Same-Sex Attraction and the Continued Collapse of American Evangelical Christianity

Christianity isn’t collapsing! The gospel hasn’t changed an iota! Jesus Christ is the same today as he always has been and always will be. The gospel is still saving men just as effectively and efficiently as it always has. That’s what the gospel does. Men of God are still standing in their pulpits and thundering the truths of Scripture just like men of God have done since men of God began to exist. The Holy Spirit is still applying the truths of biblical revelation to the hearts of the elect and transforming their lives more and more into the image of Christ. Amen! Biblical Christianity has not changed. American Evangelical Christianity on the other hand? Well, that’s a horse of a very different color. And the color of that horse, if it is not changing, is at least becoming clearer today that it ever has been. This deistic moralism parading as Evangelical Christianity in America has been mortally wounded and is drawing her last breaths. Well, she is drawing her last breath as far as being able to pass herself off as being truly Christian. She is dying from the standpoint that she will no longer be able to hide her pseudo-Christian nature. Everything in the dark is finally being brought to light. We are beginning to see just how many hypocrites and fakes there are in the ranks of the so-called American Evangelical Christian Churches.

One of the clearest indications that American Evangelical Christianity is drawing her last breaths is the onslaught a tribalism that has finally revealed itself to be inside the churches just as much as it is in the world. One of those tribes is the homosexual movement. It is partly the low view of marriage among American Evangelicals that gave rise to the gay marriage movement. Evangelicals had abandoned God’s view of marriage long ago. The divorce rates and lack of subsequent discipline regarding those rates serve as sober proof that this is the case. Now, those gay marriage chickens have piggy-backed on the SJW nonsense of racial reconciliation and the utterly absurd #MeToo movement to take the church by storm.

As you are probably aware, there is a conference taking place at Memorial Presbyterian Church located in St. Louis, MO. This is a PCA church. This is more than a little disturbing. The conference is endorsed by prominent SBC personalities like Matt Chandler and Karen Swallow Prior. It is also endorsed by Gabe Lyons, a man strongly defended by Darrell Bock over at Dallas Theological Seminary. Finally, it is also endorsed by Francis Chan, a man who has obviously swerved far from the truth after graduating from TMS.

I am going to use two sources to point out some very basic flaws in this worldview. And yes, “gay Christianity” is a worldview. One that Christians have to be aware of and one that we have to repudiate and refute. One source will be Jason Harris’ blog article responding to Phil Johnson’s post and the other one is the Statement of Marriage, Sexuality, & Gender from The Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender.

To begin with, paragraph 3 of the Statement of Marriage, Sexuality, & Gender reads this way: The Fall has corrupted God’s original intent for human sexuality in all persons; therefore, all people—straight or non-straight—experience corruption in their sexuality. I added the emphasis. Note that there is a presumption that being straight or not being straight is in the same category. This implies that non-straight, or gay tendencies or desires are morally neutral or worse, just as natural as those of straight, or heterosexual people. This is deliberate. The first aim is to normalize homosexual desires, proclivities, or as Jason Harris calls it, same-sex attraction. The next article says, Simply experiencing attraction to the same sex (or being gay) is not in itself a morally culpable sin. So, according to this statement, being a homosexual is not a morally culpable sin. Is a person’s sexual desire, appetite, preference a morally neutral trait? Jason Harris distinguishes attraction from desire and both of these from lust. He has constructed an elaborate scheme designed entirely to remove any and all moral culpability from homosexual desires. But what about this distinction? Can one be gay, celibate, and therefore a true Christian? Can you have sexual desires to be with a man and be a Christian, as long as you are not acting on those desires?

To begin with, there is nothing in science to support the theory that same-sex attraction is genetic. In other words, the gay gene is still a thing of myth. It doesn’t exist. Second, there is no reason to think that human beings cannot recognize that a particular desire is wrong, unnatural, unhealthy, and harmful, and as a result made a conscious choice to abandon that desire. What you will hear is that people just don’t do that. But there is evidence available that suggests they can and they do, even if it is rare. There is no science anywhere that demonstrates that gay people are really women stuck in a man’s body or that lesbians are men stuck in a woman’s body. These are the facts. So why is it so difficult for someone to take charge of their sexual desires and attractions and change them? The simple answer is they don’t won’t to. Their desire lies in the other direction. The sexual desire we feel has to be replaced by a stronger desire. It has to be replaced by a desire that is more important, more powerful, stronger than it is. Unless that happens, the sexual desire will continue. Now, that explains why it is so terribly difficult to change one’s sexual desire/attraction. But it does not answer the question, is sexual attraction in and of itself morally neutral?

In the beginning, God created man, male and female. And he created man with a natural desire, a natural sexual attraction to a woman. God said in Gen. 1:31 regarding this state of affairs that it was very good. But we all know what happened not too long after that. Man played the fool, believing that he could live autonomously. He thought that he could get along without God, carry on his life independent from God. The result was disastrous. Man fell into a state of moral depravity. Evil entered the world. Two kinds of evil entered to the world to be precise: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evil involves natural phenomenon like a tornado that destroys things, including peoples’ lives. Moral evil is that contamination of the being of man, not his physical being, but his soul. Every part of man has been corrupted by the fall: his intellect, his will, and his emotion. While this does not mean that man is as depraved as he could be, it does mean that there isn’t a part of the human person that is untouched by sin. Evil resides is every part of every human being that has existed after the fall.

Now, Jason Harris, in agreement with the statement on marriage, sexuality, & gender believes that sexual attraction is a morally neutral thing. On the other hand, however, Jason admits that same sex attraction is the product of the fall. He compares it to earthquakes, cancer, and cavities. He then compares a teenage boy who is attracted to a female classmate to same-sex attraction as if they are somehow equivalent. Jason couldn’t be more wrong. SSA is not like a cavity. Unlike the natural evil that is the cavity, SSA goes to morality because it resides in the human psyche. It is not physical. It is mental. It belongs, not to the body, but to the soul. It is a composition of the human person, not the human body. Remember Genesis 1:31: sexual attraction between a man and a woman is very good. It is God’s perfect design. It is an act of the human person. Being an act of the human person, it cannot be morally neutral. It resides in human desires. The victim mentality says that we are servants of our desires. They control us. We do not control them. This is stated by the LGBT movement ad nauseam. The problem with this worldview, and that is exactly what we are dealing with, is that it is antithetical to Christianity. Genesis 1-3 provides us with the clear design of God’s world and the fall of man into sin that brought about the curse.

In addition to same-sex attraction being a component of the human person, and therefore, subject to the curse and possessing moral qualities, the apostle Paul informs us in the NT on more than one occasions that desires can surely be immoral in and of themselves, contrary to the gay Christian arguments. For instance, Col. 3:5 says, Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. Jason Harris and others claim that SSA is the result of the fall. They go on to claim that it is better for Christians, at least many of them make this claim, not to identify themselves as being gay. Well, if SSA is just as natural as opposite sex attraction, as Jason has so clearly argued, then what is the problem with identifying as a gay Christian since it is morally neutral?

To add to the issue, Paul paints a picture in Romans 1:24-28 that clearly tells us that same-sex attraction, or homosexual desire, is a shameful, or degrading, disgraceful passion. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural. If it is forbidden that a man lie with a man as with a woman, then it naturally follows that it would be forbidden for a man to desire to lie with other men in such a fashion. You are only kidding yourself if you think you can separate attraction from sexual desire. It is impossible and anyone who attempts to tell you otherwise is only kidding themselves. Can you? As a woman or a man, can you dispense with your sexual desire and only always have just an attraction to the opposite sex? I don’t mean a person specifically. I mean the desire for sex itself. Unless you have the gift of celibacy or have been injured in some way, you cannot have attraction without sexual desires in the mix. It is utterly foolish for us to think otherwise. My point is that if the “attraction” is not mortified, the desire won’t be either.

Finally, we turn to 1 Cor. 6:9-11. In this section of Scripture, Paul moves through a list of sinful people, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, etc. And adamantly tells the Corinthian church three things: these kind of people will not inherit the kingdom of God; second, the Corinthian church contained people who used to be these kinds of people at one time in their past; but now, they are no longer these kinds of people because they have been washed, sanctified, and justified. At one time, some of the Corinthians were fornicators, and Paul says, but no longer! At one time, some of the Corinthians were homosexuals, and Paul says, but no longer. Now, I confess that I find it odd that a person who supposed has come to Christ in faith and repentance from the homosexual lifestyle would insist on still identifying themselves as homosexual. If this text is rightly understood, it seems to me that Paul would have been opposed to this practice. They are no longer homosexuals. Why insist that they are? I am convinced that these people who claim to be Christian but who insist on being identified as gay, homosexual, or SSA are not at all Christian because they are still a homosexual with homosexual desires that they are not interested in abandoning. That is speculation on my part. But I think I have good ground for that speculation. So, it isn’t baseless speculation. It isn’t sheer conjecture.

Summary

·      There is no science to proof that SSA is genetic.

·      There is no science to support the view that SSA cannot be changed even by the conscious efforts of the individual.

·      SSA attraction is a perversion of the fall. It is not physical or biological. It is a component of the human person and as such is not morally neutral.

·      Opposite sex attraction is very good according to Gen. 1:31. It’s opposite is very bad.

·      Col. 3:5 clearly teaches that there are evil desires as do many other passages in the NT. Desire is not morally neutral.

·      Romans 1:24-28 describe homosexual desire as a degrading, shameful, disgraceful passion that leads to unnatural sexual activity.

·      1 Cor. 6:9-11 denies the idea that homosexuals should still identify themselves as homosexuals after conversion. They should see their homosexuality in the past tense and identify themselves as washed, sanctified, and justified.

·      SSA is difficult to change because people do not desire to change it. The only thing that can change any human desire is for a competing desire to present itself as more desirable.

·      People only stop being same-sex attracted when another desire that conflicts with it takes over. In this case, a desire to please God, to glorify God is sufficient to kill same sex attraction.

·      If your desire to please God is not enough to cause you to hate same-sex attraction, then you either do not desire to please God or the Bible is false, and Christianity is a lie.

·      If the gospel of Christ, applied by the God the Holy Spirit to the human person is not enough to deliver one from the sin of SSA, then again, the Bible is false, and Christianity should be abandoned.

·      Those who hold to the view that one can be gay and Christian, have homosexual desires and be Christian would be wise to examine their view of God, their view of sin, and their view of the power of the gospel and the sufficiency of Scripture.

The SBC: Proposing a way Forward

The book of James tells us that a double-minded man, ἀνὴρ δίψυχος, is unstable in all his ways. The word dipsuchos means someone who is uncertain about the truth of a thing. The kind of man James is describing is a man who is wholly lacking certainty on a matter, it seems, on any matter. This kind of man is unstable in all his ways. To be unstable, according to Louw-Nida is to be unable to be controlled by something or someone. He is all over the map, out of control. This is a man who of extreme vacillation. Needless to say, it is a description of the kind of behavior we should very much seek to avoid.

Unfortunately, one of the oldest and largest Baptist denominations in the world has made it a practice over the years to elevate the sort of men who are indeed double-minded vacillators. They are vacillators from the standpoint that they are not controlled by the reformation principle sola Scriptura. Rather than anchoring themselves in Scripture alone and caring for God’s truth alone, they entertain theories, ideologies, philosophies, and values that are incubated in the unregenerate minds of God-hating pagans. And as a result, this very large Baptist denomination known as the SBC, is in the middle of a colossal collapse.

The denomination long ago abandoned the reformed theology into which it was born and upon which it was originally grounded. You see, the supreme principle of Arminianism is conditionalism. It provides a philosophical via media between Naturalism and Fatalism.[1] The Calvinistic understanding of divine justice is based on the supremacy or rights of God while Arminianism focuses on the right rights of man. Arminians were the fathers of toleration. Calvinism on the other hand was rigid, inflexibly dogmatic. As the SBC drifted more and more into Arminian theology and enlightenment philosophy, the level of toleration increased exponentially. The necessary condition for toleration is adiaphora. The problem arises when your basis for adiaphora becomes more man-centered than Christ-centered. As the SBC drifted toward Arminianism, it also drifted into the sea of adiaphora. Over time, fewer doctrines were viewed as essential to the Christian faith. The rights of individuals eclipsed the sovereign rights of God. Whatever kind of God Scripture reveals, it had to be the kind of God that would always respect the rights of the individual. This is because the rights of the individual are at the center of fairness, or, justice, to use a popular buzzword.

This environment of toleration has negatively impacted what the apostle Paul said was the primary duties of the pastor: to equip the body of Christ. (Eph. 4:11) You see, if very few things are essential (known as minimalism), then doctrine becomes less important, or nearly unimportant at all. Now, when you spend years not engaged in equipping the body, the body becomes uninformed which is a nice way of saying, ignorant. This lack of equipping opens the door to all sorts of nonsense. Since the church has become a place that focuses on individual rights, the natural progression becomes even more focused on the individual: my career, my marriage, my family, my happiness. Relationships completely eclipse theology, discipleship is non-existent, Christian confessions are abandoned, standards are vacated, and church discipline crumbles. As a result, church membership is a wink and a nod. The roles and pews are filled with people who are unregenerate, have no idea who God is, what the mission of Christ was, or what the gospel is.

This has become the base of the SBC. Her churches are filled with just these kinds of people. Most of them are unregenerate for all the reasons I have mentioned above. Add to this the fact that pastors have become addicted to their celebrity status. Their personal reputations and income depend heavily on churches that are mostly filled with non-Christians who do not know Christ, the gospel, and who could care less about doctrinal truth. This is why the SBC is in the condition it is in today. Many of these unregenerate members have been filling the seminaries for years now. And they have become pastors themselves. This is how you move from a solidly reformed denomination to one that is now, for all intents and purposes, just one more liberal Protestant denomination, or at least, on the precipice of becoming one. If you have ever hit black ice, then you know that early in the spin, you have some hope that you can bring the car back under control. But there is a point in the spin when you realize the tail just passed the point of no return and it isn’t a question of crashing, it becomes a question of how bad this is going to be. The SBC has just had the tail pass the point of no return. The question is, how bad is this going to be?

Because Christianity is a religion of hope if it is a religion at all, then one has to believe that there is still a sliver of hope for the SBC. But that sliver lies in a very particular direction. And that direction is the conservative wing. And it isn’t just the conservative wing. It lies in that wing where those inflexible, dogmatic Calvinists reside. This is where men go to avoid the double-minded vacillators. This is the only way forward for the SBC. This group is dogmatic. They are inflexible. They won’t compromise the clear revelation of Scripture. They aren’t going to tolerate a social gospel of racial reconciliation. They aren’t going to tolerate female leadership of any kind. Any hint of LGBT softening will be met with the strongest opposition. They will not play. And they will not keep silent. These are the ones that J.D. Greear called “divisive” over secondary issues recently. They are no longer going to tolerate the complete lack of accountability that is such a distinctive of SBC life in the ministry.

How can the SBC survive without becoming just one more liberal Protestant denomination? I have a few suggestions.

First, stop giving lip service to the authority of Scripture and actually start living under Scripture’s authority. What does it mean to live under the authority of Scripture? What does that look like? First and foremost, it means taking the confession of faith seriously. It means spelling out what a participating community must confess in order to be part of the denomination.

Second, end the ERLC. The ERLC has an unbiblical mission. It is political top to bottom. It is a waste of resources, time, energy and money. End it immediately.

Third, end the idea of a president. Why should there be a president? Perhaps a board of governing elders makes sense. But a president seems outside of Scripture. This would serve to end the political in-fighting that goes on around this issue.

Fourth, make church membership a rigorous vetting process. Make sure that people have truly come to a saving knowledge of Christ when you conduct your membership interviews. Ask tough questions, detailed questions, probing questions. Make sure members understand the beliefs and practices of the church.

Fifth, exercise church discipline. When spouses cheat or abuse one another and refuse to repent, subject them to discipline. Excommunicate the obstinate. Do it openly, publicly, for the sake of the gospel and the purity of the body. Make it a requirement.

Put a stop to false teachers like Beth Moore and Priscilla Shirer, Steve Furtick and other rogue individuals who ignore the teachings and confession of the church. Remove their books, their membership, and warn others to steer clear of them. Do it openly, publicly, lovingly, but seriously, do it.

Prohibit multi-campus pastors. The satellite pastors on the big screens have to go. It is nowhere near biblical. It lends itself to arrogance and deprives the sheep of their own personal intimate shepherd.

Hold your professors to the highest degree of accountability. Take every step to keep your seminaries doctrinally and ethically pure. Require affirmation, commitment, and loyalty from your professors annually. Nothing less will do.

Require your churches to operate on a plurality of elders with no one man being singled out as the “lead” elder. The preaching elder is the preaching elder because he does most the preaching. But his opinion should be no more weighty than other elders, only excepting that he has expertise in a particular area. Then and only then would it be prudent to weigh his opinion more heavily than others who may not be otherwise specialized or qualified.

Finally, learn to care more about the purity and spiritual healthy of your congregation and less about its size and budget and your own notoriety.

Responding to J.D. Greear’s recent video

Recently J.D. Greear posted a video on FB seemingly in an attempt to provide the SBC with some leadership and direction. Regrettably, the kind of leadership and direction JD offered, well, it isn’t real leadership and as for the direction, I couldn’t disagree more. That is not to say that I don’t respect J.D. Greear. I do. I treat him as a brother. However, his video is public, and as a result, it is more than reasonable to provide a public response to it (not that my voice will be heard by very many anyways – but I do have a voice and I will use it to glorify God).

Greear’s made several points to which I will briefly respond. The first issue I have with Greear’s comments are his view the attitude that God has brought a day of reckoning to the SBC. This is pious talk for “someone or a number of someone’s have been exposed for behaving badly.” My objection is simply this: spare me the pious framing. It rings hollow. The behavior that J.D. is talking about has been going on for a very long time and men like J.D. have known about it for a long time. The good ole boys protect the good ole boys until they can’t protect them any longer. Then a sacrificial lamb is offered up and we get to listen to this pious framing. It is hard to stomach. Want my respect? Then just tell the truth openly, honestly, make no excuses, and admit that there is an accountability problem top to bottom in the SBC. And that’s just one of the problems.

Greear says there are things about the SBC culture that grieves the Holy Spirit. What does he mean? Does he mean that the SBC needs a culture of accountability and transparency among leadership? A culture that lives up to the principle of sola Scriptura? A culture that is impervious to the good ole boy back-slapping and protecting that has gone on for so long? Nope! He says the SBC needs a new complementarianism. The SBC needs to recognize the gift God gives to women and it should seek to empower them. This, despite the fact that Scripture has reserved authority and leadership for men. But this is a wink in the direction of the #MeToo nonsense that has made its way into the SBC. It is a wink in the direction of Beth Moore. And maybe it’s some sort of penance for some heinous evil performed against women by men in power positions within the SBC. Sorry J.D. but the solution to the SBC’s problems is not a new complementarianism. It is a return to living under the authority of Scripture. Nothing else will do.

Greear’s second issue is to see people of color in the highest levels of leadership. This a wink at the racial reconciliation movement. Despite the fact that there is nothing in Scripture that supports this kind of mindset, these men continue to adopt pagan thinking around the subject of diversity. It is sad to see. We need fearless leaders in these positions, not white men, or brown men, or black men. We need men like John MacArthur, Voddie Baucham, Steve Lawson, Conrad Mbewe, Paul Washer. We don’t need melanin to be a criterion by which men are appointed to these positions. They are far too important to be reduced to something as arbitrary as skin tone. This is nothing more than political posturing. It is what lead to the conditions that have created the impetus for this video to begin with and J.D. I cannot see it.

The third item Greear mentions is very likely the powder keg that is about to explode in the SBC. Greear says that we need to help the vulnerable, to stand up for the abused. Finally, Greear gets to transparency in leadership. Well, I wonder what this cryptic message is about standing up for the vulnerable. What is J.D. referencing? Personally, I think it is always a bad idea to talk about transparency in a cryptic way. Maybe I am the only one the feels the irony here but I sure do feel it.

Next, Greear decides to go after those of a divisive spirit. Now, you can almost guarantee when someone starts talking like this, their goal is marginalize anyone that disagrees with them and to shut them down. Greear even says that it does not matter if these folks are actually right in their understanding of an issue. All that matters is that they are being divisive. Riddle me this: why is it that it is always “them” that are being divisive and never “me?” In other words, the ones who are divisive are the ones that disagree with us, with my side, with my team, with our view. And it doesn’t even matter if my side is wrong. It is those guys, even though they are right, that are dividing us and therefore, we should mark them. For example: recently, this good ole boys club thought it was prudent to celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. as a noble Christian man and an example to be admired. Many of us think this is detrimental to the gospel and to the integrity of the Christian church. But since it is a secondary issue so to speak, it does not matter if we are right. What is worse is that we are speaking out about it and creating division. Therefore, we should be marked and dealt with presumably. This is not how the church is supposed to operate folks. This is a man seeking to keep things exactly the way they are all the while saying that things need to change. Washington has done this to American society for years and years now. And it seems that the SBC is taking the very same approach. Shut down those people who disagree with Greear and his friends. No debate. No synod. No conference. No Discussion. Mark them and shut them up now. Greear even quotes Paul at Romans 16:7, saying “Mark them with a divisive spirit and keep away from them.” First, its Romans 16:17, not Romans 16:7. Second, here is what Paul actually said: Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. Greear goes on to say, “whether you are being divisive on an issue even if your right still makes you divisive.” Now, compare that statement with statement Paul made. Did Paul say that division in and of itself is wrong? Nope. Paul said, “Keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned.” The presumed next president of the SBC is misquoting Scripture in an attempt to manipulate and intimidate anyone who might disagree with him on an issue. Is this the kind of character the SBC needs leading it in the future? It is the same old same old, folks.

In 1 Corinthians 5:11 Paul tells the church at Corinth to separate from anyone who claims to be a brother but who is walking in immorality. That is a mandate for division. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have fit that category perfectly and the SBC just celebrated him as an exemplary Christian leader. John told his audience that if someone comes bringing something other than the doctrine of Christ, have nothing to do with that person. That is a command for division. Paul told the Thessalonian believers to keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life. (2 Thess. 3:6) A few verses later he said to note anyone who does not obey the instructions of his letter and have nothing to do with them. (2 Thess. 3:14) Jesus Himself instructed the church to remove men from among them who were obstinate in their sin. This sin would include false teachings. Finally, Greear, without realizing it, is advocating division while attempting to condemn it. If it is true that all division is wrong even if the people creating it are right on the issue in question, and it is also true that marking someone out in the way Greear is marking them out is divisive, then Greear is actually engaging in the very practice he is condemning, while he is condemning it. Even if Greear is right, he is wrong according to his own standard.

I realize that this response to Greear is direct, and some would say overly harsh. Under the circumstances and in the current environment, I think it is reasonable. If the SBC is going to be a denomination that honors Christ, it will have to begin by returning to living under the authority of Scripture. Unless the SBC does that, nothing else that it does matters much. It will continue to bleed good people until all that is left are the progressives. In other words, the only hope the SBC has of avoiding the fate of every other liberal Protestant denomination is to be willing to shrink to whatever size is necessary in order to have a membership that is predominantly submitting their lives to the authority of Scripture, from the members all the way up to the leaders, to include the seminaries. Refuse to do that, and the SBC will not recover. The SBC is like a person on life support today. The time for her to begin to respond and show that there is enough activity in her spiritual brain to justify holding out hope is quickly coming to a close. If Greear’s video is any indication, there is little reason to hold out hope that a recovery is in her future.

---

[1] Frederic Platt, “Arminianism,” ed. James Hastings, John A. Selbie, and Louis H. Gray, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh; New York: T. & T. Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1926), 811–812.