‘Accepting Evangelicals’ – the new ‘evangelicals’ who back same sex marriage

With the government set to debate ‘gay marriage’, I am constantly asked on social media why I cannot, like ‘other more loving and tolerant Christians’, accept same sex ‘marriage’ as an expression of love and commitment between two people of the same sex.

Several people have referred me to an article in the Independent last week titled ‘Happy and Clappy and out of the closet: Evangelicals who say gay is OK’.

The implication is that if some evangelicals are welcoming same sex marriage then evangelicalism per se should not be a barrier to others moving in the same direction.

Many of the ‘evangelicals’ featured in the article will be well known names to those who have been following the debate – Jeffrey John, Brian McLaren, Jeremy Marks, Benny Hazlehurst – and are certainly not regarded as ‘mainstream’. In fact many Christians (and non-Christians) I suspect would not consider them to be evangelicals at all.

Peter Ould has done a helpful review of the article on his blog and I won’t say more about it here but the Independent has helped to give a higher profile (at least amongst its liberal readership) to a pressure group called ‘Accepting Evangelicals’ which it describes as the ‘the prime mover in promoting pro-gay evangelicalism’.

‘Accepting Evangelicals’ has in fact been going since 2004 but on a straw poll of fellow Christians this week virtually no one I asked had actually heard of it.

On its website it claims to be an ‘open network of Evangelical Christians who believe the time has come to move towards the acceptance of faithful, loving same-sex partnerships at every level of church life, and the development of a positive Christian ethic for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.’

It claims to have over 540 members of whom 82% are open members whose names are listed on the site. Other members have opted to remain ‘confidential’ because they ‘are concerned that their public support would put them at risk of prejudice or discrimination‘.

Amongst the ‘open members’ are Benny Hazlehurst (pictured), who acts as secretary to the group, former Eden Baptist minister Roy Clements, ‘Courage’ founder Jeremy Marks, Ekklesia co-director Simon Barrow, ‘post-evangelical’ Dave Tomlinson and Oasis Trust founder Steve Chalke.

Perhaps the only surprise here to some will be Steve Chalke, although many would argue that he been moving away from an evangelical position on key biblical doctrines for some years.

The group published a position statement in summer 2012 and has a page of ‘resources’ along with four articles on the Bible and homosexuality (accessible here) written by Hazlehurst for his personal blog in 2010 and ‘adapted’ for ‘Accepting Evangelicals’.

The arguments are the usual ones – the sin of Sodom was ‘rape, inhumanity, and breaking the laws of hospitality’ and not ‘principally about homosexuality’. The proscriptions about homosexual relations in Leviticus 18 and 20 applied to ‘idolatry and male prostitution’ and not ‘loving, committed, faithful, exclusive same-sex relationships’. Jesus said nothing about the issue and much of what Paul says in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians is ‘cultural’ or confusing and hangs on the definitions of disputed Greek words. In Romans 1 Paul ‘saw homosexual activity, alongside all the idolatry of the Greco-Roman world. It was not born out of love, or orientation, but out of pagan practices, greed, lust and abuse of power.’

The wider framework of biblical sexuality and teaching about marriage are ignored.

Hazlehurst’s arguments have been ably refuted in a variety of recent works, and most recently in the Evangelical Alliance’s summer 2012 publication ‘Biblical and pastoral responses to homosexuality’ which is available on the EA website and summarised here.

His whole argument is aimed at creating a case for marriage for those who exhibit ‘the self-giving love that we observe today between people of the same sex who genuinely love each other and want to commit their lives to each other before God’.

These people, we are told, are ‘prayerful, devout, committed Christians, worshipping God faithfully, and giving him the glory’.

To become a member there is no declaration to sign, just an affirmation that the member is ‘happy to be publicly associated with Accepting Evangelicals’.

I suspect we will hear much more of this group over the coming weeks and months and the liberal press will no doubt be only too obliging in making each new high profile ‘member’ into a news story.

Biblical teaching on homosexuality is very clear and liberal ‘Christians’ and secularists are thankfully much more honest about taking the words as they are written rather than trying to contort them to accommodate the special case.

The Evangelical Alliance’s recent book and another recent CMF publication on ‘Unwanted same sex attraction’ are careful to major on the pastoral issues faced in trying to help those who experience same sex erotic attraction or recognise that they have a homosexual orientation and I have myself written on this before.

The key evangelical distinctives are the need for personal conversion, a high regard for biblical authority, an emphasis on the saving death and resurrection of Christ and an active obedience to and proclamation of the gospel.

David Bebbington has termed this ‘quadrilateral of priorities’ conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism.

There is highly suspect exposition of the Bible, selective obedience to biblical teaching, an unwillingness to make sacrifices for the sake of the Gospel and an inadequate understanding of what Jesus’ death and resurrection has achieved in helping believers to die to self, live as redeemed creatures in the power of the Holy Spirit and to resist temptation.

Richard Lovelace wrote in his classic work 'Homosexuality and the Church' in 1978 that he saw the growing acceptance of homosexual practice within the church as due to a ‘false religion’ opposed to biblical revelation and the authority of Scripture, an ‘antinomian ethic’ that undercuts the balance between law and Gospel, a ‘cheap grace’ that ignores repentance and a ‘powerless grace’ that denies the possibility of change.

I’ve been arguing with libs on Huffingtonpost

You might be better off taking the same approach Paul did in his day.

And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” acts 18:4-7

The Jews in this case were people that were not open to hearing the truth or engaging in logical arguments. They had a position, and simply interpreting any scripture in a way that would support their argument (much as your friends at the HuffPo are doing). Paul's response was to wash his hands of them and move on to someone else who was open minded (and make no mistake, your friends at the HuffPo have closed minds when it comes to the truth).

We as Christians are only responsible to present the truth. We're not responsible to convince someone of the truth. They are responsible for accepting or rejecting the truth that has been presented to them.

Sometimes the best you can do is present the truth and pray God will open their eyes.

Just point them to these words of Christ-

‘“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’

Matthew 5:17-19

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-19&version=NKJV

Also, the words of Christ from this passage-

‘And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”’

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20Mark%207:20-23&version=NKJV

The word fornications is translated from the Greek word porneia which means:

1)illicit sexual intercourse

a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12

2) metaph. the worship of idols

a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=KJV

“It claims to have over 540 members of whom 82% are open members whose names are listed on the site. Other members have opted to remain ‘confidential’ because they ‘are concerned that their public support would put them at risk of prejudice or discrimination‘. “

Or of not getting tithing donations from folks who (SHOCK! GASP!) that the Holy Bible actually means what it says it means.

“Amongst the ‘open members’ are Benny Hazlehurst (pictured), who acts as secretary to the group, former Eden Baptist minister Roy Clements, ‘Courage’ founder Jeremy Marks, Ekklesia co-director Simon Barrow, ‘post-evangelical’ Dave Tomlinson and Oasis Trust founder Steve Chalke.”

I can honestly say I have no memory of ever hearing of anyone of them. That’s why I stick to the likes of R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Douglas Wilson and John Piper. Unless the preacher proudly and openly declares and preaches his belief in the inerrancy of the Bible in its original manuscripts, I do not have time for his preaching. This life is just too short.

Ok, can someone answer me this then:

Evangelicals teach that all you have to do to be “saved” is to believe in Jesus. Works don’t mean anything.

So, to the Evangelicals, why does being gay matter at all since you teach it’s just all about believing?? If these people “believe”, what’s the issue?

I could see this being an issue to religions that teach that works make a difference.

And sexual perversions like homosexuality are totally incompatible with Christianity or orthodox Judaism.

This by far understates the issue. Homosexuality is incompatible with humanity.

I'm talking about homosexual activity, not how someone labels themselves. Homosexual activity is just a sign of a greater ill in society.

Homosexuality at it's base is selfish and a weakness. There's a whole list of attributes that go with this behavior.

I do not believe God destroyed Sodom because He lost His temper. But because like a cancer that behavior ate away at that city till there was no chance anyone would come back. Therefore to save future generations from that fate, He destroyed Sodom.

What you're seeing is a sign of the times. The whole world is going down that path. And once it gets there, it will be lost.

all you have to do to be “saved” is to believe in Jesus

Question: what do you understand that "believing in Jesus" means? Remember, the demons believe in God and tremble (James 2:19) but they most certainly are NOT saved. A person can believe many things about Jesus, that He existed, was a great preacher, was crucified by the Romans... and none of those things will save that person. On the other hand, when someone believes that Jesus is the Son of God, died for all sins, rose again and is coming back... that is saving belief. And that belief is incompatible with a homosexual lifestyle. If someone really believes, that person has become a new person, and will not live a sinful lifestyle. He or she may sin, but will not dwell in that sin. The idea of a believer living a gay lifestyle makes as much sense as claiming that turning on a light does not eliminate the darkness. It just doesn't happen!

I think(especially since the time of Charles Finney) an “easy-believism” has infiltrated evangelical circles, resulting in(among other things), groups like the topic of this thread.

Many have forgotten these words of Martin Luther: “We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone”.

You might like this video by Reformed Baptist pastor Paul Washer-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9hd3pV2VxU

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.