[Editor’s Note: This is a weird post. First, it’s a re-post from Douglas Wilson at Blog and Mablog, which is a re-post from Dr. Robert Gagnon. We have occasionally run Gagnon’s Facebook posts – which are often lengthy and astute – with permission. We are running this with Wilson’s commentary without permission, and hope he affords us the luxury. The reason why we particuarly like Wilson’s approach is because Pulpit & Pen has discovered that our material is being “throttled” by Facebook, which is discoverable by a number of different indicators. As those whose ministries flourish in the public Marketplace of Ideas, we do not like being shoved to the corner of free expression]
I am posting an article below by Robert Gagnon. I am posting it here because Facebook removed it earlier when Gagnon posted it, and suspended him for a day. Having posted it here, I will send it out to Twitter and Facebook, and would encourage you all to share it all over the place.
Incidentally, the article is a model of moderate and firm argumentation, and so you should take special note of what Facebook deems to be seething with hatred.
Concerns with the upcoming Revoice Conference and Spiritual Friendship Folk
Robert A. J. Gagnon
While I am glad for the fact that persons at the upcoming Revoice Conference (July 26-28, St. Louis, in a PCA venue) and those who align with the “Spiritual Friendship” program want to refrain from engaging in same-sex intercourse and thereby uphold this part of the orthodox witness, I have seven consequential concerns about their views.
1. Inadequate engagement with the need for “renewal of the mind” as regards homosexual desires. Is there any asking of: “What is the false narrative that gives these impulses particular strength? Why am I viewing a person of the same sex as a sexual complement or counterpart to my own sex? Why am I aroused by the distinctive sexual features of my own sex, by what I already have? Am I thinking of myself as only half of my own sex? What kind of strategies for renewing my mind can I use to counter this false narrative beyond ‘washed and waiting’?” Instead, the benefits of a generalized “gay” perspective (minus the sex) are celebrated or lifted up. Even if one’s attractions may not change with such an evaluation, they can be disempowered by exposing the lie that lies behind attempts to gratify same-sex desire or (for “transgenders,” so-called) to deny one’s biological sex altogether. There is more to be addressed here than refraining from homosexual sex.
2. The adoption of terminology for self-identity that cannot be sanctified and inevitably brings in the whole “LGBTQ” baggage (“sexual minority,” “gay,” “transgender”). This terminology is normally associated with self-affirmation rather than sin and switches the obligation of the church from a call for repentance and restoration to a call for inclusion and diversity that celebrates what should be mortified. The fact that evangelical proponents of the “sexual minority” language are unwilling to use it of those with a pedophilic or polyamorist orientation should tell us all something.
3. A greater focus on a victim mentality than on the need for disengagement with the LGBTQ agenda (hence their refusal to sign the Nashville Statement). It is more important for them to say that the church has treated persons with same-sex attractions in an ungodly way throughout its history (painting with a broad brush) than to say that those who promote homosexual practice and transgenderism in the church are committing heresy. Indeed, they usually reject the heresy charge and any arguments made from Scripture that homosexual practice is a particularly severe violation of God’s standards for sexual ethics. Many cast entering into homosexual unions not as egregious sin but rather as something less than the maximal “flourishing” that God has for us. Self-critique generally doesn’t go further than a non-moral disability model. This in turn often leads to favoring church membership (without church discipline) even for self-professed Christians actively engaged in homosexual relationships.
4. Support for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws that lead to the persecution of Christians and the erosion of the church’s own standards (since indoctrination in the sphere of the state affects the views that people carry into the church); even general support by some of, or at least strong sympathy for, “gay marriage.”
5. An apparent aversion to any thought of developmental influences on any homosexual attraction and discouragement of any who seek help for reducing the intensity and direction of same-sex sexual attractions. Indeed, the idea of some Christians who shift on the Kinsey Scale in the direction of less homosexuality is viewed as a virtual betrayal of the benefits of being “gay” and a threat to those who have not experienced any orientation change. They not only assert that such change is not possible for them but also appear to want to close the door for all others. Granted, a change in the experience of same-sex attractions is not requisite for being a strong Christian; God can declare “my grace is sufficient for you” without removing said attractions. Yet doesn’t God also at times remove or significantly ameliorate the deprivation or difficulty (see numerous Gospel miracles)?
6. A formulation of spiritual friendship that looks an awful lot like marriage minus the sex: viz., a promise of lifelong commitment to one person of the same sex viewed as one’s “significant other.”
7. A greater affinity to “gay Christians” who are in, or looking to be in, a committed homosexual union (the Justin Lee “Gay Christian Network” type) than with Christians involved in Restored Hope Network who operate with ex-gay transformation ministries (Stephen Black of RHN had his registration money for the Revoice Conference returned and his attendance revoked) or even with Christians such as Rosaria Butterfield who are not big fans of reparative therapy. Does this show that their “gay” identity means more to them than their Christian identity? That they really do feel a deeper partnership (koinonia) with those violating Scripture’s teaching on homosexual practice?
A good distillation of quotations from key figures in the Revoice Conference can be found here.
Many Christians of younger generations are now turning to this “LGBTQ-lite” movement as a way of running for cover against charges that they hate “gays” and “transgenders,” as though this were the only show in town. A bit more critical reflection is in order. It is just possible that the Spiritual Friendship people can learn something from those who have gone before them and who have had a longer track-record of being faithful to the cause of the gospel.
I do not say that they are “heretics.” They are brothers and sisters in the Lord. However, I do believe that they have significant room for correction. I also think that a number of their views will be used by other Evangelicals, now and in the future, as a transitional stage for a much greater embrace of “LGBTQ” ideology and agendas. Those leaders in the group experiencing same-sex attractions may even be putting themselves at higher risk, through multiple accommodations in theology and behavior, of taking the route of others (like Julie Rodgers) into full departure from orthodoxy and orthopraxy. I trust that they would argue that the exact reverse is the case; my concern remains. Let us pray that they will be firm in the faith, not deceived by ungodly notions emanating from a desire to legitimize same-sex attractions and gender identity confusion and benefiting from the insight of others beyond their close-knit circle.
[Editor’s Note: In case you missed it, this is from Dr. Robert Gagnon via Douglas Wilson]
