If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
Russell Moore is president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Commission.
I say: Impeach Russell Moore for dereliction of duty. Russell Moore has written a pathetic article. “The Roman Road from Insurrection,” calling for Trump’s removal from office by impeachment or application of the 25th Amendment if he does not resign. This call from Moore is hardly surprising because it exhibits the same “Never-Trump” tunnel vision, hatred, and dearth of documentation that we have come to expect from him in politics.
The article is short on facts and long on bluster. His whole argument is predicated on the claim that Trump incited violence and insurrection, which he clearly did not. There is no reasonable way to conclude that Trump incited a riot if one gave a careful read of the entire transcript of Trump’s speech.
Even what happened by the wrongdoers in the Capitol doesn’t remotely approach the 30+ dead and $2 billion worth of damage in the seven-month-long race riots involving much larger numbers this past year, stoked and incited by Democrats, during which time Moore did not call for a single Democrat to be removed from office. While he judges the race riots by the best in the movement he judges Trump supporters by the tiniest and most extreme elements.
Trump has legitimate grounds for believing that the election was stolen. Nowhere was there any attempt to do signature matches in areas where there were unbelievable high voting rates, areas where there were no safeguards for insuring that significant fraud did not occur.
The real threat to the Republic and to its Constitution is coming from the Democrat Party but Moore is too blind, for whatever reason, to see it. He has done his best to insure that the Party that poses the greatest threat to religious liberty by far would get elected.
That’s why he shouldn’t be President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Impeach Russell Moore.
__________________
Robert Gagnon is Professor of Theology, Houston Baptist University. Bestselling author of *The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics.* His excellent website is www.robgagnon.net. For his Twitter page, go HERE.
Peace in Our Time? Apparently some evangelical “leaders” are taking their cues from 20th-Century British appeaser Neville Chamberlain in seeking to work out an unbiblical compromise with the powerful homosexual-bisexual-transgender lobby–supposedly to preserve their religious freedoms. No Christian should support the creation of “rights” based on sinful sexual behaviors that are changeable and do not define a person.
“Jesus didn’t formulate the Golden Rule to provide special legal protections for, and promotion of, immoral behavior.”
* * *
“These Evangelical appeasers have the ‘innocent as doves’ demeanor down but not the ‘wise as serpents’ part.”— Prof. Robert Gagnon
Take Action: Contact the National Association of Evangelicals at their DC office at 202-479-0815 (or online HERE), and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities HERE (Phone — choose option #8: 202-546-8713). Voice your opposition to their unbiblical compromise that would create and recognize federal “rights” based on immoral homosexual and transgender lifestyles.
Related info:
NAE compromise proposal (obtained by WORLD mag): [HERE]
Ryan Anderson’s article in Daily Signal: “Misguided Proposal From Christian Leaders and LGBT Activists Is Anything but ‘Fairness for All’”
_______________________
Folks, the largely Christian social conservative movement never seems to learn that by constantly “playing defense” and backing up in the face of a hyper-aggressive LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) movement, we will always lose. Now a group of “leaders” from two evangelical associations are getting in the game, floating a disastrous and cowardly compromise with “gay” and “transgender” activists that if enacted, will only help advance the normalization of sex-and-gender perversion in the United States. Prof. Robert Gagnon, probably the world’s leading authority on the Bible and homosexuality, ably responds to their misguided proposal below. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
_____________________________
Dr. Robert Gagnon’s Response to Evangelical Leaders’ Compromise with LGBT Activists
In a blog post titled “‘Fairness For All’: Smart Politics, Or A Sellout?” (Dec. 13), Rod Dreher, senior editor at The American Conservative, reports a defense of the recent decision by the boards of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) to support “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” “federal anti-discrimination law in exchange for religious liberty guarantees written into the same law.” The defense was made by “a prominent conservative Evangelical political strategist who works at both the national and state levels” and whom Dreher calls “Smith.” Rod himself professes to be unsure about the whole subject; an uncertainty that appears to be fueled by his usual belief that voting Republican changes nothing.
The substance of the defense is essentially born of naïve utilitarianism, overlaid with a veneer of high rhetoric about standing up for the “rights” of LGBTQ persons. In effect: We are losing the battle over human sexuality in the culture so, while we still can, let’s cut a deal with proponents of all things “gay” and “transgender” that gives us something in return. They will (allegedly) recognize our good will and then become favorably disposed to protect our “religious liberties” in both the short- and long-term.
The problem with the argument is that it amounts to a policy of appeasement with sexual extremists who advocate (from our perspective) a grossly immoral sexual policy and have never exhibited a “we’ll stop here approach” before. It is an appeasement that requires us to sacrifice our basic principles to get some statutory assurance that can easily be retracted by legislative vote after a full-court indoctrination surge, predicated on the new law, overwhelms remaining resistance. In addition, it is an appeasement that provides only the narrowest of exemptions for religious institutions while throwing under the bus the vast majority of Christians who work and live outside those institutions.
Facebook puts Bible-and-homosexuality scholar in “jail” after post critical of conference recognizing homosexuals as “sexual minority”
Robert Gagnon
Folks, my friend Robert Gagnon, the world’s foremost authority on the Bible and homosexuality, last week penned this critique of the Revoice conference going on right now in St. Louis. Revoice aims to recognize and celebrate LGBTQ-identified celibate Christians as a “sexual minority” in the Church. It has been widely challenged by orthodox Christians for undermining Scriptural truth; see this article on Revoice’s speakers.
After publishing his piece on Facebook, Gagnon was was put in “Facebook jail” for 24 hours–the second time this has happened to him in recent weeks. That’s very troubling, as is the fact I and several other Christians were BANNED from attending Revoice after we were “checked out” by organizers.
Gagnon wrote in an email:
“I have been blocked again for 24 hours from Facebook, with a warning that the next time I am blocked it will be for 3 days. They blocked me for a mild post expressing concern about the upcoming Revoice Conference (pasted below). Could the Revoice people have complained about me?…”
We will be following this story very closely, as I share the belief of others that Revoice is the LGBTQ activist camel’s nose under the tent of the evangelical Christian church. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
______________________________
Concerns with the upcoming Revoice Conference and Spiritual Friendship Folk
By 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.
AFTAH president says Fox News pundit Benson is among most “dangerous” “gay” activists because he’s undermining biblical truth and principled conservatism
Young, Winsome…and Wrong: Fox News contributor and Townhall.com political editor Guy Benson claims to be a “gay Christian”–despite the Bible’s clear prohibition of homosexual acts and a New Testament passage citing former homosexuals who overcame this sin through Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Listen to interview, in which Benson trivializes his embrace of immorality as a mere “footnote,” below. For an orthodox treatment of the issue by the world’s leading evangelical authority on the Bible and homosexuality, see www.RobGagnon.net.
Folks, here is my Jan. 25, 2018 interview on “Janet Mefferd Today,” in which Christian talker Janet Mefferd and I critique a new “Prager U” video by homosexual conservative and Fox News contributor and self-declared “gay Christian,” Guy Benson. Start listening at 24:30.
Benson, who is the political editor at Townhall.com, identifies himself as a “Gay Christian” in the video, which is part of conservative talk show host Dennis Prager’s educational video series. Janet begins by playing portions of the video and analyzing them with her usual brilliance. We have embedded the full Prager U video at the bottom of this post.
I understand that in these politically correct, apostate times, our position will be attacked, even by many Christians and certainly by many conservatives. But just because Benson is smart and a good communicator does not change the reality that he is undermining Biblical Truth on sex and marriage–as well as principled conservatism–with his self-interested claim to be a proud, open homosexual and a faithful Christian. This is an intellectually reckless claim; the young Benson could use some Biblical counseling from the likes of Stephen Black, who left the “gay” lifestyle and credits Jesus Christ for his transformation.
The truth, of course, is that “gay” activists–whom Benson lauds–have been at war with historic Biblical truth since before Stonewall, by crusading to turn a sinful sexual inclination into an innocuous identity. And it is preposterous for Benson to trivialize his embrace of sexual perversion–as a “Christian conservative”–as a mere “footnote.” We will have much more on Benson and the Prager U/”gay conservative”/”gay Christian” story in future posts. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera
P.S. As we both say on the show, please pray for Guy Benson: that he will embrace genuine, repentant faith rooted in God’s Word and turn away from the lie of “gay” identity and LGBTQ ideology. [See the leading site refuting pro-homosexual “Christianity”: RobGagnon.net]. [Note: the time marker for this radio interview is at the bottom left of this Soundcloud graphic, and comes on when you hit the “play” button at top left; interview starts at 24:30]
The Answer Is No: …if “gay” means positively and proudly homosexual. Dr. Michael Brown ably answers the lies of “gay Christianity” in his book, “Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding with Love & Truth to Questions About Homosexuality.” He similarly responds with “love & truth” to homosexual activist Matthew Vines’ self-serving “40 Questions” below. Buy the book: Readers can purchase Brown’s book–while supporting AFTAH’s ministry–by purchasing ” for $17 postpaid. Two-Book Discount: You can also add Michael Brown’s in-depth book, “Something Queer Happened to America”–and receive both books postpaid for $29. Pay securely online or send your check to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.
“I cannot see our [Heavenly] Father responding positively to the threat of, ‘Unless you let me have a relationship that satisfies me, I will kill myself.’ [Answer # 9]
“What is explicitly affirmed over and again in the Bible is that God requires holiness of all His people and that the only outlet for sexual intimacy is in the confines of marriage, which…can only be the union of a man and woman. This is as explicit as anything in the Word. [#25]
“…the Word never says that an inherently sinful act somehow becomes sanctified by repeating it with the same person. [#27)]
“…your [Matthew Vines’] emphasis is all wrong. In fact, it’s the common theme through your questions, namely, ‘Surely God wouldn’t want me to live without sex and intimacy, therefore I must reinterpret the Bible in that light.'” [#39] — Dr. Michael Brown, author of Can You Be Gay and Christian?
My prolific author friend Dr. Michael Brown–whose book, “Can You Be Gay and Christian?” is available for purchase from AFTAH at right–does a terrific job below answering homosexual “Christian” activist Matthew Vines’ 40 tendentious questions. As Brown notes, Vines’ line of questioning is built on false premises and spurious analogies. For example, Vines repeats the tired homosexual talking point comparing infertile straight couples to same-sex partners (see Brown’s response to Questions 30 and 31).
I would like Michael to try a “do-over” on #12: it is bizarre and, indeed, blasphemous for young Vines (misapplying Galatians 5–which mentions “sexual immorality”) to associate unnatural, sexual-sin-based “relationships” with Holy Spirit-led “goodness” and “self-control,” etc. I understand what Michael is saying, but I would not compare these disordered relationships with normal unions between husband and wife–including marriages that are not Christian.
Vines’ questions themselves are a study in the error of homosexuality-positive “Christianity”: can you see the intense self-focus in them, as Vines does his biblical “exegesis” backwards:–starting with his politically correct premise (committed homosexual relationship are fine) and trying to rationalize it as somehow being compatible with Scripture? He utterly fails. It is no wonder that Vines will not publicly appear in the same debate forum with Dr. Brown or Prof. Rob Gagnon. By the way, Dr. Brown received AFTAH’s “American Truth-Teller Award” in 2014; we commend him for his diligence and faithfulness in defending Truth. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera; Like the AFTAH Facebook Page
________________________________
Dr. Michael Brown Has 40 Answers and 2 Questions for ‘Gay’ Christian Matthew Vines
I am answering the 40 questions put forward by “gay Christian” advocate Matthew Vines, after which I will put two simple questions to Matthew (and his allies). What is absolutely stunning, though, is that in these 40 questions, he failed to ask the only one that really matters, namely, “What does the Bible say about homosexual practice?” The reason for that is self-evident, namely, it is impossible to make a case for homosexual relationships using the Word of God alone.
That’s why, for the last decade (and until this moment), I have offered to debate the issue of the Bible and homosexual practice with any qualified representative of the “gay Christian” position, yet I have had no takers. (Matthew and I did engage in a brief debate hosted by Moody radio, but as is well known, Matthew agreed to do the broadcast before realizing he would be debating me, after which he felt it would be worse publicity to drop out rather than do the show. Those interested can watch the debate here. (For a relevant follow-up article, go here.) I also address many of the questions Matthew raises in my book Can You Be Gay and Christian?, but for the benefit of those who don’t have the book, and so as to answer all the questions conveniently in one place, I’ve responded to each of them here.
Before addressing the questions, it’s important to address Matthew’s premise, namely, those of us who uphold Scripture “oppose marriage equality.” Actually, we oppose redefining marriage; as for so-called “marriage equality,” as I have pointed out, advocates of “same-sex marriage” represent just one group clamoring for changes in marriage laws, including polygamists, polyamorists, and adult incestuous couples. That’s why the Marriage Equality Blogspot calls for “Full Marriage Equality,” specifically, “for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence and marriage without limits on the gender, number or relation of participants.” So, from that point of view, Matthew also opposes “marriage equality.”
To answer the 40 questions:
1. Do you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice? Sexual orientation is a relatively modern construct, but if you mean is it true that, generally speaking, homosexual men and women did not choose to be attracted to the same sex, the answer would be yes, it is not a conscious choice they made, any more than someone who struggles with angry desires, violent desires, or adulterous desires consciously chose to have those desires.
2. Do you accept that sexual orientation is highly resistant to attempts to change it? Again, using your definition, in the majority of cases, certainly. However, we must not downplay the many successful stories of change through counseling and, more importantly, the possibility of change through the gospel. Cannot Almighty God change a homosexual into a heterosexual if it so pleases Him? Has the church really devoted itself to seeking God to help men and women who struggle with same-sex attractions?
3. How many meaningful relationships with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) people do you have? My first organ teacher, when I was barely 7-years old, was openly gay, and he and his partner would come to our home and have dinner with our family. Over the years, I’ve had good friends who came out of homosexuality (including someone very close to my family), and I interact as often I can in as much depth as I can with those who identify as LGBT.
4. How many openly LGBT people would say you are one of their closest friends? None that I know of, but that is not because of my rejection of them. I have never turned away from a person because of their sexual brokenness or sexual desires. If, however, they openly scorned God’s Word and God’s ways, I’m afraid it would be hard for us to be close friends. That being said, I have close friends who are very religious Jews, yet they still believe my faith in Jesus is wrong and I still believe they are lost without Him. In other words, friendship with people (or lack thereof) has absolutely nothing to do with determining the truth of God’s Word.
Dodging Debates: Self-described “gay Christian” Matthew Vines refuses to debate Bible scholars and apologists with expert knowledge on Scripture and homosexuality, like Dr. Michael Brown and Prof. Robert Gagnon.
5. How much time have you spent in one-on-one conversation with LGBT Christians about their faith and sexuality? Many hours, and many more hours reading their stories prayerfully, sometimes having to put down the book I’m reading and get on my knees in prayer, even with tears and a heavy burden. I hurt deeply over the pain they have experienced and I long to see them find wholeness in the Lord.
6. Do you accept that heterosexual marriage is not a realistic option for most gay people? Probably so—again, with God, all things are possible—but this too has nothing to do with what God has to say about homosexual practice. It calls for great compassion from the church, but not for rewriting the Bible. Also, unless we get caught up with the spirit of the age, it’s important to realize that “heterosexual marriage” is the only marriage God acknowledges.
7. Do you accept that lifelong celibacy is the only valid option for most gay people if all same-sex relationships are sinful? I accept that our Father knows best, that His ways are ways of life, and that if He does not enable someone to enter into a heterosexual relationship then He will give grace to that person to be celibate, just as He gives grace to a believer suffering decades of imprisonment and torture, just as He gives grace to a drug addict to get free from addictions, and just as He gives grace to many heterosexuals to live in lifelong, non-chosen celibacy.
8. How many gay brothers and sisters in Christ have you walked with on the path of mandatory celibacy, and for how long? Less than 10, and not more than 10 years so far, but the term “mandatory celibacy” is misleading, since I’ve walked with heterosexual believers for decades who did not choose celibacy but never met their mate, and they found Jesus to be more than enough to carry them through. Plus, Jesus requires all of us to deny ourselves and take up the cross and follow Him, and He does not promise any of us a spouse. I also have close friends whose spouses divorced them and who believe they cannot remarry as long as their spouse is alive, and they too have survived and even thrived by God’s grace despite years of singleness imposed on them by their convictions.
9. What is your answer for gay Christians who struggled for years to live out a celibacy mandate but were driven to suicidal despair in the process? This is a heartrending issue that I do not take lightly, but my answer is that anyone who says, “I will kill myself unless I can have sex and be intimate with another human being” is not taking hold of what God has for them. Generally speaking, it’s also true that people who commit suicide are struggling with other emotional issues; otherwise, no matter how acute their problems, they would not take their own lives. Ultimately, though, I cannot see our Father responding positively to the threat of, “Unless you let me have a relationship that satisfies me, I will kill myself.”
10. Has mandatory celibacy produced good fruit in the lives of most gay Christians you know? Again, I object to the term “mandatory celibacy,” and I believe the term “gay Christian” is misleading and unhelpful, but yes, the single Christians I know who are still same-sex attracted are enjoying the Lord, enjoying healthy friendships, and are really quite vibrant. Others have seen a shift (or complete change) in their attractions, and they are happily married to their heterosexual partner. I’ve been quite close with some of them over the years.
Assault on Biblical Truth: Due to the success of the “gay” activist revolution, Christianity is under an unprecedented pressure to make an accommodation with homosexualism. Above, young “evangelical” Matthew Vines uses recycled “gay theology” arguments to push for the acceptance of homosexual unions and even same-sex “marriage” in Christian churches. Vines now refuses to debate orthodox Christian scholars like Dr. Michael Brown and Prof. Rob Gagnon. See Brown’s answers to Vines’ “4o Questions’ HERE.
The following official statement was approved in June by Restored Hope Network, the leading U.S. network for ex-homosexual ministries. RHN is a Christian ministry that was formed during the implosion of Exodus International, which collapsed under the failed and unbiblical leadership of Alan Chambers [see this video]. Here is a link to a PDF of the RHN document.
I know some of the leaders of RHN—godly men like Stephen Black and women like Anne Paulk—and have attended two of their annual conferences, most recently in Lancaster, Pennsylvania–which began on June 26, the day that five Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court imposed homosexual “marriage” on the land. I urge AFTAH followers to pray for and donate to Restored Hope. May the Lord bless and protect this Christ-centered ministry!– Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera; AFTAH Facebook Page
_________________________
‘Gay Christian’ and ‘Spiritual Friendship?’ RHN Official Position
Restored Hope Network (RHN) respectfully disagrees with anyone who continues to identify as both ‘homosexual’ and Christian. Identification with Christ can and must displace an identity based on disordered desires. The New Testament repeatedly calls believers to repent of old identifications and to cleave to the new, true source of one’s identity—Christ Jesus Himself (Rom. 6: 11, 12; 8:6-14; Gal. 2:20). Paul in particular reminds ‘homosexuals’ to forego their ‘gay’ selves when he declares to believers: ‘such were some of you’ in light of having been ‘washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God’ (1Cor 6:9-11).
Yet many Christians today claim to be faithful to both God and their ‘homosexual natures.’ ‘Gay’ Christians tend to fall into two categories: first are persons who are open to homosexual erotic unions, behaviors clearly prohibited by scripture (see RHN doctrinal statement). The second group is comprised of ‘gay’ persons who claim to be celibate. These celibates appear to be faithful to scripture and church tradition but actually foster the ‘gay’ self by encouraging same-sex attracted persons to ‘come out’ to their faith communities and to form ‘spiritual friendships’ with others, even covenanting in exclusive homo-emotional unions.
RHN advocates for healthy same-sex friendship as a key to transformation. However, RHN believes that claiming to repent of sinful behavior while cultivating homosexual selves and desires in exclusive homo-emotional ‘spiritual friendships’ is unscriptural and unwise. Such an approach reinforces a ‘gay’ identity and orientation, which undercut God’s purposes for our sexuality. Identification with Christ cannot be separated from these purposes. Jesus’ command to love our neighbors applies to our self-definitions and relational choices. That requires a realignment of our fallen natures to Christlikeness.
The Bible defines humanity as created in God’s image as male and female (Gen. 1:26, 27; 2:18-25). Faithfulness to God involves faithfulness to one’s gendered self and the command to live interdependently with the opposite gender (Matt. 19: 1- 6; 1Cor. 11: 11, 12). Any Christian who advocates for ‘gay’ selves and friendships frustrates the prospect of growing in that gender duality; in truth, ‘gay Christians’ encourage gender dis-complementarity, which endangers God’s will for our humanity (Rom. 1: 18-25).
RHN believes that God calls all persons to gender complementarity: married, single and celibate, whatever their sexual inclinations may be. RHN upholds God’s call upon certain persons to live celibate lives, and understands celibacy as God’s call on persons He asks to serve His Kingdom without domestic burdens (1Cor 7: 7, 35-37). We disagree with the implication of ‘gay’ Christian celibates that persons with same-sex attraction automatically receive God’s call to celibacy, much less a ‘gay’ celibate call. God calls all to gender complementarity.
Many Christians base their ‘gay’ identification upon the depth of their same-sex inclinations. Yet such identification prevents the renewing of the mind that can open one to new ways of thinking, feeling, and relating. While RHN realizes that one may experience same-sex desires to varying degrees over a lifetime, we contend that one can also discover new desires by reordering one’s thinking and acting (2Cor. 10:3-5).
After all, we are turning toward the Author and Redeemer of our lives; His transforming love is deeper than our desires. He asks us to forego any identification or behavior that stands in the way of the transformation He desires for us. ‘Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—His good, pleasing and perfect will’ (Romans 12: 2).
Sin Advocate: Young and winsome Matthew Vines is working hard to win Christians to the idea that committed homosexual relationships should be blessed before a holy God. Despite his apostasy, Vines was recently welcomed as a “brother in Christ” by Rev. Caleb Kaltenbach, lead pastor of Discovery Church in Simi Valley, CA. See Vines’ curiously named “Reformation Project.“
“We are to have no fellowship with darkness. We can’t ‘dialogue’ with any professing Christian who’s in open rebellion against the Word of God. We can’t ‘dialogue’ with anybody who is deceiving and misleading the Body of Christ on any sin while claiming to be a Christian!”–Janet Mefferd
______________________
I welcome my friend Janet Mefferd to the pages of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. Janet is a former longtime radio talk show host with the Salem Radio Network–and, I must say, as someone who cumulatively chatted a few hours in on-air interviews with Mefferd over the years–she was one of the best in the business (Christian and secular). We look forward to seeing what’s next in Janet’s career, but until then we are delighted to publish her work.
Regarding this issue of “dialogue” or “bridging” with homosexuality advocates, I recall an article by the late Alan Medinger–a man who walked away from homosexuality with the help of the Savior he loved, Jesus Christ. Medinger, who founded Regeneration Ministries in Baltimore, wisely cautioned against an internal Church debate over homosexuality because there is nothing compelling it except outside, anti-biblical agitation. The sinfulness of same-sex behavior is a settled matter in both the Bible and thousands of years of Church/Old Testament tradition, argued Medinger, and we need not debate it now within Christendom any more than we should debate, say, adultery.
Read this beautiful tribute to Medinger by Regeneration’s Josh Glaser–then decide if the same Spirit of Christ that impelled Alan lies with Matthew Vines, who–by trying to redefine Christianity to accommodate homosexual relationships and “gay marriage”–propels the very same debate that Medinger rejected on principle. Below Mefferd ably applies what I call the “Sexual Sin Substitution Test.”— Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
“Evangelicals Open Door to Debate on Gay Rights.” Just the kind of headline I never enjoy, but it ran June 8 in The New York Times over a story about “influential evangelicals” meeting with homosexual activist Matthew Vines at Biola University last month, complete with a Times reporter and photographer on hand.
Vines, you may recall, is author of 2014’s controversial “God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships,” which manipulates biblical terminology in an unconvincing attempt to argue against the sinfulness of homosexuality.
Worse, the book was published by Crown Publishing Group’s Convergent imprint, which shared staff and operations with and was a sister imprint of evangelical Christian publisher WaterBrook Multnomah. Among other repercussions for printing such unbiblical garbage, WaterBrook Multnomah resigned its membership from the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB). (Crown later separated the two imprints.)
Vines also runs an apostate group called The Reformation Project, which claims to exist “to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Through building a deep grassroots movement, we strive to create an environment in which Christian leaders will have the freedom to take the next steps toward affirming and including LGBT people in all aspects of church life.”
