Category Archives: gay theology
Third in a series of articles during EXhomosexual awareness month highlighting the continued challenges faced by EXGLBT Americans.
Homosexuals love to claim their movement parallels the black civil rights movement. But with the exception of being a minority demographic, the simularities end there. The lessons of the past are not the sole domain of the religious left. In fact, they have unjustly misinterpreted history with disastrous results.
You dont know Eric Dillard. Just consider him representative of the thousands of deceived religious gays who continue laboring to prop up a lie that has no legs. Dillard once supported deliverance from homosexuality, even singing on a song about overcoming homosexuality. Using acid washed metaphors, he attempts to equate slavery and unfair subjugation of women with calling homosexuality sin.
“Let’s put everyone back in slavery. 2. Women, no rights for you at all. Sit in the back of the church and be seen and not heard. 3. If anyone gets divorced, women take cover because you’re about to be stoned. And on top …of that, none of you will be getting remarried and have it smiled on in the congregation of saints as we watch you walk down the aisle in your 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th tuxedo and white wedding dress.
When people refer to homosexuality as being a sin. We first need to know in “what” context it’s referring to and then what is the distinction of it. Because the way that the Bible (written by faulty men) states, even if you’re feminine you are not going to Heaven. That has nothing to do with being gay at all. The Amplified Bible goes further to call it out right homosexuality.So again, this is not about making homosexuality right. But if we’re going to be consistent. Let’s be consistent. How consistent are we really…..?”
When confronted with the truth about their sins, religious homosexuals (just like their political counterparts) typically trot out a series of illogical rebuttals intended to somehow tie biblical teaching about homosexuality to other forms of human oppression. In essence they say the church was wrong about slavery and women, therfore its wrong about homosexuals. But they intentionally ignore key factors motivating those were “wrong”.
The major flaw with this ideology is derived benefit. Derived benefit, in this case is something that’s financially advantageous for those in power. Not only are Eric Dillard and his progay cohorts grossly misinformed about history and social movements, it appears they aid and abet the deception by claiming to be fighting against the very lie they now help to uphold.
Dillard’s premise that we must know what “context” sin is, is within itself a major sign that such a person is only seeking a derived benefit for themselves. In the eyes of God, sin has no “context”. Sin is any and everything, whether consensual or nonconsensual that defies God’s standards. It doesn’t matter who commits sin, whether its committed in thought or deed. If it falls short of God’s clearly stated standards of holiness and righteousness, it is sin. Only a foolish and disobedient mind would seek some sort of contextual exemption clause.
Now, let’s follow the money trail
1 Timothy 6:10. For the love of money is the root of all evil. Thus, money helps to supply what the evil hearts of men desire until it consumes all in its cyclic and systemic obsession.
1. Slaveowners derived a tangible financial benefit from misinterpreting scripture to keep blacks under the bondage of slavery. The perversion of religious teaching from the mouths of white slaveowners was simply a means to achieve an end. It was a calculated deception including forbidding the slaves to learn to read. Telling the slaves that God and/or the bible wanted blacks to serve their white masters, helped slaveowners continue reaping the benefits of free labor estimated at billions of dollars.
“Slavery is fundamentally an economic phenomenon. Throughout history, slavery has existed where it has been economically worthwhile to those in power. The principal example in modern times is the U.S. South. Nearly 4 million slaves with a market value of close to $4 billion lived in the U.S. just before the Civil War. Masters enjoyed rates of return on slaves comparable to those on other assets; cotton consumers, insurance companies, and industrial enterprises benefited from slavery as well. Such valuable property required rules to protect it, and the institutional practices surrounding slavery display a sophistication that rivals modern-day law and business.”–The Economic History Association
2. Anti-suffrage males fought against women’s rights primarily for financial gain. Sharing jobs with women meant that men would lose their dominant edge in the workplace, thus lose their financial power (and perks). Denying women the right to vote was simply a tool to keep them out of power while ensuring that money and jobs remained in the hands of men. Like the white slaveowners, the social oppression of women by men was all but assured to duplicate itself in the church because the same men populated the church.
“The idea that the only “true” woman was a pious, submissive wife and mother concerned exclusively with home and family.” –History.com
Men derived a tangible financial benefit by misinterpreting scripture to keep women subservient and silent in the presence of men. Jesus himself restored the equality of women and at the same time maintained the order of God’s creation. And he did it with no conflicting variance. A man who finds a woman for a wife finds something good. And as a single woman, she is good before he marries her. But sharing power with women threatened the financial benefits men derived and thus twisting the scripture use but a natural progression to maintain the status quo. Like denying them the right to vote, keeping them silent and subservient in the church served the greater purpose.
3. The white jim crow racists of the 60s also financially benefited by misinterpreting scripture about the equality of African Americans. Using barriers of unjust laws and deceptive ideology, white racists kept in place the system that prevented African Americans from reaching positions of power and thus achieving equality with whites. Keeping blacks out of jobs that paid commensurate wages, kept black people out of power. Like the other deceptive and dehumanizing socio-religious pograms before the jim crow era, the power of money was the bottom line motivation. While segregationists could not en masse prevent blacks from gaining ground, in the south and pockets of other parts of the country, the tactics against them helped slow progress considerably.
Lying pay$ off
The clear common motivator in all oppressive movements was financial gain, not biblical dishonesty which facilitated systemic power over another group. The bible’s words became a convenient tool in the hands of these people. Not only the Bible, but the US Constitution was misused as well.
But there exists no such financial benefit for people who correctly interpret scripture in reference to homosexual practices. No one who believes, teaches and upholds the sexual standards of the bible stands to benefit financially from doing so. In an ever increasing age of intolerant tolerance, such people and organizations actually are penalized for not falling in line with homosexual inclusion ideology. Logically, for the church to be compared to the aforementioned oppressive movements, it would have to allow homosexual inclusion.
Therefore its the religious progays who are financially benefiting from the misinterpretation of scripture just like slaveowners, the anti-suffrage sexists and the jim crow racists.
For example, the United Church of Christ was the first “major” US denomination to endorse homosexual marriage in 2005. That decision cost them over 200 local congregations. Faced with growing deficits, the UCC begin actively courting fringe gay religious groups. It benefited financially (and image-wise) from the influx of scores of fringe black pentecostalesque homosexual churches led by lesbian bishop Yvette Flunder. The payoff for these churches (and other homosexual churches) who bear the name UCC is the air of legitimacy. According to the Institute on Religion and Democracy, the UCC bled out over 1 million members in the last 40 years, with some 40,000 members running away from the sinking ship on its 50th anniversary year.
To counter this, homosexual (political and religious) activists have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into dead religious organizations, rewarding them for the benefit of lying about God’s standard for sexual expression. It was a major financial payoff in exchange for twisting scripture in favor of homosexual practices.
“Our gay dollars can turn the tide, sending a message that attacking us has grave consequences and the reprisals could very well cost a person a job or celebrity endorsements as we have seen with retracted statements and public apologies from Isaiah Washington and Tim Hardaway. Our gay dollars can also assert a proactive stance in which we frame the public religious discourse on our own terms. For example, “OutGiving is more than just a gathering of philanthropists – it’s a specific, focused, and streamlined roadmap to making your dollars do more … to increase capacity on the frontlines of the fight … where they can have the greatest impact,” Tim Gill, founder and chairman of the Gill Foundation, wrote in a open letter to this year’s conference participants. The time is now for us to assess our impact on American Christianity in this country, and to assert our muscle in today’s political landscape, especially against a party more set on winning votes at the ballot box than souls in the church.” –lesbian activist Rev. Irene Monroe
If the progay clerics and organizations and had any intellectual honesty, they would inform their followers that they are part of a longstanding tradition of lying for financial gain. American slaveowners did it, the anti-suffragists did it, the jim crow racists did it and the pro homosexual apostate church is doing it.
Refuting a lie is not for the faint at heart. Liars, the bible says, spend a significant portion of their time devising their putrid concoctions. Lies, ultimately are about manipulating something that otherwise could not be breached under normal circumstances.
Woe to those who scheme iniquity, Who work out evil on their beds! When morning comes, they do it, For it is in the power of their hands. Micah 2:1
Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flatters himself in his own eyes that his iniquity cannot be found out and hated. The words of his mouth are trouble and deceit; he has ceased to act wisely and do good. He plots trouble while on his bed; he sets himself in a way that is not good; he does not reject evil. Psalms 36:1-4
While we sleep, liars lay awake planning their lies out and despising what is good. Having said that, lets look at four broad-based lies gay christians and their allies tell on the church and the bible.
1. Christians’ prejudice against homosexuals leads them to misread biblical texts about homosexuality.
Although as superficial a lie as one can tell, it nonetheless has made a serious impact of how some view the authority of scripture and the how it applies to sexual sins. This is the lie of misplaced blame. It supposes that Christians who disagree with homosexual behavior are the ones who created the biblical narrative opposing it, thus they are to blame for what it clearly says. To conveniently label all opposition to a sexual behavior —which carries a deadly spiritual and physical penalty— as “prejudice” is a ludicrous and illogical position. Its like saying opposition to suicide is prejudice against freewill. The truth is that the bible is straitforward about all sexual immorality and makes zero exemptions for homosexual behavior, no matter what context the behavior occurs in or whether the participants are willing or not. Prejudice is judgment without knowledge. But Christians who follow biblical teachings which clearly oppose all forms of homosexuality are acting with integrity and honesty to speak the truth despite the lies told against them.
2. Christian leaders speak out against homosexuality merely to raise funds and increase their visibility.
The lie of impropriety. Why not speak out to raise money? If the money is being used to further the truth, it becomes a necessary function of the mission, plain and simple. What media outlet is going to give Christian leaders free air time? Which ones will give free ad space? If free publicity is being denied due to media bias against Christian leaders who speak out against homosexuality, then raising money is ethical and should be expected. Homosexual activist organizations, particularly the religious ones speak out against Christian leaders while raising money and gain visibility but want to deny that same privilege to others?
3. Scriptures that condemn homosexual behavior have actually been mistranslated.
This is what we can label a tactical lie. Nothing is lost by simple making broad, but untrue assertions. Ergo, this is just another convenient tactic to muddy the waters and avoid honest debate about the truth. Has the bible been mistranslated when it comes to homosexuality? It depends on what your definition of mistranslation is. With gay christians mistranslation means anything that isnt lock-step with their warped interpretations. CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) explains why there has been no mistranslaton. At the same time, every errant explanation spoken by a person claiming to be a Christian is no more applicable to the entire Christian faith as it is with any other group of people. We do know as an irrefutable statistical fact that 100% of bible passages [OT, NT] which mention homosexual behavior, condemn it using the strongest possible language. And each different writer who did so, did so independently of the other but all were guided by the inspiration of God.
4. Scriptures that condemn homosexual behavior have been taken out of context and do not apply to our present society.
This is the second version of the tactical lie aka specious argumentation. By casting doubt on the context of scripture, it produces doubt about its truthful application. Homosexual social strategists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, write in their book “After the Ball” that homosexuals should “ muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that ‘justify’ religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards.” This tactic is stenuously adhered to by the gay christian movement.
First, lets ask these questions in response to this tactical lie. What authority determined that God’s laws and condemnation of homosexuality does not apply to contemporary society? Is this authority credible? Did this authority receive direct revelation from God that his immutable, eternal word has no application to modern society? When did this happen and who is the authority who makes this brazen claim? I will wager that if such a person existed they would be indentified as a prohomosexual cleric who self serving ideology benefits only a small contigent of sexual outlaws and not the greater good of humanity and certainly not the Christian family.
As more and more false teachers, particularly those who ascribe to homosexual inclusion theology, flex their influence, collusion is bound to occur. But what is a believer, faithful to the truth to do (or say) about it when a respected leader links up with false teachers?
A flier for unannounced homosexual cleric Kenneth Samuel’s church anniversary features gay bishop OC Allen and card carrying inclusionist DE Paulk. No surprises there as birds of a feather are expected to congregate together. Here’s the documentation on Paulk, Allen and Samuels, respectively.
But what of the appearance of Joseph L. Williams, son of reknowned Atlanta pastor Jasper Williams? Or Juandalyn Stokes, a local gospel personality? Are these two making small steps towards embracing the specious inclusion doctrine? While one appearance at a gay/gay affirming church is not to be taken as full approval or partnership with doctrines of devils, it is nonetheless disturbing trend in the contemporary church. And then again, Samuels would have never invited someone to speak at his church who he knows openly opposes his false teaching and immoral sexual lifestyle. So what conclusions can we draw? Williams, a theologically educated man, surely knows the implications of 1 Cor 5, Eph 5:14,1 Cor 15:33 and other passages which warn believers not to associate with those who work undercover for satan.
Tetuan Moffett, who produced the popular EXMinistries series “Thieves in the Temple” says that false teachers have no redeemable qualities.
But what about the false teachers (2 Peter 2:1)? What about these men who lead hundreds, thousands, and sometimes millions to the second death (2 Peter 2:2, “many will follow” Revelation 20:14-15; 22:15)? DO WE PRAY FOR THEM? No. The instruction Paul gives in Galatians1:8-9 (for those who preach any other gospel) is that we let them go to hell. (be accursed). The Lord says that false teachers are like “brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed.” In other words, God has made false teachers for the express purpose of destroying them forever. As the above says, “they will utterly perish”, and they “will receive the wages of unrighteousness.” The wages of unrighteousness is the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). False teachers are beyond hope. In fact, note Jude 11. It says of them that they have “perished” in the rebellion of Korah.”
In both the old and new testaments, the prophets, Jesus and the apostles use extremely harsh and condemning language, metaphors and pronouncements in dealing with false teachers. To lend aid or support to one was considered just as grave a transgression as being one. But many have been deceived into thinking that false teachers are actually part of the body, but just having minor differences with the truth.
In properly understanding the serious evil of a preacher who has been trained (brought up) by a wolf, Jesus’ words are referenced – “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. (Matthew 23:15) The bible says “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” Therefore whether if its Michael Green, Daffy Duck or whomever, if you have endorsed and/or supported these false teachers then what spirit is leading you? AN ANTICHRIST SPIRIT? Now how is that for JUDGING? (see: Luke 12:57, I Cor. 11:13, 6:3, 10:15, Matt 7:15-20. Let no man deceive you by any means. How can we tell the “sheep” from the “wolves” unless we “judge” or “determine”? How can we do as our Lord commanded and “beware of false prophets” unless we “judge” them by the word of God? If we do not “judge” or “decide” their error by the word of God, how do we even know they are in error?
Are you a member of Williams, Joseph Williams or Jaundalyn Stokes church? If you are, do you approve of your pastor keeping company with known false teachers and lending support to sexually immoral religious leaders?
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]