Written by Robert A. J. Gagnon |
Friday, April 19, 2024
The two Hays argue that God, who is ever “changing his mind” to “broaden,” “widen,” and “expand” his “grace” and “mercy” in order to “include more and more people,” “has already gone on ahead of our debates and expanded his grace” to embrace “full inclusion of LGBTQ people in Christian communities.”

Sadly, Richard Hays (professor emeritus of Duke Divinity School) has backslidden into heresy, reneging on his decades-old published rejection of homosexual practice as immoral. He used to be the main go-to person on the issue until his work was eclipsed by my own more extensive work in 2001 and following.
In late September Yale University Press will be publishing a book entitled, *The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story* (272 pgs.), written by Hays and by his son Christopher, who is an OT scholar and chair at supposedly evangelical Fuller Seminary.
This will likely lead to an acceleration of evangelical capitulation on the scripture’s (and Jesus’) male-female foundation for sexual ethics. It will also likely signal Fuller Seminary’s capitulation on sexual ethics.
The two Hays argue that God, who is ever “changing his mind” to “broaden,” “widen,” and “expand” his “grace” and “mercy” in order to “include more and more people,” “has already gone on ahead of our debates and expanded his grace” to embrace “full inclusion of LGBTQ people in Christian communities.”
They contend that the arguments about the so-called “handful of specific passages” dealing with homosexual practice and transgenderism (it is really the entire matrix of biblical texts dealing with human sexuality) “have reached an impasse” and are “missing the forest for the trees.”
This is a nonsense claim. There is no exegetical (or hermeneutical) impasse. The texts that speak directly to the issue of homosexual practice and transgenderism, understood in their ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman contexts and taking into consideration the flaws of “new knowledge” arguments, decisively demonstrate a strong biblical witness against these behaviors from ancient Israel through early Christianity.
Nor is discussion of these texts “missing the forest for the trees.” They are part of a larger matrix where every narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, and poetry having anything to do with sexual ethics, from Genesis to Revelation, including the teaching of Jesus, always presuppose a male-female foundation and thus exclude the implosion of that foundation that would come about by embrace of homosexual practice or transgenderism.
The position being espoused by the two Hays is akin to claiming that arguments against adult-consensual incest or polyamory that are based on biblical texts directly indicting these practices “miss the forest for the trees.”
Hays had previously defended the orthodox scriptural position in a journal article in 1986 (“Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1,” Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1):184-215) and a book chapter in 1996 (ch. 16, pp. 379-406, in: The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics [HarperSanFrancisco]).
Even then his work had problems. He dismissed the relevance of the Sodom text (and the related Levite at Gibeah), failing to grasp the ancient Near Eastern context and think analogically. In fact, Sodom and the Levite at Gibeah are both stories that present homosexual practice as an egregious offense within stories about multiple offenses (similar to a story about a man raping his father as not indicting only coercive forms of incest).
He also wrongheadedly critiqued Boswell for allegedly thinking that Paul operated with a view of sexual orientation when (Hays claimed) such is a modern idea unknown to Paul. In fact, Hays was agreeing with Boswell that Paul allegedly understood homosexual behavior to be the result of insatiable lust seeking novel forms of self-gratification. Not realizing it, Hays was undermining his own attempt to support Paul’s view by giving the Left a “new knowledge” argument for dismissing Paul’s witness. Hays failed to understand that rudimentary but real notions of “sexual orientation” already existed in the ancient world, including by some Greco-Roman moralists and physicians who still rejected the behavior arising from said orientation.
I look forward to critiquing their book in depth when it is released in late September. But this isn’t the first time I have been to the dance. I have been researching this issue for thirty years, and have encountered similar arguments before. This manner of reasoning is rubbish. Some additional considerations:

Jesus didn’t “widen God’s mercy” on sexual ethics by approving of egregious sin and canceling the need for repentance. He intensified God’s demand for sexual purity and reached out to the biggest violators of that demand to call people to repentance.
Most importantly, Jesus viewed a male-female prerequisite for sexual ethics as the foundation for all sexual ethics, including the limitation of two persons to a sexual bond (monogamy). In this his witness was consistent with the witness of his Hebrew Scriptures and carried forward by the faithful apostolic witness to Christ.
The widening of the sphere of God’s mercy to include Gentiles is a poor analogical basis for widening it to include homosexual practice and transgenderism, which (unlike being a Gentiles) are direct moral offenses. Nor do analogies to slavery, women, and divorce justify an embrace of homosexual practice and transgenderism, as I have repeatedly shown (and as Hays once knew).
Sooner should the church embrace adult-consensual polyamory and adult-consensual incest, both of which are prohibited on the basis of a male-female foundation for sexual ethics grounded in creation. Homosexual practice is worse because it is an attack on the very foundation of sexual ethics at creation.

God hasn’t changed his mind. Hays and son have. They are now swimming in the sea of heresy, rejecting the clear and overwhelming witness of Scripture (including Jesus) for its antithesis in today’s misguided world, and in the process encouraging the embrace of behavior that leads to exclusion from the Kingdom of God.
That can’t be loving by any stretch of the imagination.
Source
Related Posts:

Written by Robert A.J. Gagnon |
Wednesday, February 21, 2024
The notion that Jesus did not judge people for their sins is historically absurd. What he did do that the Pharisees didn’t was to communicate that God has a generous offer of forgiveness and empowerment for those who repent and believe.

There is no “good news” in the “He Gets Us” Superbowl commercial. Indeed, on their website the “He Gets Us” folk offer an anti-gospel message for “LGBTQ” persons.
I. No “Good News” in the “He Gets Us” Superbowl Commercial
The “He Gets Us” folk are not “wisely presenting the good news.” There is no “good news” in the message, because there is no “repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). There is no message of Jesus’ transformative power to save lives by liberating people from a life under sin’s control.
It is that simple. “Jesus didn’t teach hate. He washed feet” is not the gospel message. Indeed, it is arguably an anti-gospel message because it is at best a truncated gospel, “another gospel,” which is always no gospel (Galatians 1:6-9).
You’ll note that the “He Gets Us” folk didn’t show any pictures of Christians washing the feet of racists or exploiters of the poor. That is because they know that such a scene would communicate that racists and economic exploiters don’t have to repent.
Calling racists and economic exploiters out for their sins rather than leaving them to decide for themselves whether they are sinning would not be “hate.” In steering clear of such images, the “He Gets Us” folk show that they know that their message of “Jesus didn’t teach hate. He washed feet” implies acceptance of sin.
The implication of the Superbowl commercial is that those who speak out against the culture’s pro-abortion and pro-“LGBTQ”-immorality message are “teaching hate” rather than “washing feet.” There is nothing in this ad that could not be said by vapid left-wing “liberal” or “woke” Christianity.
The notion that Jesus did not judge people for their sins is historically absurd. What he did do that the Pharisees didn’t was to communicate that God has a generous offer of forgiveness and empowerment for those who repent and believe.
II. The Anti-Gospel Website Message of “He Gets Us” for “LGBTQ” Persons
According to the “He Gets Us” website: “Many of those who represent Jesus have made people in the LGBTQ+ community feel judged and excluded. And others in the Jesus community have simply ignored their stories and lived experiences. So let us be clear in our opinion. Jesus loves gay people and Jesus loves trans people. The LGBTQ+ community, like all people, is invited to explore the story of Jesus and consider his example of unconditional love, grace, and forgiveness of others. No matter who you are, YOU are invited to explore the story of Jesus and consider what it means for your life.”
People do stand under divine judgment for behavior that dishonors the person created in God’s image (see Romans 1:18-3:20, 3:23 for that.) It is in the light of that judgment that we find grace. Grace is needed only when one realizes that the only hope is to return the offer of forgiveness and transformative Spirit-empowerment for those who turn from their sin to embrace the message of the gospel.
Nowhere does the Jesus of the Gospels entertain the “stories and lived experiences” of those pursuing a sinful identity. Jesus isn’t interested in the “stories and lived experiences of exploitative tax collectors and sexually immoral sinners, which would only perpetuate the sympathy for sin.
People have to repent of immoral lives, all the more so when their identity is defined by their immorality, an immorality that challenges the very foundation of sexual ethics as defined by Jesus.
All are welcome who follow this prescription and stand under the shadow of the cross. Jesus reaches out to “gay people” and “trans people” to leave a life of sexual immorality, offering them abundant forgiveness and transformative power in exchange. He doesn’t keep quiet about the necessity of knowing that they should “no longer be sinning, lest something worse happen to you.” Contrary to Jesus, the “He Gets Us” people thinks otherwise.
This article was posted on X.
Related Posts:

Written by Robert A. J. Gagnon |
Monday, February 5, 2024
Begg ignores the scriptural counsel regarding stumbling others, in addition to ignoring scriptural counsel against being present at an event at which God forbids attendance. The Christian attending the “gay” or “trans” so-called wedding would need to notify publicly all present at the gathering, not just the family member getting married, that he or she regards the wedding as an unholy alliance abhorrent to God. This fits Paul’s description at the end of 1 Cor 10 of what to do when a believer is at the home of an unbeliever and the host announces that the meat being served is “sacred sacrificial meat” coming from the temple. One must stop eating, for the sake both of Gentile unbelievers who might construe from your eating that you honor the god, and for the sake of any “weak” Christians or non-Christian Jews at the table whose conscience indicates that the eating of idol meat constitutes idol worship.

Rev. Alistair Begg has doubled down on his recommendation to a grandmother that she attend her grandchild’s “gay” or “trans” wedding (so long as the grandchild getting “married” knows of her disagreement).* “They want me to repent? … I’m not ready to repent of this. I don’t have to.”
*Note that in the Sept. broadcast he referred to a grandmother’s “grandson”; here he refers to a grandmother’s “granddaughter.” Which is it?
1. Begg’s Ad Hominem Attack of Critics
While completely (and I mean completely) ignoring the array of scriptural arguments against his position, Begg compares all his critics to Pharisaic “separatists” who refuse to eat with sinners or have any association with them at all. He likens them to the self-righteous older brother who doesn’t understand grace in the parable of the prodigal (lost) son, and to the priest and Levite who pass by the man lying half-dead by the side of the road in the parable of the good Samaritan.
Yet none of his chief critics from the academy are advocating complete separation from those engaged in serial, unrepentant egregious sin. In my chapter on Jesus in *The Bible and Homosexual Practice* I talk at length about Jesus’ positive example of an aggressive outreach to the lost. But there is no line (straight or crooked) from that example provided by Jesus to what Begg is recommending.
He attacks all those who criticize him as the “product of American fundamentalism,” which he distinguishes proudly from his own pedigree as a “product of British evangelicalism.” Unlike them, “I come from a world in which it is possible for people to grasp the fact that there are actually nuances in things.” He does all this in a fatherly voice, but the ad hominem content is quite offensive, and it is designed to distract from the fact that it is ironically Begg himself who cannot see the nuances of Jesus’ ministry.
2. Begg’s Ironic Lack of Nuance in Describing Jesus’ Outreach to Sinners
What kind of nuance am I talking about? The failure to recognize that there is a world of difference between Jesus fraternizing with sexual sinners and exploitative tax collectors who expressed interest in his message, on the one hand, and Jesus attending a ritual celebration either of a tax collectors’ economic exploitation or of a sexual sinner’s grossly immoral and unnatural sexual union, who express no interest in his message, on the other hand.
There is no way that Jesus would have attended such ritualized celebrations of abominations to God, or encouraged his followers to do so, irrespective of whether his disciples alerted those to whom the ritual was directed of their disapproval. That Begg is incapable of such a nuanced scriptural understanding is certainly concerning.
3. Begg’s Misapplication of the Parable of the Prodigal Son
Begg’s proof text in his radio talk for justifying his advice to go to a “gay” or “trans” wedding was Luke 15, with a focus on the parable of the prodigal (lost) son. Begg appears confused in his application of this text. The older son refused to attend a celebration of the younger brother’s penitent return from a dissolute and immoral life. That was the problem with the older brother, not that refused to a attend a ritual celebration of a permanent commitment to a dissolute and immoral life. There is a huge difference between the two types of celebration (here again, nuance). 
Moreover, while the father ran out to greet his returning penitent son (return in Jewish and Christian thought is a metaphor for repentance), he certainly wouldn’t have attended a ritual celebration memorializing his son’s commitment to continue to live lifelong in wastefulness and immorality.
A better text that Begg might have chosen than the lost son parable is the Aqedah (“Binding”) of Isaac in Genesis 22, where God taught Abraham not to make an idol even of his “only son,” the son of the promise. We can’t make holding on to a family member who is memorializing what the writers of Scripture (and Jesus) deem to be egregious immorality the most important thing, even if we couch it in terms of staying in evangelistic contact.
4. Begg’s Narrow, Myopic Perspective
Begg says about the advice that he gave the grandmother: “All I was thinking about was, How can I help this grandmother not lose her granddaughter?”
He should have been thinking other things, like:
How can I help this grandmother not to offend God by being present at such a ritual celebration of an evil that God finds particularly detestable? How can I prevent her from violating the united witness and counsel of Scripture?
How can I persuade her, by her actions, not to speak affirmation to behavior that can get her grandchild excluded from God’s kingdom? Am I recommending that she do something that will stumble others by her actions, leading them to affirm such immorality?
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Robert A. J. Gagnon |
Thursday, August 3, 2023
Your change of position will not change God’s position. It will just lead to self-deception and deception of others. Face the fact that Jesus is the very last person in the world who would have given up a male-female prerequisite as foundational for sexual ethics. There was no more rigorous applier of the standard of a sexual binary for sexual ethics in the ancient world than Jesus. Don’t mistake Jesus’ loving outreach to the lost as an embrace of their immorality.

A FB friend has notified me that he is no longer in “the same theological space or belief” on the issue of homosexual practice. This is what I have written to him:
You identify yourself as “gay” (presumably self-affirming) in the Tik Tok video linked to on your FB page. There you mourn the breakup of your family that presumably resulted from this self-identification. Your self-identifier on your FB page uses the hashtag “faithfully lgbtq.” You are doubtlessly faithful to that cause, but you cannot be simultaneously faithful to Jesus.
An assured result of historical study of Jesus is that Jesus based a limitation of two persons to a marriage (and thus of any sexual union) on the God-ordained male-female binary, which he viewed as foundational for all sexual ethics. For Jesus (and for the writers of Scripture generally) God intentionally designed two, and only two, sexes to be sexual counterparts or complements.
Your shift of position is to a view that Jesus would have treated as heretical. It also treats your masculinity as only half-intact in relation to other males, which in Paul’s view was an act of self-dishonor and self-degradation (Rom 1:24-27).
I notice also your presenting FB page photo of a billboard that states “You are not going to hell” with “John 3:17” written underneath that claim. You have entirely misinterpreted John 3:17.
True, Jesus did not come into the world in order to condemn people. He could have stayed “home” if that was the purpose of his mission on earth. His atoning death on the cross and life-giving resurrection were all designed to save people, but only for those who believe in him so that Jesus can live his life in them (John 3:16, 18). Those who choose not to believe in him remain condemned and in darkness (3:18-21).
It is essential that you not “proof text” so as to hear only what you want to hear, but rather that you read in context. I recommend to you that you not treat Jesus as little more than a cipher into which you impute your own ideology irrespective of what the text of Scripture actually says.
Your change of position will not change God’s position. It will just lead to self-deception and deception of others. Face the fact that Jesus is the very last person in the world who would have given up a male-female prerequisite as foundational for sexual ethics. There was no more rigorous applier of the standard of a sexual binary for sexual ethics in the ancient world than Jesus. Don’t mistake Jesus’ loving outreach to the lost as an embrace of their immorality.
There will be people saying that their love for you is demonstrated by their approval of your decision to live a “gay” life. They will be lying, possibly to themselves, certainly to you. Love “does not rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices together with the truth” (1 Cor 13:6).
Anything that promotes behavior contrary to God’s will is by definition unloving. For they do not love you more than the Father and the Son, and the Father and the Son are warning you not to head down a path that leads to destruction.
If you would like to discuss these matters further, with an aim to a better understanding of the Jesus of Scriptures, I would be happy to talk to you.
Robert A. J. Gagnon is Professor of Theology at Houston Christian University; copied from his Facebook post.

Related Posts:

Written by Robert A. J. Gagnon |
Monday, April 17, 2023
“Embracing the Journey” has all the earmarks of being a stealth gay/transgender front organization, and an exemplar of deception, doublespeak, and egregious proof-texting. There is a reason why they avoid direct statements about their view that Scripture isn’t addressing committed homosexual relationships and an “authentic” transgender life: They want to attract conservative parents who start with a position akin to that of Jesus and Scripture, and then convince them to abandon the tension of truth-in-love in favor of a distorted view of love.
“Embracing the Journey: A Christian Parents’ Blueprint to Loving Your LGBTQ Child” by Greg and Lynn McDonald
I’m starting to read Embracing the Journey: A Christian Parents’ Blueprint to Loving Your LGBTQ Child* by Greg and Lynn McDonald. As I noted in a prior post, their organization by the same name is putting on a conference at Andy Stanley’s church in September, and has a “chapter” at Saddleback Church (Rick Warren’s old church).
It has all the earmarks of being a stealth gay/transgender front organization, and an exemplar of deception, doublespeak, and egregious proof-texting. There is a reason why they avoid direct statements about their view that Scripture isn’t addressing committed homosexual relationships and an “authentic” transgender life: They want to attract conservative parents who start with a position akin to that of Jesus and Scripture, and then convince them to abandon the tension of truth-in-love in favor of a distorted view of love.
Remember to compare whatever someone claims with respect to treating someone engaged in homosexual activity to how one should respond to someone engaged in adult-committed incest, then polyamory.
The McDonalds say in their book that they don’t “tackle many hot topics” in their book like what the Bible says about homosexual practice (though they have their own opinion), because “thriving isn’t about being right.” “There was a time, not so long ago, when the world seemed black and white to us … ‘right’ or ‘wrong’” (207; RG: like their stance on incest and polyamory?).
They were “released … from the idea that everything is either/or” when a pastor told them that between God’s creation of day and night are “gray periods” of dusk and dawn; between the land and sea God created are the unmentioned “streams, lakes, and rivers” which are not “less biblical than the oceans.” In other words, embrace the shades of gray entailed in “LGBTQ” propaganda. While you are at it, embrace the shades of gray involving idolatry and other forms of sexual immorality.
They do recommend that if the reader wants more “guidance about issues related to the LGBTQ community” they can go to “the resources list on our website,” where incidentally they will find no books that make the biblical case for a male-female requirement for sexual relationships. They will find plenty of “resources” that promote committed homosexual relationships, like books by Justin Lee, Matthew Vines, David Gushee, Kathy Baldock, Debbie Causey, John Pavlovitz, and Andrew Marin. You certainly won’t find any of my work recommended there, or even the diluted work of Preston Sprinkle.
The McDonalds assure their readers: Just “love God, and love another. We leave the rest to the Holy Spirit.” What do you mean? You leave incest, polyamory, and idolatry to the Holy Spirit and don’t concern yourselves with whether these things are right or wrong? Applied to other areas where Scripture is clear (and the scriptural position on a male-female prerequisite for sexual relations is the clearest of all sexual-ethic concerns in the Bible) it would mean abandoning biblical clarity and drifting towards acceptance and promotion.
They address the issue of thriving, where they simply assume without any biblical basis whatsoever that thriving never involves exhorting people to depart from a life of sin, in short, to repent; even though this is a staple of the preaching and teaching of Jesus, Paul, and all NT writers. There is a reason why Mark summarizes Jesus’ entire message as “The Kingdom of God has come near: Repent and believe in the gospel” (1:15). True love always entails a call to repentance, with warnings, when a person holds beliefs or engages in behavior that could lead to their exclusion from God’s kingdom.
Yet for the McDonalds thriving involves “losing a lot of our old ideas about religion,” when you stop feeling a need to talk about someone else’s sin (because that would make you better than someone else, which is wrong), giving up the need to fix others, avoiding those who “will choose judgment” and “reject your efforts to love” (210-12).
Source
Related Posts:

Written by Robert A. J. Gagnon |
Thursday, April 13, 2023
In early 2020, Saddleback pastor Chris Clark and his wife, Elisa, co-founded a Saddleback chapter of Embracing the Journey, a ministry for parents of LGBTQ children, with long-time Saddleback members, Doug and Shauna Habel. By the end of 2021, an ETJ newsletter revealed that Saddleback was hosting four ongoing ETJ support groups and one small group.

“Embracing the Journey: A Christian Parents’ Blueprint to Loving Your LGBTQ Child” by Greg and Lynn McDonald
Megan Carl Basham has done some fine work exposing the movement in Saddleback Church toward embracing homosexual practice and transgenderism. It’s not just Andy Stanley’s church that is going under. Here Megan speaks about the impact of the stealth homosexual front organization (my phrase), “Embracing the Journey,” the group that is putting on a conference for Stanley’s church in September, making inroads at Saddleback as well (all that follows is a verbatim quotation from Megan’s article:
‘In his podcast interview with Russell Moore, [Rick] Warren insisted that concerns of leftward drift in the SBC generally and Saddleback specifically are unfounded. “This is not a battle between liberals and conservatives,” he said. “All the liberals left a long time ago.” Yet there is significant evidence that his church is already sliding toward liberalism when it comes to homosexuality and gender identity.
In early 2020, Saddleback pastor Chris Clark and his wife, Elisa, co-founded a Saddleback chapter of Embracing the Journey, a ministry for parents of LGBTQ children, with long-time Saddleback members, Doug and Shauna Habel. By the end of 2021, an ETJ newsletter revealed that Saddleback was hosting four ongoing ETJ support groups and one small group.
While ETJ does not specify whether it affirms LGBTQ lifestyles and identities, its founder, Greg McDonald, sits on the board of Renovus, another faith-based non-profit that does assert that homosexuality and transgenderism are compatible with Christianity. The two organizations are closely linked.
Billing itself as a religious nonprofit that exists to “[reclaim] faith for LGBTQ+ Christians,” Renovus says its vision is “a world where no one has to choose between their faith and sexual orientation or gender identity.” While McDonald does not offer his views on homosexuality or transgenderism in his ETJ bio, in his Renovus bio, he shares, “It simply breaks my heart when people are told they can’t be a Christian and LGBTQ.”
Along with recommending ETJ, Renovus endorses groups like The Reformation Project, GayChurch.org and Q Christian Fellowship. All are dedicated, in the words of The Reformation Project, to “advancing LGBTQ Inclusion in the Church,” and all claim that “church teachings that condemn same-sex relationships and transgender people cause serious harm in the lives of LGBTQ Christians.” One more commonality: all three activist groups endorse ETJ.
And the connections continue.
On its events page, Renovus lists an upcoming ETJ conference in Atlanta. The lineup of speakers includes Saddleback Pastor Chris Clark, Renovus board member Debbie Causey, as well as a number of authors like Matthew Vines, David Gushee, and Justin Lee, who are well known for rejecting biblical orthodoxy on homosexuality and transgenderism in favor of full LGBTQ inclusion in the church.
But even if ETJ were not so deeply intertwined with openly affirming organizations and influencers, its recommendations and activities should still call Saddleback’s discernment in deciding to partner with the organization into serious question.
Nowhere in its online materials does ETJ characterize LGBTQ identities or behaviors as sinful. Indeed, the vast majority of its recommended resources are explicitly affirming (again, from Gushee, Vines, and Lee, as well as John Pavolitz, Brian McLaren, Colby Martin, and more).
To return again to those who launched ETJ at Saddleback — a close examination of Shauna Habel and Chris Clark’s activism suggests that fears about the connection between churches who shift stances on ordaining women and those who shift on LGBTQ issues are well-founded.
In a Facebook fundraising video for the documentary 1946, which argues that the traditional Christian condemnation of homosexuality traces back to a modern translation error, Habel (who sometimes goes by Habel-Morgan) explains how she came to share this belief.
Describing her attendance at a 2016 Reformation Project conference with her daughter, Habel says, “I saw gay Christians worshipping God. I saw the Holy Spirit. And I knew that God was in that place.”
Habel has been clear on Twitter that part of her mission is persuading churches to abandon biblical orthodoxy with respect to sexuality and gender. In response to trans-identifying actress Ellen Page’s criticism of non-affirming churches she posted, “Churches like Hillsong that mandate queer celibacy should try a year of solitary themselves…God’s end game is love.”
When a journalist posted a story about the gay marriage of Department of Transportation head Pete Buttigieg, Habel replied that she “works with conservative parents to help them become affirming.” And she replied to author Beth Moore’s explanation for why she removed a passage condemning homosexuality from an older book, “I believe the sin the Bible spoke about in regard to homoerotic behavior was the abusive rape or lust of others and not love.”
Habel is also at work on her own affirming materials, assisting LGBTQ activist Kathy Baldock on a forthcoming book titled, How The Bible Became Anti-Gay: Forging a Sacred Weapon.
Chris Clark has little online presence either as a Saddleback pastor or as an activist with ETJ, but he, Habel, and McDonald were all speakers at The Reformation Project’s 2020 conference, “Reconcile and Reform.” Again, The Reformation Project was founded by gay activist Matthew Vines to “equip and empower Christians to advocate for LGBTQ inclusion in their faith communities.”
It’s worth emphasizing that according to ETJ’s newsletter, the Clarks and Habels introduced ETJ to Saddleback two-and-a-half years before Warren retired in September 2022. It’s also clear the church is well aware of its activities as the ministry is listed on Saddleback’s website under “care and support” events.
Though Clark’s LinkedIn page no longer appears to be available, it previously revealed that he has been affiliated with Saddleback in some professional capacity since 1989. It also showed that he has been a Saddleback care pastor at the Lake Forest campus for four-and-a-half years.
His ETJ bio provides the further detail that he leads Saddleback’s counseling training—a role that would presumably include teaching lay counselors how to respond to congregants dealing with homosexuality or transgenderism. Further, both The Reformation Project and ETJ cite Clark as a “Saddleback pastor” in his speaker bios, suggesting the church endorses his activities in this arena.
Finally, the couple Warren selected to lead Saddleback don’t seem entirely clear on the Bible’s stance on homosexuality either. When asked whether a gay “married” couple should carry on with their sinful relationship after coming to Christ, Andy and Stacie Wood answered, “I don’t know. That’s really hard.”
They went on to say “there is no black-and-white answer” and they’d have to ask the couple how they “feel the Holy Spirit is leading them.” The Woods did not cite any Scripture in their response.
I reached out to Saddleback about their decision to partner with ETJ and about the involvement of one of their pastors and two of their ministry leaders with The Reformation Project and did not receive a reply.’
Source
Related Posts:

Written by Robert A.J. Gagnon |
Tuesday, March 28, 2023
Christians who attend a “gay wedding” should be honest with themselves and announce publicly that they have changed their mind about homosexual practice in key ways that deviate from the only witness of Scripture. They will eventually come to that realization in the not-too-distant-future if they aren’t already putting on a fake mask now.

The question as to whether it is right and loving for a faithful believer in Christ to go to a same-sex “wedding” should be answered from a Christ-centered, biblical perspective. If the reader agrees with that premise, then the moral answer is a relatively easy one: Certainly not.
To be sure, carrying out this answer when invited to a same-sex wedding involving a family member, friend, or employer may create internal disquiet in the faithful Christian. It might lead to a severance of relationship or affect one’s job. Yet Christians are never assured by God that doing what is truly right and loving will never come at a cost. Quite the opposite. I will come back to why it is a scripturally easy answer; but first I want to note the differing opinion of some prominent Evangelicals.
Some Evangelicals Who Answer “Yes” or Allow a “Yes”
Some Evangelical leaders today who claim to accept (or at least once accepted) the scriptural view that homosexual practice is a sin do not see the answer as a certain “No.” Timothy Dalrymple, the CEO and President of Christianity Today, formerly the flagship magazine of Evangelicalism, actually attended a “gay wedding” in 2019, where he engaged in activities that could only be characterized as celebratory. His defense to me was that the employee who invited him was a dear friend to whom Timothy’s attendance meant a lot. So he went, albeit telling his friend that he held to a “traditional view of marriage.” For him it was “a Romans 14 issue,” a decision left to each Christian’s Spirit-led conscience.
Similarly, when addressing whether a Christian can attend a same-sex “wedding,” Focus on the Family called it “a Romans 14 issue” and cited Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman in John 4 as an example of how Jesus “scandalously overleapt all of the social barriers in order to show His love and concern for her,” but without expressing “approval for her lifestyle or behavior.” It seems that Focus uses John 4 in part to indicate that one could attend a “gay wedding.” Yet nothing in that text suggests that Jesus would have attended an immoral wedding ceremony, least of all one celebrating a woman being married to another woman.
Preston Sprinkle, a biblical scholar who heads up his Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender, thinks that saying “yes” to an invitation to attend a “gay wedding” is one of the options that “can be faithful to the biblical view that marriage is between two sexually different persons—as long as you don’t send mixed signals to the couple getting married.” He too appeals to Romans 14. He even advises parents to attend their child’s “gay wedding” lest they be shut out of their child’s life forever (and grandkids!) and miss an “opportunity to embody Christ’s love in your son/daughter’s life.” This is responding to the child’s manipulation and extortion to do evil, setting a pattern that will eventually lead to de facto, if not explicit, acceptance of the child’s immoral actions.
Megachurch pastor Andy Stanley is reported by one pastor as saying at a meeting with pastors (corroborated by other pastors present), “I don’t do gay weddings, but I can’t say I would never do a gay wedding. . . . If my granddaughter asked me someday, maybe I would” (also this). However, these are probably not the words of a Christian pastor who still believes homosexual unions to be sinful. Stanley, who has been drifting toward acceptance of homosexual unions for at least a decade, employs counselors like Debbie Causey who direct Christians struggling with same-sex attraction to ministries that affirm homosexual practice.
Not “a Romans 14 Issue” as the Analogue of Incest in 1 Corinthians 5 Shows
Attending a “gay wedding” is not “a Romans 14 issue” where believers can agree to disagree over matters of indifference like eating meat or not, which do not determine entrance into the kingdom of God (Rom. 14:17). Those who think otherwise either have difficulty reasoning analogically on this matter or else have departed in some way from the scriptural view of homosexual practice. They use arguments like wanting to stay in relationship with a “gay” family member or friend; imitating Jesus’ practice of eating with sinners; or comparing attending a “gay wedding” to attending a wedding of a divorced believer.
All these arguments can easily be seen as wanting if one compares attending a “gay wedding” to its most appropriate analogue: Attending an incestuous wedding between consenting adults “committed” to one another—for example, a man and his mother, or a woman and her brother. There may even be a “genetic sexual attraction” between close kin who are reunited late in life (see also this, this, this, and this). Incestuous unions are comparable to homosexual unions in terms of degree of severity (though from a biblical perspective homosexual practice is even worse) and problematic aspect (sex with another who is too much of an embodied same, whether as regards kinship or gender).
Paul’s response to the incestuous man in 1 Corinthians 5 gives us a good indication of what Paul’s response to attending a “gay wedding” would have been. True, Paul doesn’t mention that the self-professed Christian man who is in a sexual relationship with his stepmother is getting married to his stepmother. Yet, given Paul’s overall reaction to the situation, it is historically absurd to contend that Paul would have given his consent to their attendance of such an incestuous wedding, had it been requested.
The Corinthian response of being “puffed up,” inflated with pride, at their ability to tolerate an incestuous relationship, certainly made matters worse. That does not mean, though, that had they made clear to the incestuous man their disapproval of the relationship, Paul would have approved their attendance of a wedding between the two.
Paul insists rather that the Corinthian believers should “mourn” his actions, because it puts the offender at high risk of exclusion from God’s kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10). One mourns at a funeral. A person cannot go to a wedding mourning, since the entire point of the event is to celebrate the rendering permanent of the union. Marriage involves a commitment to stay in the union permanently. In this case, the parties would be declaring their intent to sin egregiously as long as they live, and celebrating that declaration. A believer can’t attend such a ceremony.
Indeed, Paul recommends that the Corinthians put the incestuous man, who “calls himself a brother [i.e. a believer],” out of the community (“remove from your midst the one who did/does this deed”), to cease “associating with” him, “not even to eat with such a one” (1 Cor. 5:2, 11). Obviously, such injunctions preclude something much worse: Going to the wedding of a man celebrating the grave immorality of incest. Going to a wedding that celebrates a gravely immoral union would be comparable to going to a ritual celebrating a person’s suicide or self-immolation.
Paul’s Act of Love in the Face of Today’s Excuse to Stay in Relationship
Paul’s actions may seem harsh, but Paul’s hope was to yet save the offender’s “spirit . . . on the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5). Paul’s actions are remedial, not punitive. The offender needs a massive wake-up call; otherwise, he is heading to hell in a hand basket. He does not need further accommodations to his death-inducing immorality by the church. Paul wants the incest to have stopped yesterday, for the sake of the offender (whom he seeks to reclaim), for the sake of the community (whose accommodations to immorality are threatening their existence), and for the sake of God (who expended the ultimate cost to redeem them, the atoning death of his Son).
We should bear in mind that this is the same Paul who wrote in marvelous praise of love just eight chapters later in the same letter. Paul did not violate that praise in the actions that he took toward the incestuous man.
To claim that Paul gives us no advice as to whether a believer can attend an incestuous wedding, making it “a Romans 14 issue,” would be historically ridiculous. Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 5 make crystal clear that there is no way that he would have condoned attendance at such a celebration of immorality. Try any of the arguments that some Christians use to justify attendance at a “gay wedding” and see if they work well for an incestuous “wedding.” For example:
“It is better to go to an incestuous wedding and stay in a relationship with a person who wants to marry a parent or sibling than it is to not go and thereby cut oneself off from future opportunities to witness to Christ.” Do you think such an argument would pass muster for Paul, much less for Jesus? Attending an incestuous wedding communicates acceptance even if you tell your incestuous friend that you do not approve of incestuous unions.
Read More
Related Posts: