originators of theonomy hadn’t already defined the usage of the term).
Much like Wilson has previously taught that even Roman Catholics can be brothers in the “covenant community” merely by being subject to the civic benefits of the church, his claim that his church has “homosexuals in good standing” reveals a biblically unsupportable focus on outward works (“a sin” versus “sin”) as the arbiter of good fruit. Unfortunately, Wilson strawmans his “homosexuals in good standing” statement at Indiana University by claiming he referred to his church members as having a homosexual orientation without the identity. Yet anyone bearing the label homosexual would be considered by any modern culture – Christian or not – to be identified as a homosexual. This is categorically different from Wilson’s example of a person who steals being called a thief (a comparison he immediately undercuts by reminding readers that “thieving is not an identity”).
In case anyone doesn’t know, the term homosexual refers to someone practicing a lifestyle of homosexuality. Like the rest of us, Wilson does not get to redefine this term for his own purposes, and his identifying repentant believers in his church as “homosexuals” based apparently on their past, forgiven sin is a 1 Corinthians 6:11 error that goes uncorrected.
Later in the same paragraph, Wilson similarly employs his own definition of the word orientation, where instead of using its operational definition (natural sexual attraction to a defined gender), he redefines it as “how a person is likely to be tempted this time tomorrow” as if temptation sourced from within is not sin. Yet scripture does not talk about temptation, desire, or concupiscence with anything resembling the modern understanding of “orientation,” a concept that equivocates God’s design (heterosexuality) with its abominable counterfeits. This effectively means that when Wilson says “orientation” to a group of, let’s say “sexually broken people,” he says one thing and they hear another. A pastor of his giftedness should know that if we decide to use the term “orientation,” we cannot redefine it to our liking and get defensive when we’re inevitably misunderstood.
The One-Second Rule
Later in the post, Wilson uses the amorphous phrase “homosexual vulnerabilities”* when discussing what I will henceforth refer to as the One-Second Rule. In his example, a homosexual (by his 2019 definition) is attracted to a gay porn ad (what Romans 1:26 would call vile affections), but upon managing to reject clicking on it within a second the homosexual has managed to avoid sinning and has nothing to confess to God. His nature remains stubbornly open to this specific, unnatural sin, but he has “navigated the situation correctly” and need not be concerned with mortifying the “particular kink” that results in him seeing as good that which should rightly repulse him. According to Wilson, he passes the test if he halts the sinful continuation in one second or less, even as he laments his continued proclivity to love what God hates.
Of course, this example is comical when applied to other sins. A person who sees a stranger on the street and course corrects within one second of thinking it would be good to murder that person has still sinned at the moment they experienced any combination of thinking, feeling, or reacting as if murder is good. Adam and Eve fell in their hearts before eating the fruit, and would have stood condemned even they had managed to halt before that first bite. As modern culture has become fully LGBTQ-affirming, it is no coincidence that homosexuality is now offered a do-over on the James 1:14-15 path.
*Note: I agree that not every person is equally susceptible to the same temptations, so perhaps “vulnerabilities” is a helpful way to describe this reality.
The Impeccability of Christ
No discussion of the dynamics of sin would be complete without discussing the temptation of Christ, and unfortunately, Wilson more than muddies the definitional waters here as well. Temptation in scripture often describes trials that may or may not bring us to sinful desires or behaviors (James 1:12). These present an opportunity to sin, but are powerless apart from our fallen nature. These temptations do not equate to desire, do not refer to our internal consideration of the “benefits” of sinning (Matthew 15:19), and are separate from the sinful nature that makes us vulnerable to them (we rightly understand that Christ was not vulnerable to sinning). Yet temptation can also refer to the sinful opportunities presented by the sinner’s flesh nature, and these must be understood as the confession-worthy sin they are. Wilson’s example of the person seeing the gay porn ad as good is beyond mere external temptation – the person’s positive, natural reaction to it is itself a sin to be confessed, fled from, and mortified.
Of course, the reason Jesus resisted the devil’s temptation was not, as Wilson unfortunately insinuated, merely because God foreordained his victory. Christ’s nature was not and is not peccable (susceptible to sin in any respect) like his physical body was susceptible to injury. Rather, Jesus is God incarnate, perfectly capable of not sinning in deed, thought, or disposition. Jesus had absolutely no desire, inclination, or orientation to do anything other than the will of the Father, thus temptation (trials, deceitful claims) did not cause Him even for a moment to consider anything other than perfect obedience (even as Christ clearly experienced and expressed the frailty of his humanity). No back-and-forth battle was waged in the heart of Christ when He perfectly resisted the pathetic wiles of Satan.
Christ did not empathize with our sinful nature in his temptation (“feel the force of it,” as Wilson claims), He sympathizes with our weaknesses. That is, Christ is fully capable of understanding and having compassion for our struggle with the flesh. In no sense does the temptation of Christ indicate that He experienced fleshly temptation, as seeing the same sex as sexually attractive would be rightly understood to be. Wilson’s implication that Christ’s spiritual nature allowed the possibility of sin merely because his physical nature was breakable (which has nothing to do with sin) is a Christological error of soul-damning consequence.
Let me repeat that: Claiming that it is categorically possible for God to sin is heresy.
Concupiscence Does As Concupiscence Is
The title of Wilson’s blog response betrays an upside-down understanding of the relationship between our sinful nature and the sinful desires and actions that result from it. “Concupiscence Is As Concupiscence Does” is entirely backward and is sadly in harmony with the hamartiological teaching of so-called “Side B” (SSA) Christianity and Roman Catholicism, which both teach a particularly unbiblical point of innocence between sinful nature (sin) and its external result (a sin). In practice, they effectively combine sinful desire and the internal temptation it brings. Both teach that not only do external temptations remain in full force after our conversion (this is true), but our sinful desires that are drawn to those temptations (and birth their own) remain firmly immovable and can be properly overcome externally.
Why This is Not an Unnecessary Controversy
Does it really matter if a Christian has an enduring unnatural “orientation” so long as they don’t go any further in thought or deed? Does it matter if ” a sin” (a thought or deed) is the focus rather than “sin” (the flesh nature)? Yes, it matters. The Bible clearly establishes not that we are sinners because we sin, but that we sin because we are sinners. Our war – our repentance – must extend to all aspects of what is opposed to God’s perfection, including any and all remaining internal inclinations toward sin – whether we think we choose them or not. A pastor focusing on the external expression of sin or even the “stirring” of sin inside the heart does great damage to the essential truth that it is our nature, not our works that must be warred against.
The alternative presented by men like Wilson, Piper, and DeYoung leaves the door open for a person to recast their internal temptation to sin as being not sin so long as they keep it inside. Homosexuality is (among other things) our culture’s sin du jour, and at present SSA advocates can point to generally solid teachers to support their claim that they need not mortify their “orientation” so long as they don’t engage in (subjectively defined) gay outward expression. Making this works-based technicality the standard for obedience and sanctification is the gateway drug that leads to “covenant, same-sex friendships,” “hetero cuddling,” and every manner of effeminate perversion Doug Wilson would rightly condemn.
So what is the answer? First, we must not tolerate the usage of terms in a non-operational way. We must use terms like homosexual and orientation to describe what everyone who hears us presumes they mean. We must clearly define what the Bible teaches about temptation – its external (non-sinful) and internal (sinful) sources. Hold up claims about “homosexual orientation” to the logical light of other serious sins to see if what is then claimed even makes sense, especially because the world is demanding the church give their current pet sin a special exception (and they won’t stop there). We must insist that our errant brothers course correct, recant, and repent of their false teaching on this subject. Lastly, Christians must reinforce the truth that sinners do as sinners are, and God does as God is. There are no exceptions.
One more thing: Wilson chided Jared Moore for failing to note Wilson’s podcasts, blog posts, and commentaries on the subject. Assuming they demonstrate a different position than that which Moore has demonstrated, “I got it right other times” is not a defense for getting it wrong currently. And if these other materials harmonize with the Indiana University Q&A and the answer to Noah, they only reinforce Moore’s conclusion.
But Vischer took exception to the criticism he received about same-sex marriage, pushing back on claims that he has an unbiblical or unscriptural view of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. You can see much of that interaction here. Vischer typically has a whole lot to say about everything, but when specifically pressed to share his view on the sin of same-sex ‘marriage’ by @WokePreacherTV, on what should be a very easy, no-brainer question to answer, Vischer went strangely silent.
Unsurprisingly, he did what progressives usually do when cornered theologically on matters they don’t want to publicly divulge, lest they get #farewellrobbelled by the evangelical machine; offered to talk about it in private, away from prying eyes because it was “too sensitive” of a subject to discuss publicly.
WPTV: “If 2 professing Christians of the same sex become romantically involved, abstain from sexual activity until they are legally married, and live together monogamously for their entire lives, has a sin occurred?”
Vischer: “Not the topic of the thread or the show.”
WPTV: “Too sensitive of a subject, I see.”
Vischer: “For Twitter, yes. Happy to have coffee and discuss.”
We called this trajectory years ago. What a coward.
UNITED STATES - JULY 14: Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission during the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law subcommittee hearing on "The Ethical Imperative for Reform of our Immigration System", July 14, 2010 in the Rayburn House Office Building. (Photo By Douglas Graham/Roll Call via Getty Images)
In 2014, Richard Land wrote an Op-Ed in the Christian Post entitled “Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom: A Modest Proposal,” where he demonstrated a combination of his political ineptitude and his subversive nature that was evidence of moral compromise at the time. Whereas his 2022 article is terrible, his 2014 article, which addresses the same issue at an earlier point in time, is more egregious.
Land begins by addressing the claims that protecting religious freedom is likened to Jim Crow and discrimination.
So, what stance should early twenty-first century Christians advocate and support?
Perhaps we should begin by saying that homosexual activity between consenting adults should not be criminalized. As much as we may understand the desire of our Ugandan Christian brothers and sisters to protect their country from the moral excesses of the West, we should counsel them not to criminalize consensual homosexual activity.
Full stop right here. This is antinomian and anti-biblical. Moreover it goes against the civil tradition of America and the English Common Law, which were based on biblical morality. Sodomy is not a right. Buggery does not benefit society, it only produces harm through disease, sexual abuse, and increased degeneracy—all of which America has seen since 2003 when…. to continue reading click here.
This article was written by Ray Fava and published at the Evangelical Dark Web
A few months ago, we broke the story that ‘Christian’ band Relient K came out as pro-LGBTQ after inviting open and unrepentantly gay musician Semler to join them on their upcoming tour and selling LGBTQ merch. This came on the heels of Switchfoot’s Jon Foreman Releasing a pro-LGBTQ TikTok video. We followed this up with an investigation into music group Five-Iron Frenzy, showing the band had come out as pro-LBGTQ and that frontman Reece Roper was pro-choice and lost. More standouts include:
The multi-platinum, three-time Grammy-winning CCM staple was known for such albums as their 1995 self-titled Jars of Clay (with classic songs like Liquid, Flood, Love Song for a Savior, and World’s Apart) along with albums Much Afraid, If I Left the Zoo, and the Eleventh Hour. Active for over 20 years, the band still plays shows occasionally but has yet to put out a studio album since 2013’s Inland.
In 2014, the band drew widespread criticism after frontman Dan Haseltine, who deconstructed his faith as early as 2012, posited on Twitter that he couldn’t see any reason why gay marriage shouldn’t be legalized and supported, offering that nothing terrible could possibly come from it.
He would also write, “It is perhaps less important to know what is “right and wrong” morally speaking than to know how to act toward those we consider “wrong” and “I don’t particularly care about Scriptures stance on what is “wrong.” I care more about how it says we should treat people.”
The backlash was so intense that two days later, he wrote a follow-up clarification on his now-defunct and deleted website explaining: “In the heat of discussion, I communicated poorly and thus unintentionally wrote that I did not care about what scripture said… I should’ve chosen my words more wisely. I care about what scripture says. It matters.”
Not anymore.
Though Haseltine has kept a low profile since the public battering, he has resurfaced on occasion with a distinctly progressive worldview. He appeared in a video with queer artist Semler lamenting the negative response of Christian media to his 2014 tweets, explaining that after he said those words, he was viewed by the industry as “unsafe.” Haseltine reiterates that despite the bad publicity, he doesn’t regret “pushing the conversation forward.”
And he has, making his theological aberrations public and clear.
He has also taken up the cause for trans issues, supporting trans propaganda in library books, trans ‘men’ having access to the women’s washroom, and trans kids being able to compete in sports,
While insisting that neither he nor anyone else is “pro-abortion, Haseltine has a tendency to “ask questions” while obfuscating his beliefs and pushing back against the orthodox position. This lends the impression that he’s either pro-choice (a term he hates but which fits) or at the very least pro-life with exceptions, which is another way of saying he’s pro-choice. He seems to believe that Roe v. Wade shouldn’t have been overturned, as doing so would only have a negligible impact on abortion rates, and insists that if people want to lower abortion rates, they should vote for the Democrats.
Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries(ELM) is a “professional community for publicly identified Lutheran LGBTQIA+ rostered leaders, candidates, and seminarians” that is dedicated to “raising the visibility of extraordinary leaders and ending discrimination towards people for reasons of sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Through their candidacy accompaniment, the group provides “support and advocacy for LGBTQIA+ persons in the Lutheran candidacy process through direct work with candidates, and relationship and resource development for synods, seminaries, candidacy committees, and other church leaders.”
ELM is a key player in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which really is one of the most wretched hives of scum and villainy, which we’ve covered a length many times.
In a recent Facebook post, ELM shares that one of the ELCA’s rostered Leaders is in a polygamous relationship but has decided not to share the name because “ELCA policy would endanger the call of a person.” Still, they offer that this polygamous relationship is a “beautiful example of the love and care of a Triune God who is relationship” despite this being in actuality an example of a lost pagan with a demon in their ear, whoring around and blaspheming God.
During the pandemic, I moved halfway across the country to be with the person I love, but if you asked me, it was because I had family in the state and community in the city that I moved to. Why couldn’t I be open and honest? Because the ELCA still has a policy that clergy cannot “cohabitate”.(Editor’s Note. For now) So terrified of sexual joy and liberation, and the prerequisite conversations, the ELCA has just decided sex in marriage=always good, sex outside marriage=always bad, and spending the hours between 12am and 7am together in a house, apartment, or room are the only times to have sex and sex will definitely happen then. I’m not actually sure I know anyone for whom the above guidelines for sex are 100% accurate.
Why haven’t I been public about my current relationship? Well, aside from the fact that we are living together (strike one), my partner has another partner who also lives with us.
As someone who practices relationship anarchy, I deeply value the many different relationships I have, from my biological family to my chosen family; from sexual and romantic relationships to platonic ones; from best friends to my relationship with their kids. All of these relationships matter to me and one is not placed above the other (as our culture requires for cisheteronormative monogamy). When I do get married, I won’t be marrying my best friend because I already have one (a few actually).
But even then, the ELCA requires legal marriage for relationships to count and may be codifying it, depending on how the Sexuality Statement revisions play out. So what do we do? Already people don’t understandwhen I talk about living with other adults in shared housing. They don’t seem to understand the financial need for shared housing due to out-of-control rental and housing costs. They also don’t seem to understand the particularly queer nature of chosen family. Right now our household includes me, my partner, their other partner, my partner’s sister, and her girlfriend. We share a house because it’s a financial necessity and because we are chosen family together. Because “we rise together.”
We are family. We give each other rides to work, plan our groceries together, argue about dishes, and wish everyone would leave our bathroom shelf alone. We cover each other when one is short on rent and together plan on how to support our elderly parents in the twilight of their lives. Our porch is where we have family meetings, we plan for the future, and we dream about getting a dog.
Things will change and we will eventually be able to be public about our love and commitments to each other. For now, we rest in our shared relationships and the ways we are able to be out in our neighborhood and among our close friends and family.
Perhaps the biggest piece of propaganda that is emblematic of this whole affair is when Disney Junior pushed trans ideology on two-year-old’s using Muppet Babies.
You can now add Scooby-Doo to the list. In the new Trick or Treat Scooby-Doo film, Velma, one of the series main protagonists, is now a lesbian who ‘crushes’ on another female character.
Gay Anglican priest Sam Allberry, known for partnering up with the Gospel Coalition and the ERLC to be one of the architects for the acceptance of Same-Sex Attraction (SSA) “Christianity, has revealed that he wears a wedding ring on his ring finger, despite being single, as a reminder that God is “pursuing him.” For this reason, he believes he is just as “swept up” in the “whole marital romance” thing as a married couple might be resulting in him being “taken by Jesus.”
As a single person with an increased capacity for friendship that comes with that, there’s a breadth of intimacy I get to experience that you don’t. So there’s, again, there’s some unique pluses to being in my situation. And I keep coming back to ‘I know the bridegroom’. I’m not actually missing out. I’m not getting that the temporal signpost of the love of God that marriage is designed to be. I’m not getting the appetizer, but I’m getting the entrée, and the entrée is so good I can skip the appetizer.
So if I have the bridegroom, then I’m not missing out on the whole marital romance- all of that stuff-actually, I’m just as swept up in it. That is profoundly meaningful to me. I’m wearing a ring on my ring finger, which is a cultural signal for ‘hey, I’m married.’
There’s other stories to why I’m wearing this to do with medical research, it’s a smart ring. But I felt, I felt actually, I’m gonna wear on this ring because I’m taken. I belong to someone. And it’s a nice tangible reminder to me that the bridegroom pursues me.”
This type of thinking is strange behavior, particularly because he’s not ‘taken’ in the way he thinks. He could easily marry a woman if he so chose, rather than suggest he’s married to Jesus, then deal with the scriptural pretzeling that would result in trying to justify his divorce/ annulment from his marriage to the Almighty to pursue a real one.
Honestly, this is the sort of thing a newly converted 14-year-old girl who just returned from a bible camp run by women youth pastors would come up with. Still, the line of thinking is consistent with the sexual ethos of the SSAC movement that Allberry has spearheaded and continues to promote.
Bonus: SSAC is the movement within the larger evangelical movement that narrowly defines the sin of homosexuality to include only acting upon one’s sinful desires, and defines the sinful desires themselves as simply a part of a person’s identity and something God is content with not changing in the heart of the believer.
The false beliefs of the SSAC movement include:
Same-sex attraction is never a result of early childhood abuse and is always unchosen.
Same-sex attraction only becomes sin if it is acted upon.
Homosexual acts are no different than other sins.
Christian regeneration has no influence over same-sex desire.
The church is guilty of oppressing this group instead of helping them bear their cross of unchangeable same-sex attraction.
Justin Holcomb is an Episcopal priest and a theology professor at Reformed Theological Seminary and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Perhaps best known for his book ‘Rid of My Disgrace: Hope and Healing for Victims of Sexual Assault‘ he co-hosts the White Horse Inn podcast with Michel Horton and Bob Hiller.
In a recent episode, they note the large number of LGBTQ-identifying folk who have left the church and offer that the church should speak about homosexuality from the pulpit, but “(the way) they are addressed, must not ever sound like CNN or Fox News.”
Horton: 86% of LGBTQ+ people who were raised in a faith community… with more than three fourths in mostly Evangelical, theological, religious, conservative communities. So that is to say, a large majority of people who identify with those that acronym, they were brought up in conservative Christian churches, and they have left…Why have they left the church? My guess, is that the conversation from the pulpit was ‘here are the evils of that sexual orientation, that temptation, that sin, that are ruining our culture, and if you’re a part of that group, you’re them, you’re out. And, if you identify that way, in our church, we’re going to kick you out or send you to camp until we fix you, and then you can come back and joinus” because apparently, that’s how we’ve ever dealt with sin in the church is sending someone to a camp.
So what ends up happening is you start preaching against the culture, more than to the 13 year old boy who struggles with his sexuality in your pew.Who’s sitting there worried that he’s praying against this thing, and he’s terrified God’s gonna send them to hell. And you, from the pulpit, just affirm that for him. And so he says, ‘God hates me anyways, I don’t need to hear it every Sunday, why go back?’ instead of saying to him,‘the Lord Jesus Christ took up a cross to die for you. He’s raised for your salvation and your justification. He’s promised you new life. You have a cross you’re going to have to bear, and we as the congregation are going to bear it with you. We’re not going to approve of homosexual activity in the church. Of course not. But we’re also not going to kick you out because you think that this is something you can’t overcome. We’re here to bear the burden with you, to carry you in our arms up to the altar to receive the body and blood of Christ with us.’
To remove that preaching from the ears and the hearts of the people in the pews, so that we can fix the culture is to miss our calling as pastors and as the church altogether.”
Holocomb: “Thinking of that 13-year-old boy, think of a pastor who wants to make a statement about sexual ethics for the culture. And they say that statement so clearly, unaware that a same-sex attracted teen is going to be four times more likely to consider suicide. The idea that we’ve traded in proclamation of good news to make a political moment, to be careless with your words, and to make a sheep of his flock think they need to not live, is a moment for deep repentance for that person.”
While it’s true that pastors need to be pastoral when talking about sin, it’s pure manipulation to dangle the threat of a teen throwing himself off a building or hanging herself in her bedroom and laying it at the foot of a pastor if he zealously preaches against that sin, or he doesn’t condemn it in a way that is well-received by the man or woman either battling it or joyfully frolicking in it. Perhaps the cause of their sadness and shame is the sin itself and the law of God being held up against their life, causing them so much discomfort.
It’s not just the teen suicide rate, but the trans adult suicide rate is much higher than the general population. Is railing against the impact that the trans movement has had on the culture at large from the pulpit anathema because they might kill themselves? Perhaps the pastors should start using personal pronouns to affirm them in this manner because otherwise a careless word will really kill them.
To say that pastors must temper their tongues on account of the rate of suicidality in those being confronted about their sin is not a biblical concept, mainly because the weight of sin is a weighty thing. Sin is a shameful thing that manifests even more shame in the holder’s heart. Whether preaching against adultery, theft, murder, child abuse, pedophilia, gossip, drug use, etc, people feeling deep depression and anxiety to the point that they might not want to live after hearing the rebuke is not the fault of the pastor, and drudging up suicide rates and admonishing pastors that life hangs in the balance if they get it wrong is needless manipulation that is completely uncalled for.
Editor’s note. We’re not accusing these men of being soft on homosexuality. Consider this friendly fire in the form of correction.
