The “Gay Christian” Non-Debate

There can be little doubt that the homosexual movement has experienced tremendous success over the last 10 or even 5 years. Homosexual sex has moved from an unnatural and immoral lifestyle in the minds of the majority, to one that is celebrated by a large majority in Western society. The homosexual movement has waged a campaign that has seen such remarkable progress that even the pessimist has to be impressed. The movement has conquered corporate America, the boy scouts, marriage, and has even moved into the pseudo-Christian institutions we call mainline Christian denominations.

Regardless of the success of the homosexual movement, there is still the hard work that remains. You see, the basis for society’s rejection of homosexuality, while distant, has continued to be located deep within the Judeo-Christian ethic. As society moves away from that ethic, it has become more accepting of homosexual behavior. But the basis for the historic rejection of homosexuality remains a threat to the movement. And that basis is located within genuine Christian theism. That is to say, the basis for opposing homosexual sex remains fixed within ancient biblical Christianity. That is the one barrier that the homosexual movement has yet to cross. And it is that barrier that has been the target of the movement all along. The homosexual movement is charging full force toward the goal of annihilating biblical Christianity. It is my belief that the homosexual knows that his life is unnatural and perverse and deep down he is unhappy and discontent. He seems to have convinced himself that if he can wipe out the very core of opposition to his lifestyle that perhaps he will find the peace he is hopelessly searching for. Or, perhaps, he is just being vindictive and wishes to deprive the Christian of the sort of freedom he thinks he has been deprived of over the years. Either way, the Christian better understand that the homosexual movement is bent on his destruction. What should the Christian do? How should we respond?

First, there are homosexuals who do not pretend to be Christians. We love them and give them the gospel as we would any other unbeliever. We do not expect homosexuals to hear the gospel without being offended. We expect that Christ will offend most sinners. But we preach the gospel, undiluted, and pray that God will bring His elect to Himself. God has clearly elected some men from out of the homosexual movement. And those elect will only come by the preaching of the cross of Christ. That being said, we make no special accommodations for the homosexual. We treat the homosexual the same as we treat the liar, the adulterer, the pedophile, etc. We give them the gospel.

Second, for the “gay-Christian” movement, we have an entirely different response. We are now talking about a subset within the homosexual movement that wants to move into the Church without faith, without genuine repentance. Since repentance is the absolute fruit of genuine faith, it is obvious to us who possesses genuine faith and who does not. Those who do righteousness are born of God and those who love lawlessness remain children of the devil. The gay-Christian is an individual that claims Christ but who is still very much a child of the devil, the evil one. His faith is a pseudo-faith because he has no desire to repent of the sin of homosexual sex. Rather, he wants to claim the love of God purifies gay sex somehow. God, according to the gay Christian understands his lust as love and therefore wants the gay Christian to be gay AND to be Christian AND to be happy. The gay Christian is not interested in self-denial, the life of the cross, loving divine law. Instead, he desperately searches for as many possible excuses as he can to justify his lust so that he can continue to engage in that which he loves: epithumia, his burning lust (for someone of the same sex).

The purpose of this post is to ask the question whether or not Christians should even be debating the issue of “gay-Christianity.” I think the answer is that Christian Churches really have no flexibility to place the subject of homosexual sex on the table as something we should discuss in that context. On the flipside, I do think it is an opportunity for us to educate the Christian on what the Bible teaches about the subject. The Scriptures are not ambiguous when it comes to God’s view of gay sex. And that clarity exists for a reason. Therefore, we should educate our communities accordingly.

Additionally, we should study the “gay-Christian” arguments and present them to our communities as a way to help them understand the strategy and tactics of this group so that they can be good apologists on the subject when they encounter it or receive questions about some of the things the “gay-Christian” may be saying as they are getting on in daily life. This is critically important in helping Christians not only understand the issues but also in helping Christians feel confident to engage the antagonist.

Finally, we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a debate about whether or not one can be gay and Christian, at least not a formal debate that is. We can and should enter the discussion if for no other reason than to shut the mouths of those who contradict and refute the fool in his folly. But we will not, and cannot sit down at the table and have an open-minded discussion about the possibility that a person could practice gay sex and be in Christ at the same time. That is to say, one cannot choose the homosexual lifestyle in parallel with wearing the name of Christ. That is not a subject that we can be open to debate. The closest we can get to that is to refute, point by weak point, every line of reasoning presented in the “gay Christian” argument. And that is something we must do. Moreover, we can never grow tired of refuting the truth-hating arguments of all men who would despise Christ while claiming to love Him.

To the “gay Christian” we stand firm in our rejection of their claim to faith. We do so forcefully. To the homosexual movement we say that you have met your superior in the biblical Christian. If you thought the Church would wilt, if you thought the Christian would cave to your demands and be intimidated by your pressure, your persecution, your silly name-calling, you were wrong. Christians are built to handle slander, persecution, name-calling, isolation, etc., etc. We have been from the beginning of our community. No amount of threats, intimidation, persecution, or harm will change our view on the homosexual lifestyle. We remain, and always will remain, united in our condemnation of your lifestyle because we know with certainty that your lifestyle stands condemned by God. Because God resides in us, we stand with God who keeps us, who loves us, who pours His grace on us and who will always provide us the strength necessary to stand for His truth. The homosexual movement has met, in biblical Christianity, the one community that it cannot conquer, defeat, infiltrate, intimidate, or bully. This is a fight that you simply cannot win. The odds makers cannot put odds on this one because the possibility of the homosexual movement successfully entering and thus conquering the Christian community is non-existent.

The Spin of Sin: The Sinister-Spinster-Sinner

As many of you know, I have been back and forth lately with Dan Trabue over a number of issues ^th century and to excommunicate those who refuse to receive said dogma with all humility. The purpose of this post is to show the reader how Dan claims one thing and thing tries to say that he is not claiming the very thing he is claiming. It is the same slight-of-hand nonsense we observed in men like Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, and Brian McLaren.

related to the biblical expression of Christianity. Dan is one of those emergent guys, and he seems to think he can replace nearly every basic doctrine of historic Christian orthodoxy while retaining his identity as Christian. This is due in no small part to his uncritical acceptance of postmodern philosophy coupled with the Church’s true failure to rightly emphasize Christian dogma in the late 20

Dan’s first claim is that ANE writers did not write with the same aim of modern historians. What Dan means is that ANE writers were more concerned with doing something other than just transmitting historical facts as they occurred when they wrote. First of all, like any good slight of hand movement, there is some truth in the statement. However, the statement is much more controversial Dan admits. Second, the statement is far too general. Third, the statement assumes that the Ancient Hebrew Scriptures follow the ANE model in recording historical narrative, which also assumes that the motivation and forces behind the Hebrew Scriptures were the same as every other ANE text. That these assumptions are patently false seems obvious to anyone but those with the most extreme prejudice. Dan’s view destroys the universal fall humanity and, along with it, the doctrine of original sin. If there was no literal Adam to fall, there could be no literal, universal fall. If Adam was not the federal head of man, there was no federal head of man. If that is true, men can obtain righteousness and be saved apart from Christ by simply not sinning. Yet, Dan spins, claiming to believe that we are all sinners even though he has removed the very foundation for his own claims.

Luke Included Adam and Seth in his genealogy

I pointed out that Luke, in his genealogy of Christ, include Adam and Seth among the many other generations from Christ back to Adam. My reason for doing so was so that Dan might realize that Luke, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, accepted the view that Adam and Seth were historical people living at a point in time. Dan rejected Luke’s account although he provided no alternative explanation and then claimed that we do not know what God’s opinion of what Luke wrote might be. Now, if Dan believes Luke was wrong, he must also believe that God believes that Luke was wrong. Yet, he says we just don’t know God’s opinion of Luke’s account. I suppose Dan could argue that Luke mixes myth and legend into geological records while providing a certification of the historicity of Christ and his Messianic office. But such a move would seem to be, not just logically incoherent and absurd, it would be philosophically outrageous. Yet, Dan denies holding the view that Luke’s writings are unreliable. He wants to attest that Luke is reliable while claiming on this point that Luke was wrong, or in other words, unreliable. This is the two-faced spin that emergent thinkers love to play games with. They hold a view while claiming NOT to hold a view. How long did we know that Rob Bell rejected the Scriptures and endorsed homosexual sex before he finally came out and admitted it?

Dan has repeatedly said the Bible is not the Word of God and that the Scriptures are not binding, nor ipso facto, claiming that this was just Paul’s opinion. At the same time, Dan has attempted to employ a certain authority over me by informing me that I cannot slander him because slander is forbidden. I have to ask, by whom? Whose authority forbids me to slander? Oh, the same text that forbids slander is the text that Dan wants to argue in another place has no authority and is not binding. And then Dan wants people to believe that he really doesn’t believe the things I am accusing him of. Once again, we see the sinister spin of the sinister sinner at work. It really is outrageous and would be comical if it were not so wicked and rebellious.

authoritative on our lives. Having grown tired of generalities, I took Dan to Paul as he was pronouncing a curse on anyone who dared disagree with him on the gospel. Paul wrote with all authority on the matter. There can be no doubt that Paul, in the very least, was under the impression he had a right to claim that his version of the gospel was the standard and that no one had any right to proclaim even a slightly different one. Dan rejects Paul’s authority

In addition to Dan’s denial of a literal Adam which must mean a denial of a literal fall and the necessity for a literal redemption in Christ, Dan has denied the reliability of Luke along with the authority of Paul specifically and all of Scripture in general. At the same time, Dan wants us to believe that he is a Christian. Now, as one might guess, Dan also embraces homosexuality. Dan claims that marriage and sex are open to all that want it and that God is perfectly fine with such arrangements. I am sure Dan has read the supposed apologetic for gay Christianity and is familiar with those weak and ridiculous arguments. The point here is that gay sex is described by Scripture not only as a sin, but as a perversion of the natural design of the human body. And the larger point is that commandment breaking can never be a part of the Christian community regardless of how many OSAS hard-core dispensational guys preach that it can be. The view that Christ can be your Savior even though He is not your Lord crawled up out of the sewers of hell even if it did so through well-intentioned men. Dan’s endorsement of same-sex relationships precludes him from the community of faith even if he says that it does not.

In the end, due to Dan’s beliefs and their implications for Christian doctrine and their impact on the Christian community, we have to challenge his claim that he possesses genuine faith. Many people came along in the first century church making the same claims. But upon closer inspection, they were found out to be false teachers, false prophets, and false converts. The same is not any less true today. The difference is that today’s church hardly ever inspects a person’s claim to know Christ. They simply take it at face value and conduct no due diligence whatsoever. We have to be more prudent about how we conduct ourselves in the Christian community. We don’t start out doubting a person’s faith. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that new arrivals must be known. We spend time with them. We have conversations with them. We observe their life. What do they believe and how do they conduct themselves? When we begin to hear things that trouble us, we must push into those issues and understand more about their claims and beliefs. When we bump into guys like Dan, we engage in conversation and eventually end up where we have ended up. We ask the person to repent of their unbelieving views, submit to Scripture with all humility, and call on their elders to teach them a more pure form of the Christian system. When they are persistent in their refusal to accept and believe Christian dogma, we are equally persistent in refusing their testimony and view them as a wolf instead of a sheep. Those facts are published for the rest of the community so that everyone is aware and protected from those who would bring damnable heresies into the body of Christ. When men like Dan collect other cavils of like-mind and run down the street to start their own group, we treat them with contempt and shame, refusing to extend the slightest degree of respect and honor to them because they reflect a shameful and despicable version of Christianity that does far more harm than it does good to the Christian way.

Don't take the pictures too seriously. They are mere my way of interjecting a little sarcasm, you know, a literary device not to be taken overly literal. 

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.