Category Archives: gay christian
Judge for yourself. The lesbian minister from the Metropolitan Community Church talks as if religion and relationships are like picking what type of candy you like at the supermarket check out line. Maybe gay religion is like a box of chocolates?
All humor aside, is there anyway to qualify whether a relationship is good or bad? Does the scripture leave it up to the individual to decide what is “natural” to them? Are Christians given the freedom to define what sexual relationship is acceptable and unacceptable? Standards exist in every facet of life: home, government, education, law, even the arts. Contestants can’t even remain on American Idol for long if a certain standard of entertainment –and talent– isn’t maintained. Yet, the gay christian movement would have the church believe that homosexual relationships are somehow just…exempt. GCM Watch would like to issue a 7 day challenge any member of the gay christian movement to please submit a list of criteria whereby we may adequately judge the validity of homosexual relationships.
Gay theology is rooted in an old heresy. As we explained before, antinomianists argued their exemption from moral conduct and restrictions on the basis of grace. It allowed them to do whatever was “natural” in their ideological habitat and still claim relationship with Christ. Antinomianists assert that salvation is based on faith in God and therefore obedience to God’s law is not necessary at any stage in a Christian’s life. Reportedly, it was the Christian reformer Martin Luther who first used this expression, antinomianism, to refer to the views of his friend, Johannes Agricola, in the sixteenth century. Agricola taught that the moral law of God was in no way binding upon those who are justified by faith alone. Johannes Agricola taught Christians are entirely free from the moral law of God. This is completely false and has no scriptural basis.
In fairness, antinomianism is not exclusive to gay christianity, but it is personified most in gay christianity. According to Christian theologian Dr J.I. Packer’s view of antinominianism, its adherents elevate following the “spirit” above scripture thereby creating an easy out from moral restrictions.
“What matters is not what the Scripture tells me. I am a spiritual person, filled with the Holy Spirit. I am above the law of the Scripture. I am led by the Spirit, and the Spirit overrules the Scripture. The Spirit can even contradict the Scripture. I am a spiritual Christian, and I am led by the Spirit. I do what the Spirit tells me, and I don’t worry about the Holy Scriptures.”
Perhaps you remember the United Church of Christ’s “God is still speaking” and “dont place a period where God has placed a comma” mantra, which draws heavily from antinominic ideology.
Applicable scriptures: Judges 21:25, Romans 6:1, Titus 2:11, 1 John 3:4-7, Jude 4.
This story is a repost from June 2007 archives.
Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”
He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”
After an oped by gay wunderkind Matthew Vines on the Christian Post, several theological scholars were drafted to take a serious look at his claims, assertions and the loophole type theology being used to rally the spiritually blind to his cause. GCM Watch has reported on Vines before here and here.
The conclusion (as if serious theologians were really needed to deconstruct Vine’s patently superficial arguments) left Vines looking like a foolish and petulant child who skipped Sunday School classes.
The scholars: Dr. Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Seminary, Dr. Evan Lenow in Fort Worth, TX and Professor Sean McDonough of Gordon-Cornwall Seminary joined in on the collaborative critique.
We’ve pulled out some of the highlights of the fairly comprehensive theological smackdown of Vines’ juvenile assertions. Although MV insisted he spent two years “studying the bible”, its evident he actually spent two years memorizing rehashed false teachings from blind teachers of religion. Vines’ rise to attention echoes his youthful predecessor, John Boswell who traveled this same path only to meet with a tragic death from AIDS at 47. But unlike Boswell, Vines has an obvious intellectual deficiency. Part of his strategy seems to be creating trite, soundbite memes like “being gay is not a sin”.
Being gay is not a sin” is the mantra that one young Harvard student is trying to promulgate. But while Matthew Vines has attracted a growing following with what some are describing as accessible, scholarly arguments, evangelical scholars don’t believe he’ll make much headway in the Christian community.
“His arguments are not new, and his predecessors failed to win the day within the Christian community,” said Dr. Evan Lenow, assistant professor of Ethics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. “Therefore, I doubt he will have significant impact in the long term.”
But the arguments he presents have been rehashed from the work of such scholars as Finnish Old Testament scholar Martti Nissinen, homosexual New Testament scholar Dale Martin (Yale), and homosexual church historian John Boswell [see our expose of Boswell's teachings here and here], according to Dr. Robert Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, who is considered the foremost expert on the Bible and homosexuality.
Of course the scholars immediately recognize that Vines is pouring out old, sour wine from an old wineskin.
“Every one of these rehashed arguments I have refuted in previous work, of which Vines shows not the slightest awareness,” said Gagnon, who studied the issue for 15 years after completing a masters of theological studies at Harvard Divinity and a Ph.D. in New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary.
His (Vines’) take on Genesis 1 is theologically incoherent. He seems to concede the goodness of God’s creation of man and woman (which forms the basis for subsequent biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality), then claims that in the current state of things homosexual desire is natural, and therefore good, for homosexuals. But this spectacularly avoids the problem of the Fall in Genesis 3.
“One might equally argue that while peace was a desirable state for Adam and Eve in Eden, murderous envy was the ‘natural’ state of Cain, and thus he cannot be condemned for acting on his innate desires. He also suggests that the only possible way not to be alone in the world is to be in a sexual relationship. Why would this be so?”
Like most arguments in support of homosexuality, they are heavy on emotional manipulation primarily because they have no foundational truth to stand upon. That’s another cog in the wheel of trickery the scholars pointed out.
But for McDonough, Vines’ main appeal is emotional, “with a thin dusting of logic on top.”
“Vines presents himself as a sensitive, rational soul simply trying to figure out what the Bible really says. But underneath the veneer there is a pretty manipulative premise: if you disagree with me, you are by definition cruel and oppressive,” McDonough commented. “Who wants to be cruel and oppressive?”
The evangelical scholars agreed that Vines may be able to sway some believers.
“We are living in a time when many younger folks are looking for alternatives to traditional Christian views about sexuality,” said Mouw of Fuller. “Unless we do a much better job of ministering to people with their very real dilemmas, arguments like those set forth by Vines will arise, even though they are highly speculative as interpretations of biblical teaching.”
Finally, as Jesus said those who follow someone blind will fall into a ditch. Vines’ superficial theology manipulates shifting emotional instability, rehashes shallow heresies and seeks to destroy the very foundation of biblical teaching.
True of most if not all of gay christian theology is its serpentine logic. Lenow noted:
“If one were to follow Vines’ logic, that calling homosexuality a sin marginalizes homosexuals, then the church would have to approve of all things that the Bible calls sin “lest we marginalize any segment of society. This would, in effect, eliminate sin from Scripture and eliminate our need for a Savior. By doing so, we would eliminate the church and Christianity.”
Resources: A Strong Delusion: Confronting the “Gay Christian” Movement by Joe Dallas [amazon]
For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person–such a man is an idolater–has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. Ephesians 5:6-11
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.
Over the last twenty years, you’ve seen them fall like dominoes: the so-called Christian denominations that have policied themselves into homosexual acceptance. It doesn’t just happen. The homosexual antinominialists and their blind eye allies, employ a number of subversive tactics to turn whole denominations away from what used to be their foundational principles. A major problem of the contemporary church and its Sauls Army of members is that their fear of what homosexuals are doing is evident. That fear has emboldened an enemy of the cross that could be put down with one smooth stone. But there must exist a resolve to do so.
A great blog on the Gospel Coalition site by Kevin DeYoung takes you past the smoke and mirrors and reveals how this train wreck of a theological tragedy is occurring before our very eyes. DeYoung cites Tom Oden’s prophetic book of warning “Requiem”. Three steps and centuries of foundational truth is trashed as if it were a musty pair of old socks. Tolerate. Accept. Endorse.
The first step is always a study committee.
In response to claims for moral legitimization of behaviors widely thought displeasing to God, each of the mainline denominations has dutifully appointed elaborate study commissions to report back to the general legislative body on how the church might respond to this form of sexual orientation, practice, and advocacy. (152)
If the first study committee comes back with a traditional reading of the text, or if the legislative body dismisses the committee’s progressive interpretation, you can always assign another study committee amidst outcries that the recalcitrant conservatives suffer from “homophobia and reactionary stupidity” (153).
And if the traditional view cannot be overturned right away, try dismissing the whole controversy by telling people (with no small amount of chronological snobbery) that saner Christians understand this is nothing worth fighting over.
The fact that homosexual practice is not a weighty moral matter was asserted by the United Methodist Sexuality Report as a “consensus among Christian ethicists,” yet without any evidence to support this curious assertion. All the conspicuous Christian teachers who have resisted same-sex intercourse (John Chrysostom, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other consensual ecumenical teachers) are weighed in the debate less heavily than selected modern proponents of moral relativism and utilitarian permissivism. (153)
The next step is admonish “the people of God to wait for a firm ‘scientific consensus’” on the matter (154).
Then some leading lights in the denomination can offer new exegetical avenues for avoiding the traditional understanding of familiar texts. Three evasions in particular are quite popular.
The first evasion is that the normative moral force of all biblical texts on same-sex intercourse may be explained away by their cultural context. This leads to the conclusion that any statement in the Bible can be reduced to culturally equivocal ambiguity and indeterminacy on the premise of cultural relativism…
The second evasion hinges upon a strung out interpretation on Romans 1:26-27…
The third evasion argues that when Genesis 1:27 declares that God created male and female, the text has no normative significance for how sexual behavior is to be understood, since it is merely a distinction with no further moral meaning. (154-55)
If all else fails, the final step is to announce triumphantly and with a terrific celebration of grace that “Christ is, in an amoral fashion, the end of the law” and charge others with legalism if they don’t share in your antinomianism (156).
For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. Jude, verse 4
There’s a lot of raunchy stuff going on in church buildings today. The bible uses the word licentiousness which mean lacking moral restraints; especially disregarding sexual restraints. In this case, it is individuals who disregard the moral and sexual restraints outlined in scripture.
So it would stand to reason that a false shepherd like Dennis Meredith would offer his false church a false class on “relationships” aka gay sex positions. Instead of being a house of the Lord, Meredith seems intent on transforming his location into a house of ill repute.
What’s the real problem at Tabernacle Baptist Church? Is the 85% homosexual (per Meredith) membership having trouble trying to figure out if they are masculine or feminine? Are people that confused about their gender? All it takes is a quick look in the mirror to resolve that. And incredibly, Meredith will teach them what role to play during male sexual activity? According to the bible, both the passive sexual partner and the aggressive sexual partner are defined as ungodly and degrading and neither will inherit the kingdom of God.
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
For self derived benefits, false teachers always have their noses in the sex business. They would never teach the people God’s standard of sexual holiness, which by the way isn’t hidden nor a mystery. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8
It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit.
Meredith is defrauding his followers by promoting his brand of sexual expression instead of God’s. Its important to false teachers to be in control of how their followers view sex because it helps to supply them with a harem of potential sex partners.
It looks like the gay church is becoming increasingly desperate to hold the attention of the folks it attracts with it so called “welcoming and affirming” message. If you trick em to get em in, you have to keep up the tricks to keep em. As someone once noted: stupid ideas never die, they just keep coming back.
A child is innocent of the agendas of adults. Why don’t we just begin by making that provisionary statement? No matter how wicked and misguided the adults are, children cannot be held liable for such wickedness.
The Vision Cathedral of Atlanta just got a new member this morning. Congrats to Bishop Oliver Clyde Allen,III and First Gentlemen Rashad Burgess on the new arrival of their new bundle of joy ‘Caylee LaTanya Burgess-Allen.‘
Message from the Family:
“We are proud to announce the birth of a healthy 8.1 lbs. baby, born Thursday January 10, 2013 at 8:23am. The surprise is that it’s a little girl! Her name is, Caylee LaTanya Burgess-Allen. She’s so precious and we love how she has already brought such meaning to our lives. We are humbled and grateful to have such loving and supportive grandparents, godparents, family, a loving Church, faith community, coworkers and beautiful friends who are committed to us.
Should we be happy that a false prophet has adopted a child? Should we be happy that this baby is in a “family” that will raise her? Isn’t this just a private affair that we have no business talking about?
The answers are no, no and no.
No, because Jesus never congratulated false prophets on their adopted (or birth) children. He knew that congratulating them would only give legitimacy to the dangerous doctrine they espoused. Instead he told us to beware of them and their intentions. In fact, everything they do is suspect because their motives are suspect.
No, because there are plenty of families that could have adopted this child and brought her up in the fear and admonition of the Lord (Eph 6:4). Admonition means to give “cautionary advice or warning.” They would have to warn this child that living a sexually immoral life will prevent her from entering into the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6). But of course these two religious homosexuals can’t do that without being hypocritical. They don’t even teach that to the adults that follow them.
And no because they made the event public, thus inviting public approval or public scorn.
After looking at the picture, an obvious question stands to be asked. Which one of these men was impregnated by the other and carried this child inside him for nine months, then birthed the child out of the womb? The answer is as obvious as the ironic picture. Neither. Its a biological, genetic and complete impossibility for either to do so. They have no capacity whatsoever to do so. And guess who made it that way? God. Such an obvious question and equally obvious answer only reinforces the truth about God, genders, sex and sexuality that OC Allen and his gay church have tried so hard to erase through false teachings.
This is exactly why homosexuality is unnatural in every sense of the word. Everything is artificial because they have zero capacity to produce anything by the God-created natural processes. And that extends to spiritual life as well. Perversion is bringing this child into their deceptive play house/play church game. And honestly it takes a great deal of money to tunnel around the natural processes God created.
The homosexual movement is dying of legitimacy thirst. They desperately crave everyone and everything to 100% agree with and 100% celebrate their sexual habits, their emotions, their social dogma, their false churches, their made to order families and the entire facade they’ve created as legitimate. But how can you when its clear as day, that its not? That’s why now you see them using the force of trumped up laws and policies to get what they want.
The only good that can come of this is praying that the child will grow up and reject the lie Allen and his partner will live before her. Pastor Harvey Burnett wrote on his blog, “I pray that this little girl grows to be a mighty and strong advocate for the word of God and stands firm AGAINST the homosexual confusion that her “pretend dads” and apostate church embraces. Like all the other children coming up through that ministry because of deluded parents who continue to be deceived, I pray that her mind and spirit is protected from all further ungodliness and perversion of the flesh such as what this “minister” and church sets forth and what apostate minds such as these endorse in this day we call the “modern age” or modern era.”