Time Magazine: Inside the Evangelical Fight over Gay Marriage

A few weeks ago I wrote a blog post that was highly critical of the Southern Baptist Ethics team hosting a conference on the subject of gay marriage. Specifically, I was critical of the tone set by the conference. I felt it sent the wrong message at a time when Evangelicals need their leaders to send a strong message of opposition based on truth and delivered in love. I was upset with Dr. Al Mohler (a man whom I deeply love and admire) and the appearance that secret meetings, between Mohler and Matthew Vines communicated, and the fact that other secret meetings between certain groups of proponents of gay Christianity and the Southern Baptist Ethics team members. The main thrust of my criticism was that the overall message of the conference was confused. I said then that others in secular media would interpret that conference differently. I said that Christians needed to be reassured that their continual battle for the truth and in this case against the onslaught of gay Christianity was precisely what God would expect from them. Christians needed to know that their leaders were with them, and that, without doubt, without hesitation, and without wavering. My main concern was that this conference would fuel the flames of secular media and give them the ammunition they are looking for to at least cast doubt on the Evangelical resolve against gay Christianity. According to a recent article in Time Magazine, my concerns were right on target.

The article points to Matthew Vines as a gay Evangelical activist and the work he is doing in this area. Now, we could say that Matthew Vines is about as Evangelical as the pope. We could say that Matthew Vines is not a true believer. We could say that Vines’ rejection of the divine revelation is a rejection of God speaking and acting in His divine self-disclosure. We could say that Matthew Vines is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. And we should be saying all these things. We should be affirming all these things. And we should be saying these things in love, but with the deepest sense of urgency and forcefulness as we can. Matthew Vines does not know Christ. He is outside the Christian community and his work is not to be praised but to be destroyed without reserve, and without mercy. We must stand ready and hopeful that God will grant him repentance and should that happen, we would receive him into our community with open arms. But make no mistake about it: the work that Vines is engaged in is as satanic as any work could be. His aim is the destruction of Biblical Christianity without apology, without hesitation, and without mercy. You have a grave problem in your thinking if you believe that Vines work can be categorized in any way other than satanic deception at it’s core.

It is for this reason that I was so incredibly alarmed by Al Mohler’s agreement to meet with Vines and then to refuse to be transparent about the nature of that meeting. If Mohler wanted to meet with Vines privately, then the fact of the meeting should have been private as well. No one should have known about it except those closest to Vines and Mohler. Why? No one should know because it gives the impression of gay Christianity’s progress into the most conservative ranks of Evangelicalism. It opens the door to the speculation, as the Time Magazine article said, that the last dominoes against gay marriage are falling. And those of us who are out here in the real world standing for truth need men like Mohler NOT to do anything that might even come close to leaving people like Time with that impression. If we know about the meeting, we should know about the exchange. I believe Dr. Mohler called Vines to repentance. I believe Dr. Mohler said all the right things to Vines behind closed doors. But I want others, outside our camp, to believe that also.

At a minimum, the conference should have reinforced the Christian position openly, and without any hint that any sort of weakening is taking place. Optimally, the conference should have either NOT taken place or its focus should have been elsewhere. Do we really need to have meetings about gay Christianity or gay marriage? Are these subjects really up for discussion? I can understand a conference designed to help Christians better understand and articulate a defense for the Christian position. I can understand a conference designed to answer the nonsense we read in books published by men like Vines. Such a conference would be very encouraging and very useful. Perhaps there was some of this at that conference. But there were gay activists at the conference and they were extended the privilege of private meetings. These are not people who are sincerely misled who are truly searching for help with what God says about gay sex. No one needs help to understand what God says about gay sex outside of providing the incredibly clear Scriptures on the subject. These people spend their life looking for ways around those texts. Christians, at least those of us living in the West have allowed the modern phenomenon of political correctness to do its work in our minds. Rather than see these things as the damnable servants of demons that they are, and rather than seeing these men as the wolves and vile perverts that they are, we tidy the language up and it leaves the impression that the attempt to destroy Christianity isn’t so bad, and neither are the people involved in the effort. Either that, or we are so dim-witted and dull that we do not see gay Christianity as the obliteration of Biblical Christianity. We treat the teaching as if it is a small matter of disagreement and we treat those pushing it as if they are sincere people only wanting God’s best for everyone involved. They are ministers of Satan sent out to deceive and to damn the souls of as many men and women as they can. And that is how we should view them.

No, there is no such thing as the Evangelical acceptance of gay Christianity because there is no such thing as gay Christianity. Secular media interprets evangelical churches accepting gay marriage and gay Christianity as the evangelical acceptance of these things. It is not. Rather, it is evangelical churches making a conscious decision NOT to be evangelical any longer. If a church were to convert to Islam would we say that Christianity is adopting Muslim beliefs as part of it’s Christianity or would we say that that particular church is defecting from Christianity? We certainly would say that latter.

Acts 20:29 false teachers that bring false teachings are described as savage wolves. In 2 Cor. 11:13-15, false teachers are described as false apostles, deceitful workers, and servants of Satan. In 2 Cor. 10:3-5, Paul paints the vivid picture of how Christians are to deal with teachers that oppose and contradict Christ. He says we are to stop at nothing short of destroying those speculations and ungodly thoughts. Why is it then that we extend an olive branch to deceitful messengers, servants of Satan, and rather than obliterating their vile doctrines, we treat their teachings with some sort of respect, courtesy, dignity if you will? No one is suggesting that we burn people at the stake here. But at a minimum, they must be put out of the community and refused a seat at any table so long as their goal is to talk about accepting those things that God clearly damns and condemns. We have no right to do otherwise.

The Southern Baptist Convention & Homosexuality

Recently, the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission met in Nashville TN. I was not at the meetings and therefore can only comment on the reports and quotes that are subsequently being published by those who were there. I must confess that I am not just disappointed by many of the statements that were made, but I want to bring it up a level and ask why such a conference, or dicussion or event if you will, was necessary in the first place. Why should the Church spend time, money, and resoures discussing an issue that has been forever settled (and that without ambiguity) with men who have been busy doing everything they can to completely destroy the very gospel we are supposed to love and are sworn to uphold? Let's establish this truth before we even get into the discussion. And "this truth" is the fact that not every question is morally neutral. Some questions are by nature out of bounds. The proof that I shall offer is located in Romans 9:19. The forbidden question is, "Why does God find fault if no one can resist His decretive will?" Paul informs us that this is a forbidden question because it calls into question the very right of God to carry out his purpose. In other words, the question challenges God's sovereignty. Some questions are simply not permitted. But we are not dealing here with questions are we? No, we are not. We are dealing with men like Matthew Vines who do not have questions.

The "gay-christian" movement does not have questions. One article put it this way when it comes to the disagreement between Southern Baptists and Homosexuals: "No concessions were made, but leaders on both sides expressed surprise at how the two agreed to coexist. Put another way: The old emphasis on “Love the sinner, hate the sin” has become more a version of simply “Love all sinners. Ask questions later.” If you think that those in the "gay-christian" movement are sincere people with sincere questions about the Christian teaching on the subject of gay sex, you are either incredibly naive or woefully deluded. Matthew Vines has written a book on the subject that supposedly answers all the questions anyone ever had and he has set out, all by himself and his massive experience of oh, 25 years living or so to reverse thousands of years of Jewish and Christian sholarship.

“I do want to apologize to the gay and lesbian community on behalf of my community and me for not standing up against abuse and discrimination directed towards you. That was wrong and we need your forgiveness,” said North Carolina megachurch pastor J.D. Greear, drawing applause. Statements like this are just incredibly silly. Apparently, Mr. Greear thinks that his gesture will effect gays enough to make them more open to the gospel and perhaps more likely to repent. Or, perhaps Mr. Greear does not have a biblical view of gay sex? One thing is certain, we can't tell based off statements like this where he stands on the issue of gay sex. It is a red herring statement that seeks avoid the hard issue in the room. What is that issue? What does the Church do with "gay-christians?"

Greear statement may sound pious, and charitible. At a minimum, Mr. Greear's comment has nothing to do with the supposed question facing the committee. Greear went on to say, “We have to love our gay neighbor more than our position on sexual morality.” This is one of the most disturbing statements coming out of the conference. First of all, the Christian position on sexual morality is a position on divine truth. It is a position on the authority of Scripture. It is a position indelibly related to the gospel. It is a position touching of the very nature of the very God Who Himself has redeemed us by the blood of His Son. Mr. Greear seems to think this is a political issue and his theological ignorance and inability to reason from A to B is nothing short of scandelous. Gay sex is revealed in Scripture to be an abomination before God as well as a violation of nature. To use this kind of language with people who are insistent on stubbornly rejecting the revelation of divine Scripture cannt help but reduce and downgrade the vile nature of sexual behavior that even led to the supernatural destruction of cities at the hand of God Himself.

"Even the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., the veteran culture warrior and president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., seemed to have a change in tune, if not an outright change of heart." I cannot judge anything that Dr. Mohler said, but clearly the reporter observed something noticeably different about Mohler's disposition toward homosexuality. That is even more disturbing than Mr. Greear's comments because I would expect a mega-church pastor like Greear to make remarks just like that. Mohler is quoted as saying, “Early in this controversy, I felt it quite necessary, in order to make clear the gospel, to deny anything like a sexual orientation,” Mohler told the crowd. “I repent of that.” To call this sexual orientation is to lend crediblity to the gay argument and to bolster their agenda, not to mention, it does not serve to encouarge those Christians who are still courageous enough to stand firm against the movement. Sexual orientation is nothing more than a sophisticated way of referencing homosexuals who have perverted and unnatural sexual urges. 

Christian ministers should not be in the business of dressing up sin so that our language is less offensive to the offender. Our interest is to accurately describe sin to be precisely what it is, not to soften it up or make it more sophisticated. Are some people born with the unnatural sexual urge of homosexuality? Maybe. I am not a scientist. As a theologian I say the question is irrevelant. It doesn't really matter. That fact does not change the fact that homosexual sex is described is an abomination and a perversion of nature by Scripture. And Scripture's definition and description of homosexual sex is really all that matters. This is why Mohler's comments are so very disappointing and disturbing.

Justin Lee's tweet is the most revealing and very likely reflects the strategy of most of the gay attendees at the conference: Justin Lee Tweet - Frustrated LGBT people at home, please know that I am at #ERLC2014 having as many conversations as I can to bring nuance behind the scenes. 4:05 PM - 27 Oct 2014

Lee's tweet indicates that he had a strategy for attending this conference as is likely the case with most gays. The homosexual does not enter these discussions with pure interests of searching for truth. The homosexual is not interested in the truth because Scripture defines them as natural born enemies of God. They will pervert the truth of God everywhere they come into contact with it. That is what the unregenerate do. Lee was there to influence people, as many as possible, to support the "gay-christian" idea. That was his purpose for being there. That was Matthew Vines purpose for being at the conference. 

The apostle Paul told the Ephesian elders, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." 

Would Paul have invited us to have a conversation on this topic? Do we think any one of the apostles would have been open to a conference that brought together Christians and false believers? Is it okay for us to extend such hospitality to people whose passion, whose number one focus is to change the gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ top to bottom by perverting and corrupting the gospel and Christian doctrine and including in the Church a form of sexual behavior that has been recognized by centuries through divine revelation to be an abomination and that, without ambiguity? Paul called them savage wolves. Would a shepherd ever invite savage wolves in among the flock for a discussion about their diet? 

John wrote, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds." Homosexual sex is not an issue that is open for discussion. Homosexual marriage is not an issue that is open for discussion. The Church's only response to these quibblers is found in Matt. 18:15-18. They are to be rebuked openly, sharply, and continuously until they repent. They are not part of the Christian community and have no business participating in a discussion that should be between Christians.