Revoice Founder Wonders if Jesus was Gay
A co-founder of the pro-LGBTQ ‘Christian’ Revoice Conference – endorsed by Southern Baptist leaders with the ERLC and certain members of the PCA – implied on Twitter that Jesus might have been gay or straight and that evangelicals don’t really know and haven’t thought about it.
I may have to translate for you, in case you can’t understand a strained, Thesaurus-laden, gibberish mishmash word salad of nonsense.
Bless his heart, Collins seems to have used the vocabulary cheat-sheet in the back of a freshman Bible College textbook.
Let me interpret, as I’ve been given the gift of interpreting tongues for left-leaning, rainbow-splattered faux-Christians:
“Evangelicals are too rigid in regard to sexual morality, because they haven’t thought hard enough about how human sexuality relates to Jesus. We haven’t thought hard enough about how Jesus’ human nature might have made him a sexual (maybe even a homosexual) person.”
If it helps, read that out loud in a more faggy-type of voice and you’ll get the gist of what Collins is getting at.
The whole gaggle of gays that comprised Revoice are a giant Trojan Horse in a tiara. The pastor who hosted the homosexual hootenanny came out of the closet in May. The entire thing was – both years in a row – basically an orgy of queerness held inside a church, away from cameras, and (blasphemously) done in the name of Christ. Aside from being endorsed by Karen Swallow Prior of the ERLC, the PCA investigation committee into the sodomite shindig said its critics might have sinned for being too harsh.
Nate Collins, who we have written about before for saying some really gay things, suggests in this tweet (if you can cut through its dripping egotism) is that evangelicals can’t for sure know what kind of sexual orientation Jesus had because we haven’t fully thought it out.
Of course, evangelicals have not had to think it through because until (virtually) yesterday, we believed unnatural desires were sinful even if not acted upon. But thanks to Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan (all council members at The Gospel Coalition) pushing the ‘limp-wristed men and butch women’ brigade (Sam Allberry, Rebecca McLaughlin, Rachel Gilson, Jackie Hill Perry), we’re now being told that desiring sodomy is just a part of human nature, independent of the Fall of man.
If being queer isn’t a sin unless acted upon, and is just a normal part of human nature (as the Gospel Coalition’s Parade of Pretty Boys tells us), then it’s not unreasonable to ask if Jesus might have been gay.
After all, it’s not a sin unless acted upon, right (so they tell us)? And we know Jesus didn’t have sexual relations, but he could have been queer by nature. And Jesus is all man and all god, so his sexuality could be oriented any which way. We don’t know for sure, argues Nate Collins.
That’s what light-in-the-loafers is trying to say here.
It is true that evangelicals (or any Christians before them) haven’t had to think out whether or not Jesus was gay because until recently, we didn’t have a mob of sodomites banging on the doors of the church, demanding we send out the angels among us so that they might have their way.
LET ME ANSWER THIS QUESTION LIKE AN ADULT
Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man (Luke 2:32). This verse fills in the gap between Jesus at 12 years of age and 30. Jesus grew mentally, physically, spiritually, and socially.
Yes, God “growing” is weird, but it was his human nature that was doing these things.
One of the things that happens between the time of being conceived of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:18) and adulthood is puberty. Jesus went through it. As fully man, he had anatomical parts. And yet, Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit and was morally flawless (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Being aware that the purpose of his life was to be about his father’s business (Luke 2:49), and knowing that Jesus was perfectly self-controlled as a fruit of the Spirit (2 Timothy 1:7), there is no reason to believe that (A) Jesus’ nature was anything but properly oriented as it was unaffected by the Fall and the (B) Jesus didn’t employ his ‘sexuality’ in any direction, knowing that the reason he came to Earth was to die, not to reproduce.
No, Jesus was not ‘gay’ because he had a flawless nature without Original Sin. That’s the entire theological point of the virgin birth. Being queer is in clear contrast with the order of creation and the Creation Mandate of fruitful reproduction, given in Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:7.
Evangelicals do not have an “underdeveloped” understanding of how Jesus humanity (and in particular, his ‘sexuality’) relates to overall Christology, as Collins suggests. It’s just that 2019 happens to be the first time there is a flock of homosexual peacocks strutting the evangelical landscape, demanding that we make God in their image.