Written by R. Albert Mohler Jr. |
Thursday, September 21, 2023
Stanley dismissed Biblical texts against homosexual behavior as “clobber” verses and said, “If your theology gets in the way of ministry—like if there’s somebody you can’t minister to because of your theology—you have the wrong theology.” This is not a misunderstanding. This is a trajectory that points to the Unconditional Conference and two speakers married to other men on the platform. This is a clear and tragic departure from Biblical Christianity. The conference has not been held yet. No doubt there will be a good deal of conversation once it has been held. 

It’s not like we have not seen this coming. Andy Stanley is set to host the “Unconditional Conference” at a campus of North Point Community Church in the metro Atlanta area in the coming days, and the website for the conference bills it as a “two-day premier event” especially designed for parents of LGBTQ+ children and ministry leaders. “You will be equipped, refreshed, and inspired as you hear from leading communicators on topics that speak to your heart, soul, and mind,” it promises. One statement stands out in the description: “No matter what theological stance you hold, we invite you to listen, reflect, and learn as we approach this topic from the quieter middle space.”
The promise of “the quieter middle space” might appear attractive, given the volatility of cultural discourse on LGBTQ+ issues, and a conference designed to help parents of LGBTQ+ children and ministry leaders work through these issues in clearly Biblical terms would be a welcome development. But the advertising for the Unconditional Conference indicates clearly that this event is designed as a platform for normalizing the LGBTQ+ revolution while claiming that the conference represents “the quieter middle space.” In truth, there is no “middle space” on these issues, and it is no longer plausible to claim that such middle space exists.
Scheduled speakers for the event include two men who are married to other men, at least according to current civil law.
Read More
Related Posts:

The World Happiness Report reveals what many of us probably already knew about the condition of our nation: people are unhappy, disillusioned, and disappointed. This report might be the most hopeful news for our nation in recent memory, especially when we think about the prominence of Gen Z in this report. The prodigal son “came to his senses” and returned to his father when he sat alone in his misery. Perhaps the Lord will use our national mood to direct our attention to the truth of His Word and spark revival anew.

It’s that time of year again, when the World Happiness Report releases its findings on the happiest countries on the planet. From 2023 to 2024, the United States plunged from 15th to 23rd, hitting an all-time low in average happiness ranking. When two time periods are viewed side by side – 2006 to 2010 and 2021-2023 – the U.S. has had the 15th-sharpest decline in overall happiness of the 134 countries surveyed. Of western nations, only Canada fared worse (14th highest decline). What has led to such a steep reduction in people’s overall happiness in the U.S.?
Gallup, one of the key research firms collaborating on the World Happiness Report, explained the falling happiness rates result from “Americans under 30 feeling worse about their lives.” Specifically, Americans under 30 feel less supported by friends and family, less free to make their own life choices, more stressed about their living conditions, less confident in the government, and more concerned about political corruption. By contrast, the report found that older Americans are happier than their younger counterparts.
Americans under 30 are those within Gen Z. This is the generation that has grown up with smart phones and social media, and that often communicates with friends through digital means – sometimes even within the same physical space.
Americans between 18-29 years old have the lowest religious involvement of any adult age group in America, with only 27% attending religious services at least once per week (by contrast, 38% of Americans 50-64 years old and 48% of Americans over 65 years old attend religious services at least weekly). Gen Z is unquestionably the least religious generation in American history.
Politically, a plurality of Gen Z claim they are independents or unaffiliated (38%), while 35% belong to the Democratic Party and 26% belong to the Republican Party. However, party identification is not necessarily a clear indicator of what matters to Gen Z. Surveys show that adults under 30 strongly support abortion, homosexuality and transgenderism, and policies that enlarge the government.
When the religious and political views of Gen Z are set alongside the findings from the World Happiness Report, are there any reasons for Christians to be encouraged? I believe there are. For example, one of the key reasons why Gen Z feels unhappy is because they do not feel supported by family and friends. Yet it is precisely because of their views on family and friendship that misery has followed. The biblical definition of a family is a father, a mother, and (if the Lord wills) children sharing life together as a unit. Through the media’s relentless quest to cast the family into a more “modern” mold, the family itself has been dismantled and destroyed. Acceptance of sexually deviant practices, such as homosexuality and transgenderism, eliminate the reality of the family.
Certainly, people can – and do – attempt to re-define the family on their own terms. But re-defining something God ordained does not make that redefinition correspond with reality. Eventually, the proverbial chickens will come home to roost. Reality wins every time.
Read More
Related Posts:

The question, in the end, comes down to whether homosexual temptation is more powerful than Christ or whether Christ is more powerful than homosexual temptation. As Savior, Christ is mightier than our internal temptations. Therefore, if we counsel same-sex attracted people into believing that they may never be rid of homosexual temptation in this life, we have diminished the power of the Cross.

With the rising influence of Christian organizations in America that exist to cater to “sexual minorities” in the church, there has been much confusion among reformed evangelicals regarding temptation and desire, specifically as it relates to same-sex attraction. Confessional Presbyterian denominations are not exempt. The Presbyterian Church in America, at present, is on a collision course with Revoice theology and is inundated with debates surrounding homosexual identity and whether men who profess to be “same-sex attracted” can be admitted to ordained office.
Pastor Tom Buck, one of the framers of the Social Justice and Gospel Statement, has said that Living Out, founded by Sam Allberry, is “more dangerous than Revoice.” Even so, the OPC Committee on Christian Education has recommended Sam Allberry’s book Is God Anti-Gay? as a “[S]ound, uncompromising and winsome guide to give someone who struggles with the issue of homosexuality theoretically, or someone who struggles with same-sex attraction personally…” No doubt there is wide disagreement on the topic of sexual ethics within reformed evangelicalism.
The PCA’s Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality, authored by Kevin DeYoung, Bryan Chapell, et al. is still perhaps the most rigorous, clarifying, and helpful resource dealing with these issues from a biblical, Reformed theological, and confessional standpoint. However, the average layperson (and most elders) won’t be sitting down to read sixty pages written by a Presbyterian committee.
Advertisement
Therefore, as one who has served in the Australian PCA, American PCA, OPC, and now the ARPC, I have put together answers to six of the most frequent questions I tend to get from laity in Presbyterian circles who, as it pertains to same-sex attraction, genuinely have queries about the meaning of temptation, desire, sin, etc., and are also interested in learning a tad bit from the Reformed faith on these issues. Of course, there are numerous other interrelated points and clarifications that could also be addressed here, but the intention and aim of this piece is conciseness. To that end, I hope it is useful.
How can temptation be sinful when Jesus himself was tempted?
It depends on what is meant by “temptation.” Reformed theology has always maintained that temptation has a legitimate internal/external distinction. Internal temptation, which is the desire to sin, arises from the corruption of nature and is, therefore, inherently sinful (James 1:14). On the other hand, external temptation, so long as it remains external, is not inherently sinful (James 1:2).
In Hebrews 4:15, when it says Jesus was “tempted as we are, yet without sin,” it is highlighting the reality that he was never tempted internally with first motions drawn from a sin nature, despite the realities of his full humanity (e.g.s., hungering, thirsting, etc.). In other words, Jesus’ temptations were entirely external as he was not born in original sin. We, on the other hand, are born in sin (Psalm 51:5). Therefore, if we claim that our internal temptations to sin are not sinful, we can deceive ourselves (1 John 1:8).
Does Reformed theology draw an internal/external distinction as it relates to sin?
It does. Westminster Confession 6.5, for instance, states the following: “This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.”
N.B., that the corruption of nature is itself sin and all the motions of this corruption are sin. As Christians, we are called not only to mortify the motions of our corruption but also the nature of our corruption. On the one side, the corruption of nature includes all internal inclinations to sin (James 1:14), whether through thought, impulse, temptation, attraction, affection, or desire. On the other side, the external motions of that corruption include all sin deeds committed outwardly (James 1:15), arising from inward sinfulness.
In addition, Herman Bavinck, in his Reformed Ethics, provides this helpful comment on Institutes 3.3.10:
Advertisement
Calvin articulates the Reformed position well: ‘But between Augustine and us we can see that there is this difference of opinion: while he concedes that believers, as long as they dwell in mortal bodies, are so bound by inordinate desires (concupiscentiis) that they are unable not to desire inordinately, yet he dare not call this disease ‘sin.’ Content to designate it with the term ‘weakness,’ he teaches that it becomes sin only when either act or consent follows the conceiving or apprehension of it, that is, when the will yields to the first strong inclination. We, on the other hand, deem it sin when a man is tickled by any desire at all against the law of God. Indeed, we label ‘sin’ that very depravity which begets in us desires of this sort.’
Briefly, what does the PCA Report on Human Sexuality say about desire and temptation?
The Report, which aptly comports with the Confession’s teaching on this matter, states the following:
We affirm that impure thoughts and desires arising in us prior to and apart from a conscious act of the will are still sin. We reject the Roman Catholic understanding of concupiscence whereby disordered desires that afflict us due to the Fall do not become sin without a consenting act of the will. These desires within us are not mere weaknesses or inclinations to sin but are themselves idolatrous and sinful. (p. 8)
The Report’s statement on temptation is helpful also. It describes internal temptations as “morally illicit desires” and external temptations as “morally neutral trials” (p. 9). The entire Report, which I highly commend, can be read here.
Isn’t “heterosexual desire” and “homosexual desire” essentially the same thing?
The short answer is no. Heterosexual desire can be and must be rightly directed, otherwise it is sin. Homosexual desire, on the other hand, cannot ever be rightly directed and is, therefore, always sinful. Thus, it’s not a 1:1 ratio. The former is a sin against God’s moral order (Matt. 5:28), while the latter is a sin against both God’s moral and natural orders (Jude 1:7). Other sexual desires that go against God’s natural order would include pedophilic desire, bestial desire, and incestuous desire (Exo. 22:19; Lev. 18:6; Deut. 27:21).
But isn’t all sin equal in God’s sight?
All sin, no doubt, is deserving of eternal punishment for the mere fact that sin is itself a transgression of God’s law. However, not all sin is “equal.” In fact, Larger Catechism 150 states the following:

Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?
All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous, but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

Furthermore, according to Larger Catechism 151, one aggravation that makes a sin more heinous than others is if it’s “against the light of nature.” The prooftext offered is Romans 1:26-27:
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Should we tell Christians who experience homosexual temptation that they won’t be rid of it in this life?
Despite our many advances in sanctification, there will always be an enormous abyss between our holiness now and our holiness in glory. However, death is not the alpha point of transformative holiness in Christ. Transformation begins at regeneration (Titus 3:5) and progressively continues through the sanctifying power of the Spirit in time and space (Gal. 5:16; Phil. 1:6) — even to the degree that particular internal temptations can be overcome in this life.
Jesus is in the business of redeeming the whole person from the debilitation of sin. As our Sanctifier, he progressively conforms us to his image not just by reorienting our external acts but also our internal thoughts, impulses, predispositions, temptations, attractions, affections, desires, longings, hopes, and faith.
The question, in the end, comes down to whether homosexual temptation is more powerful than Christ or whether Christ is more powerful than homosexual temptation. As Savior, Christ is mightier than our internal temptations. Therefore, if we counsel same-sex attracted people into believing that they may never be rid of homosexual temptation in this life, we have diminished the power of the Cross.
Andrew George is a Minister in the Associate Presbyterian Church (ARP). This article is used with permission.