by Phil Johnson
ull disclosure: Here is the development that finally provoked my sense of consecrated indignation enough to motivate me to start blogging again:
It's the latest "evangelical" superconference. As you see, their own ad copy tells us they are devoted to "supporting, encouraging, and empowering gay, lesbian, same-sex-attracted, and other LGBT Christians so they can experience the life-giving character of the historic Christian tradition." The conference is being organized and supported by a large cast of evangelical thought-leaders—including some people generally assumed to be sound and reliable spiritual guides.
Fred Butler blogged about it yesterday, and it'll save me some work if you read his assessment of the actual conference itself. (You may need a translator for the cornpone-and-pot-likker dialect he slips into occasionally, but the cardinal points he makes are unassailable.)
Anyway, I want to comment on the conference's underlying theory, because it strikes me as a Really Bad Idea (and a patently unbiblical opinion). Nevertheless, it seems to be gaining traction rapidly—even among many influential and hitherto trustworthy evangelical leaders. It's the notion that homosexual orientation is morally neutral. The claim being made is that gay desires are not really sinful unless they are acted upon. So a person can fully self-identify as lesbian, bi-sexual, gay, transsexual, gender-fluid, or otherwise "queer" and be a church member in good standing—as long as he, she, xe, (or whatever) remains celibate.
I first began to realize how widespread that idea has become in the evangelical community two years ago, when the following Tweet was posted from the official Twitter account of The Gospel Coalition (TGC):
"It's more masculine to be attracted to men yet obedient to God than attracted to women and disobedient to God."
I referred to TGC's Tweet as a "hazy, misleading sophism" and added, "Lusting for something sinful is not 'obedien[ce] to God.'" A long argument ensued, with several friends on my FaceBook page and lots of my Twitter followers expressing shock and surprise that I would hold an opinion so egregiously out of step with postmodern political correctness. The "proper" postmodern opinion was succinctly stated by an exasperated commenter on my FaceBook page: "Desires are neutral until they are used sinfully," he wrote.
I fear that idea is finding currency among leading evangelicals. But it is dead wrong and subversive to genuine holiness. Scripture is chock full of statements emphatically condemning evil desires—from the Tenth Commandment (Exodus 20:17) to Jesus' words about mental and visual lust in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:27-29). What, after all, is lust but raw, sinful desire?
Those who argue that LGBT "orientation" is morally neutral often point out that an unmarried heterosexual man's attraction to women isn't necessarily deemed sinful, assuming he remains celibate. Why, then, should we consider a celibate gay man's attraction wrong, as long as he doesn't act on it?
I'd like to suggest two replies to that. First, a celibate heterosexual's attraction to women might indeed be sinful, if, say, he is attracted only to married women or underage girls. It would likewise be sinful if he allowed his interest in a particular young woman to become a fixation that distorts his perception of reality. A perfectly innocent attraction can even become a sinful passion for the person who indulges in immoral fantasies. No sane and reasonable person would try to argue that heterosexual desires are always wholesome. Second (and this is pretty straightforward:) Scripture says inordinate affections are sinful and commands us to mortify them (Colossians 3:5). I didn't make that up.
But my Bible uses the expression "evil desire" in Colossians 3:5. How do I know if a desire is "evil"?
In short, Scripture teaches plainly that any desire is sinful if it entails a wish for what we cannot righteously have.
Far from "supporting, encouraging, and empowering" people beset with perverse sexual desires, Scripture repeatedly urges us to repent of all sinful desires—especially those wicked sexual passions that so easily entrap young minds (2 Timothy 2:22; 1 Peter 2:11). All of us—not just LBGTQ folk—are commanded to renounce and mortify every desire for anything God has forbidden. Those who think people with impure or sinful desires can wear their peculiar lusts as badges of group identity merely demonstrate that they haven't a clue what repentance means. Furthermore, to omit or purposely obscure the Bible's clear call to repentance is to show contempt to one's unbelieving neighbors.
Let me be clear: I, too, have friends and close neighbors who identify as LGBT, and I abominate the way some Christians seem to think it's OK to heap unbridled scorn, mockery, or insults on them. All our neighbors should be shown Christlike, loving compassion with the dignified respect that befits anyone who bears God's image.
But to encourage them in their sin or offer them the false comfort of approval for their sinful desires is a serious breach of the Second Great Commandment.
Let's not try to make any sin seem less wicked than it is.
I would not necessarily single out homosexuality as the chief example of abominable sin if our culture didn't constantly insist on treating homosexual desire as a privileged category. Sodomy is only one of several notoriously odious abominations, and Jesus expressly said the hard-hearted unbelief of those who have actually seen and know the truth is a worse sin than all the evils of Sodom (Matthew 11:24).
Furthermore, I'm happy to assert, emphatically, that any evil attraction is appallingly sinful, including that heterosexual tendency to want to click on clickbait when the link features a picture of some scantily-clad tart.
But this one class of sins (LGBT etc.) is the only one that demands special status and unconditional affirmation.
So perhaps the main point I want to make will perhaps be clearer if we consider one of the sexual perversions that hasn't yet successfully lobbied for social acceptance and special rights.
Here's a real-life example:
During my first year at Grace to You (1983), a man wrote our ministry looking for affirmation and encouragement. He wanted us to agree with his belief that mere attraction to a forbidden object is not inherently sinful. He gave a convincing testimony about his conversion from a life of sin and rebellion. He said he was now serving as an AWANA leader in his church. Then he got specific about what he was asking us to sanction.
He said he felt sexually drawn to "large farm animals." (Those were his exact words.)
I wrote back, citing Matthew 5:28, and told him it is our position that the desires he was describing are not morally neutral at all but a sinful perversion that he needed to repent of and vanquish through the means of grace. I'd give him the same answer today, even after reading reams of sophisticated evangelical reasoning trying to argue that "attraction" and "lust" are categorically different.
One other point needs to be made before I wrap this up.
People sometimes suggest that all sin is equally vile. That's simply not true. It's true that all sin is damnably wicked, but Jesus Himself made clear that some sins are worse than others (John 19:11; Luke 10:12-14). And Scripture clearly portrays certain sexual perversions (lesbianism and bestiality among them) as unusually and unnaturally perverse. (See, for example, Romans 1:26-28.)
All of this raises an important question: How far do the culturally-engaged evangelical trend-setters want to take the notion that mere attraction is morally neutral? I hope we'd be concerned about the sanctification of someone who insisted on self-identifying as a pederast living a celibate life. Or my cowboy correspondent who harbored a secret desire for a closer relationship with his livestock. Or people drawn to any number of kinky fetishes too perverse to even talk about (Ephesians 5:12).
Yes, all of us struggle with evil desires. That's part of our fallenness. Even Paul struggled with covetousness—evil desire (Romans 7:7-25). But Paul's whole point was that those desires (even if never acted on) are sins to be mortified, not prize ribbons to be worn as badges of one's identity.
34 comments:
Thanks for the post, Brother Phil.
I thought your destruction of the bifurcation between "attraction" and "lust" helped me. Of course, it is possible to be attracted to a woman without sinfully lusting, but homosexual attraction is by definition disordered. I agree with the alarm you're sounding here.
In the most generous light, I would understand the TGC tweet to mean: "It is a clearer display of biblical manhood for a man to be mortifying same-sex attraction than for a man to not be mortifying sinful female-attraction."
I can see how the ensuing twitter discussion would cause you to write a post like this, and I'm thankful for the post.
In Christ,
PJ
Thanks for this post. As always straight on point Biblical clarity.
So appreciate your gift!
PJ Tibayan: You should commandeer the TGC Twitter account. If that Tweet had read the way you edited it, I'd have retweeted it with a thumbs up.
As I have always said; one of the greatest cruelties that can be carried out by a confessed Christian is; allowing an individual to go unchallenged in their insane notions. That their participation in or desires to participate in the LGBTQ, etc. ad-infinidum lifestyle, is not even remotely close to being normal but is, in fact, abominable! As a matter of fact, Romans 1 states that once a person/group/society has reached this state of depravity, they are being judged. Their very desire and acting out are a fruit of that judgment! We must be kind, gentle, loving, etc... but we must speak the truth.
It's good to have you back sir.
Thanks for highlighting this ridiculous trend. They are loving the world and hoping the LGBTQX world will love them back, but that will never happen. Then, after having shifted the goal posts so far already, they'll cave on the final millimeter in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
I agree with most of this post. However, it seems to imply a notion that all temptations may be fully put to death. If one doesn't, in some sense, desire to commit a wrong act, it is no credit to him in resisting. There will always be sinful desires. One should always seek to stifle them. However, it is naive to believe that a same sex attraction will simply vanish. They may fight the evil desire. They may resist is successfully all their lives. But it will be there. And every one of us, including this author, has a desire to commit some evil (such as lash out in anger). Some temperaments are, by nature or nurture, more volatile than others. They may fight that as long as they live. But the mere predilection to lash out does not make someone less of a Christian than he who has no such predilection. For he certainly has another. This isn't an excuse to sin, nor is it an equating of perverse sexual desires with emotional outbursts. This is pointing out that wrong desires are a part of the human reality for every one. To suggest that a formerly homosexual Christian isn't Christian enough if his homosexual desires haven't completely disappeared is woefully misleading. I desire to glut & eat as many donuts as possible. I suspect that will always be my desire. Yet I resist that urge. I would prefer if I was without that urge & I had nothing to fight. But it's there. Desires may not always be morally neutral, but they aren't something you can always merely wish away either. This is nothing less than the daily Christian struggle of sanctification. This post is dangerously close to implying a kind of perfectionism where imperfect desires shouldn't exist; which is every bit as unbiblical as not seeking to put to death evil desires. Someone may say, "if you were a real Christian, you would't desire xyz..." That's not how it works. Paul is speaking to "the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae" whom he already receives as Christians -- & yet they need to be admonished to put evil desires to death, presumably because such temptations still exist. Sinful creatures will have sinful desires. Not acting on them is good. Not acting on or even desiring them is better. But desiring something you wish you wouldn't desire is a reality that would not necessarily preclude someone from the Kingdom. This is an important distinction that should be made, that I'm not sure was.
Sage, You didn't pay careful attention to Phil's post. He said we all have evil desires, including himself and Paul. "Have," as in present tense. The point isn't that we are required to perfectly rid ourselves of every evil desire, but that evil desires shouldn't be worn as badges, such as is happening in the Revoice conference. Their "identity" as people who desire perverse things needs to be mortified just like my "identity" as one who desires other perverse things needs to be mortified; and neither is really our identity if we are in Christ. You got this one wrong.
Dave W: Exactly. Thank you.
I think the key overlooked bible verse in the entire gay (both male and female varieties) discussion is 2 Timothy 3:1-2a "But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, NIV.
Gay men and gay women are not attracted to the same sex. They are attracted to themselves. They love themselves so much they want to have sex with themselves and spend all their time, money, energy, creativity, passion, etc. etc. on someone who looks just like themselves. Homosexuality is a mirror.
It sometimes goes so far that gay "couples" look like siblings especially older men being with a young man who looks like their younger self.
The gay men I have talked to said in all honesty there is almost no downside to being gay. You can have sex everyday, multiple times, you can spend all your money on yourself, you always have lots of "friends" who want the same thing you do, you can travel, wear expensive clothes, eat out all the time. The only downside is that gays are not accepted as normal. That is the one thing only heterosexuals can bestow on homosexuals, "normalcy". That is what they are trying to sell at these infernal conferences & with degenerate ministries that ignore scripture and elevate lustful feelings and fleshly desires.
The bottom line is the homosexual sin that needs to be repented of is not same sex attraction. The sin to be repented of is 2 Timothy 2a "being a lover of themselves"
So Repent, Believe the Gospel, Love God First & others more than yourself and live. That needs to be the message preached at every one these conferences going forward.
Phil, thank you for the post. My quandry now is what to do with these “gospel centric” groups (TGC and even T4G) that are seemingly abandoning the gospel to advance “gospel implications” like social justice and now this. Do we abandon them? Do we seek to reform them? Are their more conservative leaders (Mohler, MacArthur, Duncan) working to reform them? What say you?
What about the “B”?
First - Thanks Phil for a clear and rational explanation of the issue. This is THE ISSUE that will separate brethren and worse in the months, years and GA’s ahead of us. I have been convinced for a long time the Achilles heel of the “sexual minority” neutrality debate is the “B”. The “B” by its definition and inclusion by “progressives” in the ever changing alphabet soup of the recent sexually identified professed believer can never be justified even though not acted upon. The desire / proclivity must be repented of and forsaken of no matter what. The excuse of neutrality has no bearing here... no matter what the sinful attraction is it brings with it offense because the terms change at will. If the attraction is M to M today, M to FM tomorrow or M to M&F together the following day - the only answer biblically has to be repentance of the perverse “attraction”. Which by the way is the answer every time... What Christian should ever want to be labled with a category of sin that Christ died to redeem you from? Welcome back you voice has been missed in this venue...
We must guard our hearts against all attractions, even heterosexual ones. If we entertain these attractions and desires, we are giving it life. Don't give sin life.
It's really simple. Our desire for God must be greater than the desires for ourselves. After all, His desire for us lead Him to give up His only begotten Son. What are we really giving to God to reciprocate this love? Simply not my will but Your will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Great article Phil.
Perhaps even more troubling than the damage this trend may cause to people and to God's glory, is the fact that it motivated by unwitting acquiescence to the spirit of the age.
And the Lord said unto Moses, saying, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed 7 days! The Lord made a whip and he went into the temple, kicking over tables and he cleared it of transgressors! I think the kindness or charity of some Christians is grossly misplaced. Don't candy coat it! I watched someone I loved deeply die of HIV/AIDS over the 2 years he suffered till he was a skeleton stretched over with festering skin at under 100 lbs.3 days before he died I rushed into his hospital room elated to inform him I was going to be a father with my first child Hannah. His immediate response was "so what"! It still hadn't dawned on me yet he was actually going to die. That response stopped me as I looked into his face and now recognize as the death glaze in his eyes. He was so weak he didn't have the strength to flip the blanket over his exposed leg, where his knee was the biggest part of his whole leg! He stopped trying and focused on me and said "David, I just want you to know that I realize I'm dying because of a choice I made to be gay"! That affirmation was because of the discussions we had rgarding what the Bible says about homosexuality! He could only have made that omission after having suffered, and suffering grievously, and considering Romans 1:27. Sixteen of Tommy's buddies followed him in death. Many I had met and knew personally! GAY became an acronym for Got Aids Yet! And the plural S stands for Stupid or Silly or Shit or all three! He also taught me the 2 bloody sh_tty condome won't protect a couple of a-holed from anything! But most of all he demonstrated to me that God is a most Dread Sovereign and greatly to be feared!!! I think a lot of this so-called Christian charity is a whitewashed form of spiritual pride and too few today have the balls to call it what it is in the language the world understands. I am a man of unclean lips too, but then the Lord did say he would use the base things and things dispised too. I fit into that base category maybe more than I should. Excellent article Phil but we shouldn't be afraid to call it the filthy degenerate perversion that it is and follow up with a sound and solid discription of Hell!!!
on bold display at Hollywood United Methodist "Church" is this banner on their website dedicating the month of June to perversion...and this is "progressive"? progressing down to the pit of hell ! https://hollywoodumc.org/pride/
About 8-9 years ago I was in the Church of the Nazarene denomination. As a denomination they have been just about gutted by emergent teaching and thinking. The denominational leaders would occasionally put out a statement concerning homosexuality and homosexual desire. One of them a few years back had some really bizarre stuff in it such as basically encouraging those with this issue, along with others, to essentially form a commune (although it wasn't said using that word), where they could give each other emotional and spiritual support. What could possibly go wrong???
Here is a quote from a statement published in December, 2015:
Our biblical and theological understanding of sin suggests that it is both personal and corporate. We personally choose to sin and are responsible/accountable to God for the willful choices that we make. Sexual orientation is not usually a willful choice. (Can the heterosexual point to a time they chose their sexual orientation?) It is amoral, neither moral nor immoral. Sexual behavior is a moral choice. Scripture clearly addresses homosexual behavior, but does not address homosexual orientation. Choosing not to say
more than Scripture, you notice that the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene and the Official Statement of the Board of General Superintendents makes a clear distinction between behavior and orientation. One is sinful, the other is not.
Very sad, and this is coming from a denomination that considers itself a "holiness" denomination. Anyway, this sort of thinking has been a part of that denomination for a decade or more.
Phil, this is an excellent post. I’m stunned to see so many people who call themselves Christians abandoning the clear teaching of Scripture to support this and other contemporary falsehoods. The Bible is abundantly clear that the only relationship where sexual expression is not sinful is a marriage of one man and one woman. (It pains me that I even have to define marriage). Anyone who wishes to support, encourage, or empower a sinner in his sin is acting unbiblically.
It seems to me there are several factors that contribute to the improper response of people we would normally consider to be solid Christians.
First, this seems to be an attempt to gain the world’s approval by following the current zeitgeist that LGBTQ and other “social justice” issues need to be addressed in a world-pleasing, as opposed to biblically obedient, manner and that these are somehow gospel issues.
Second, this is another manifestation of an easy-believism gospel. The thought would be if sin doesn’t need to be repented of to be saved, these people can be LGBTQ and still be a Christian.
Third, this seems to be an overreaction to the horrible ways Christians have treated LBGTQ people. The pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. It’s gone from all justice with no love, to all love with no justice. Christians used to, almost gleefully, only tell homosexuals the bad news for them from the Bible. Now some people are attempting to give them only the good news. This of course will not make sense without the context of contrasting the good news with the bad news, they both are required.
Fourth, and probably the most problematic for me, is the idea that being LGBTQ, and continuing to identify that way, is somehow acceptable for a Christian. It would say this sin (if it is even a sin) needs to be managed, not mortified. In this view, inordinate desires, if not acted upon, are not sinful. Allowing someone to wallow in his sin in any fashion is abetting his being a suppressor (Rom 1:18) which will not help him see his need for a savior. I doubt that the people sponsoring this conference are concerned with helping LGBTQ’s come to Christ but instead are giving approval to LGBTQ’s (Rom 1:32).
The sad thing is that this conference and the broader ideas behind it will not help achieve its goal of helping ease the pain of the LGBTQ sinner because it doesn’t address the real need of these people. They need to be saved from their sins. Telling them they are Christians when they aren’t makes the job even harder. False converts are some of the hardest people to get to listen to the real gospel. These sinners are experiencing the judgment of their sin and helping them to continue in it will only increase the problems here and in eternity. Only by showing these people the true gospel will they be helped. Justification eliminates condemnation. Sanctification empowered by the Spirit will lead to deliverance from the sin and its problems here on earth. Looking forward to one’s eventual glorification will bring peace. That is the message they need to hear.
It is sad that the evangelical world has come to this; or is coming to this. I think this article hits upon a reality that might just be the doorway that causes many--even so called doctrinally orthodox Christians--to apostatize, or at least leave the door open in such a way that their children do. This issue all by itself has the capacity to divide and conquer in such a way that Christ alone will have to put a stop to it. It's at the very least, foreboding.
I'm reminded of the old saying that it's not a sin for a bird to land on your head but it is a sin to allow it to build a nest there.
Mike Yonce, I am someone who can answer "yes" to that Nazarene Church's question of whether any Christian can identify when they made the choice to not be homosexual.
I am so glad that I was born in the 70s and that I don't remember alternative lifestyles being talked about, either at home or my Catholic school. I remember in my teens asking God to stop me being attracted to my friend. The heart racing when I saw her eventually stopped. In my later teens I was born again.
The only other time I have been attracted to another woman was when I was severely backslidden. I became friendly with an openly gay woman. Again I prayed, and again God drew me back to Him. Both times I was far from God.
My militant pro-LGBT sister was extremely skeptical when I told her that I had these experiences. She like most people assumes that people are born gay. I know God answered my prayer.
I am sure that some people have believed they were gay since they were very young, and so their personal struggle would be extreme compared to mine. To my understanding Satan does not play fair, and therefore will tempt according to a person's weaknesses from their very earliest stage of life.
It has been puzzling to me: why have Christian churches stopped preached on sin and temptation, from spiritual warfare perspective? Why has homosexuality et.al. been put in the too hard basket? Don't we believe God can break the power of sexual sins too?
This is just another trojan horse openly received inside the walls of the church. Eventually the purveyors of this doctrine will throw open the gates to deeper levels of sexual depravity. Committed celibacy for "LBGT Christians" isn't the goal, just a means to an end. Moral compromise leads inevitably to complete capitulation.
Thanks for your clarity, Phil; so good to have you back. Heterosexual sex drive was created by God. Homosexual sex drive is a satanic counterfeit.
As a Christian, I am shocked and saddened by this post and Phil's position on SSA. If you are a Christian with SSA, please know that not everyone is like Phil and his beliefs on this issue are not biblical ones.
This article -
http://teaminfocus.com.au/on-phil-johnson-and-same-sex-attraction/
- refutes Phil's from a gospel-soaked and biblical perspective.
For Phil and others who believe like him, please read the above article too. You do not know the oppression and damage you are doing against these most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Thanks Phil! So glad your back. :)
Kezia Rose
Here is what ALL men's and women's standing are before God, no matter their standing in the world, whether or not considered normal or perverted by worldly standards, God's standard trumps all others and it does not take into account feelings!
1"ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God!"
2"ALL are separated from God, without hope"
3"God the Father sent His Son into the world as the atoning sacrifice for ALL men"
4"ALL men, in their sinful, perverted state, have to come to the Christ for salvation"
5"If salvation is attained via grace through faith, provided for ALL men, then God takes that old, perverted, sinful man and makes him new"
6"The man saved is the man purchased by Christ's blood and he is no longer his own, "IN EVERY PART"
7"ALL saved men/women lose their sinful identities and everything else that they were, owned, etc..."
Point being, we all lose our identities, our proclivities, desires, wants, EVERYTHING, because we are his. The old man is gone and the new man has come. To come to him, old, perverted, identity intact is to come to Him under a false gospel! So, whether SSA, Pedophile, Necromancer, LGBTQX, whatever, all of it is his and none of it enters His kingdom. As harsh as it sounds; it is His way or the way to Hinnom, choose life eternal or death eternal. Revoice, you, Jason Harris, do not get to make the call! That being said, what will you choose?
Wondering if the term 'heterosexuality' actually legitimized 'homosexuality' as an identity.... There are no identities but sinful humanity.... We are evil to the core.... Are we pricked? And do we obey? Sin is trauma and should be felt and treated this.....
...thus
.
I do not agree with the idea of "being gay". You can't "be" homosexual, as though that were somehow an inherent part of your very being. A homosexual is one who engages in homosexual activities that are forbidden by the Lord as plainly revealed in scripture. Period.
For the longest time, the homosexual element have trotted out this definition as a defense for their illegal actions. I DO because I AM..., and who are you to make judgement on what I AM?. In spite of this "New Wave Homosexuality" being very clearly defined as a "choice" in it's early days in the late 70's to early 80's, they've since backtrodden on that pretty quick when it was suddenly discovered, "Dang. They can pass judgement on my choices after all...". That's why we now have "I AM Gay".
But, no. You AM NOT gay. You engage in homosexual activities, which are forbidden by scripture.
This business of trying to normalise homosexuality, especially within what calls itself "church", is just another iteration of that same nonsense. Be "what you are", but do not engage in anything that you would naturally engage in if you were, in fact, that thing.
How does that even work? It's like saying "Be what you are, but do not DO what you are."
Ultimately, I think this whole Revoice movement is nothing more than an attack on scriptural authority.
It is nothing more than, "Yea, hath God really said?" all over again.
.
Brother Phil, when so many are cowardly quiet on all of this crazy stuff these days, your voice offers comfort and stability to the followers of Christ. Grateful for your gift to Christ Church.
I now attend a PCA church. I seem to be rapidly running out of faithful churches left for me to attend. One by one they are forfeiting the marks of a true church. I know we are not supposed to forsake the assembling of ourselves together but I can see a time when my only choices will be attending an apostate church or worshipping God in the privacy of my own home. It's a dismal tide.
Great to have you back, Phil! I wish it wasn't the steady, circular decline of our society down the toilet bowl that occasioned your return, but I relished your truth and wit as a new believer, and can't wait to send my friends over to read your new stuff.
I am glad to see you are back Phil. I have abandoned celebrity preachers, whether they be Piper, Hinn, Chandler, Jakes or any of the other charlatan's. It seems there is a 1% faithful celebrity preacher and you either fall in that 1% or haven't quite reached celebrity status. Either way, your post was spot on!
Post a Comment