Stephen Bennett weighs in on the recent LA Times article and CNN appearance of Alan Chambers.
Stephen takes issue with suggestions from Al Mohler and others that biological factors may be involved in homosexuality:
There is ZERO biological, scientific “evidence” for homosexuality to this date. The biblical evidence for homosexuality is very clear: it’s sin.
Ominously, he declares:
“What we see here is the public divide of the pro-family movement.”
Well, since he brought it up…
I think there have been some significant tensions among social conservatives that may be a part of the broader development of evangelicalism. Of late, divides have occured over environmental policy and abortion. I think we are seeing tensions now over sexuality.
I’m no prophet but I do foresee a time when someone will evict or try to evict a Hindu tenant based on ‘that awful incense smell’. People with no real knowledge of the actual situation will sit back and decide the whole matter based on their presuppositions for or against.
BTW: I believe it was our local Hindu taxi drivers at the airport who were refusing to ‘transport alcohol’. Not even a sealed and wrapped gift bottle! Some didn’t have trouble transporting the alcohol if it was already INSIDE the person…just those damn bottles! Alas, differences of interpretation aren’t unique to Christians.
How SHOULD we respond to:
1. individuals who practice homosexual acts?
2. the gay ‘rights’ movement?
I would say in exactly the same way that you treat Hindus. Obviously Hindus are worshiping false idols, but we spend exactly zero time trying to legislate that. And we believe that Hindus have the same rights under the government that we have.
Surely you would have to agree that idol worshipers are more offensive to God than gay Christians?
Teri,
Your question does not trip me in the least, I will answer it happily. If you’re interested in having a tiny bit more insight into me (surely you must be, I’m fascinating 🙂 ), I just wrote a too long entry to Stephen Black over on the “OneNewsNow” thread.
I do not have to “imagine” for a “minute” that I am in those shoes…I wore them for 35 years. I believed I had it “right” also all those years, so the idea isn’t new or foreign to me. I was asked to pastor a church 8 years ago and turned it down, just to give you a little idea of where I was. I haven’t been around this site very long, but I am beginning to think I may be the odd man out here. I deconverted a year and a half ago, but my unbelief is the new thing, not the belief. But to your questions:
your question:
How SHOULD we respond to:
1. individuals who practice homosexual acts?
2. the gay ‘rights’ movement?
My answer: (as a person imagining I’m a believer)
By the Spirit.
your question:
What WOULD walking with God look like under such circumstances?
my answer:
I don’t know. If one were truly, literally “walking with God” vs. say, some code carved in stone, that would remain to be discovered on a moment to moment basis.
Teri,
Forgive me for butting in, but assuming that all the passages must be interpreted as we read them without taking their context, the problem with translations, and the history into account, then you should:
1) Respond to those who practice homosexual acts in the same way you would treat any other sin. This doesn’t mean however, you should try to legislate your beliefs. You don’t tell a group of people who have different beliefs than you that they shouldn’t have the right to get married, or have any of the benefits that you enjoy, right? That’s a big difference for me. You wouldn’t do it with Buddhists or Hindus or Jews, so don’t do it with homosexuals.
2) Treat the gay rights movement as people you don’t agree with, but, again, don’t prevent them from having the same rights as you. You don’t have a right, just because you believe differently, to force, through politics, your beliefs on others.
Paul,
I hope you will answer this question for me. It’s not meant to trip you up or be an affront. I really want to know what you think.
For one minute I’m going to ask yourself to put yourself in our shoes. (This will probably be very hard for you but I hope you will bear with me.)
Imagine for a just a minute that we’ve actually got it right.
1. The god of the Bible actually exists.
2. The biblical passages regarding homosexuality ARE meant to be taken literally. Homosexual sex acts are sinful and an abomination to Him.
I know it’s probably difficult for you to even imagine this, but let’s say for a minute all of the above is actually true.
How SHOULD we respond to:
1. individuals who practice homosexual acts?
2. the gay ‘rights’ movement?
What WOULD walking with God look like under such circumstances?
“There is ZERO biological, scientific “evidence†for homosexuality to this date”
Wow..that is just flat wrong. How ridiculous to assert. Maybe pick up a copy of Biological Exuberance? That’s someplace to start to maybe act like he’s looked at some research. We know that homosexual behavior/mating/pairing exists across numerous species…
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I do believe that penguins that choose a male partner aren’t doing it because they have poor relations with their daddy. Many of the species (like insects, dragonflies) note homosexual behavior and function completely on instinct…
but I suppose instinct is not enough biology for some?
ugh…I’m a christian, and sometimes when others speak in the name of christianity, I just want to hide my head in embarassment.
I think we all know an effeminate man when we see one — a man whose grooming and dress, speech, walk, mannerisms, etc., emulate that of a woman. It’s undeniable that [a significant percentage of] effeminate “gay†men learn and affect behaviors to signal their proclivities.
Not only is that deniable, it’s downright ridiculous. We all know that there are children who are effiminate from the very youngest age. And I would go so far as to say that the vast majority of effiminate boys actually learn and affect behaviors to downplay their effiminacy.
Again you are speaking from a lack of knowledge. And again it is showing.
Michael wrote: “I wish it were that simple, Paul, but Children of God are just that — children. And as children, we are imperfect in our “follow-the-leader†skills. We sometimes squabble with each other and lose sight of the path. And it’s been that way since the Church was born.”
Okay, here’s Paul tip toeing…I find you way to attractive to risk getting into a scrap with you (is that to much for a family site?). The thing is Michael, I don’t really believe these people are actually following “God” as little children or adult children. I don’t question their sincerity, just the reality of them actually following “God,” even sometimes. What I do see is people, some smarter, some less so. Some more educated, some less so. People who employ their wits to try and convince others of their sincerely held beliefs. That’s just fine with me, so far the ground’s pretty level. When, however, someone claims that the creator of all humanity has sanctioned their words (e.e. “you’re going to burn in hell for all eternity because…etc., etc.” hey, you’ve heard all the lines), they just raised the bar, not me. We both know the damage being raised and living in such an atmosphere that can cause, were no longer talking harmless squabbles.
Michael, I do not profess to be a Greek scholar, but I will make a perhaps imperfect, incomplete layman’s attempt to offer insight regarding the sin of being effeminate or behaving in an effeminate manner…
In the I Cor 6 passage, there are two words used. In the KJV, they are rendered “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind”; in the NIV, you see “male prostitutes” and “homosexual offenders”; in the ESV, the two are combined in the phrase “men who practice homosexuality.” Gagnon suggests they are the word for the submissive and dominant sexual roles. So those interpretations of the Greek into English should begin to shed light…
I think we all know an effeminate man when we see one — a man whose grooming and dress, speech, walk, mannerisms, etc., emulate that of a woman. It’s undeniable that [a significant percentage of] effeminate “gay” men learn and affect behaviors to signal their proclivities.
I believe that God considers it an affront to His creative power and authority when a man exchanges his masculine identity for an effeminate one (and likewise, when a woman exchanges her feminine identity for a masculine persona). There are clues in scripture about this: the warning not to dress like the opposite sex, the warning about a man wearing his hair like a woman’s, etc.
When we assume a nature or identity contrary to the one God created (“He created them male and female”), or when we employ the parts of our body for purposes contrary to their divine design or abuse/destroy our bodies, we are expressing grave disrespect to the Almighty Creator.
Paul said: “It seems to me that, if you, Stephen, and Alan were really following an actual being (e.e. “walking by the Holy Spiritâ€) you would not experience the inevitable divide that results from the exercise of mere critical interpretation”.
I wish it were that simple, Paul, but Children of God are just that — children. And as children, we are imperfect in our “follow-the-leader” skills. We sometimes squabble with each other and lose sight of the path. And it’s been that way since the Church was born.
Laurie,
I find common ground with you on this point: “Verbal communication is an imprecise and imperfect activity.”
I’ll go a step further and qualify: written communication. I often fail to say enough or be clear when I write, presuming on the reader. So much of communcation is tone, facial expression, body language…all missing from the written word. So, I appreciate this observation from you.
I should have been more precise in my words and stuck with just Stephen, Exodus and Alan instead of saying the “conservative Christian psyche” in my original opening statement about the “divide” (in my defense, I did limit my statements to those three). So, while “[you] don’t think there is necessarily an inconsistency or confusion in the Christian understanding of the relationship between sin and sickness,” there is obvious “inconsistency” between these “Christian[s]” “understanding.” Stephen mentions a “public divide,” I am observing the divide between those who claim to “follow” the same “God.”
I confess to you that I have been unable to find “Jesus” in 35 years of searching. Yes, I know I make myself vulnerable by such a statement, but I don’t care. I don’t claim to “know Jesus” or “God.” But in my search, I have become somewhat familiar with the bible. Among the people I have met who claim to “know Jesus/God” what I find is those who follow exegesis, none who I am convinced have an actual “relationship with Jesus/God.” It seems to me that, if you, Stephen, and Alan were really following an actual being (e.e. “walking by the Holy Spirit”) you would not experience the inevitable divide that results from the exercise of mere critical interpretation.
Someone “speaking in demonstration of power and the Holy Spirit” would be different. People using reason, intellect, wisdom, are a dime a dozen, i.e., they fail to distinguish themselves as “children of God.”
Laurie seems very knowledgable about “scriptural passages on sexuality”. Maybe SHE can tell me what “malakoi” is in I Cor. 6:9-11. Does it mean “effeminate”? And if it does, could she explain what that IS exactly? What do the “malokoi” actually DO that God feels is worthy of exclusion from Heaven? Would someone PLEASE take a stab at it? Laurie?
Timothy,
You and I probably share in common a sense of certainty about our convictions. I doubt you are any more amenable to my interpretation of Scripture than I am to yours. And I would contend that you are as involved in condemnation of me and my views as you assert I am of yours.
I never suggested that the readers and contributors to this site are unfamiliar with the Bible in general or the “clobber passages” in particular. Nowhere in my comments did I suggest, nor do I assume, that you are unfamiliar with conservative theology on sexuality, ignorant, or whimsical.
Rather, I was expressing my belief that too many churches are failing to teach their members about the scriptural passages on sexuality. In my experience, those churches that hold orthodox positions on sexuality are doing a pretty lousy job of teaching them. Perhaps your experience has been like mine: I’ve had to do a lot of research on my own.
Laurie Higgens,
We are quite familiar with your theology. We’ve read all the same commentaries as you as well as those which present the understanding of scripture that we share. We are quite aware that you are not going to be swayed by anything that does not support your interpretations of scripture, whether it be about Jonathan or Sodom.
I could point out that even the most literal reading of the Sodom story cannot support your conclusions as well as point out scripture which directly contradicts your assumptions. But it wouldn’t matter. You are not open to anything that in not in allignment with what you already believe to be true.
So I won’t even try.
But I have to wonder, do you think that the reason that we believe as we do is because we’ve never heard the orthodox teachings? Do you think us ignorant? Do you think that we haven’t done word studies?
I am quite certain that anyone here at this site has probably scoured scripture, ancient texts, language studies, and historical context references far more thoroughly than you. I dare say that our knowledge of the “clobber passages” is in no way lacking. Most of us here have at one point or another believed as you do and our change in understanding is not based on whimsy or even self-justification.
Most of us here have a very strong background in conservative Christianity, if not formally through seminar than through study or rearing. It’s not new to us.
So you and John Piper can hold to absolutes and unwavering certainties as much as you like. You can insist that your interpretations are correct and never subject to challenge – even if they are contrary to context, culture, and the overall message of scripture, Christ, and the cross. I really don’t care.
But if you think that you can rebuke and condemn and we are going to say, “Oh gosh, I never heard that before”, then you are only fooling yourself.
Warren,
Thanks for your take on Stephen. I think I read the same thing about his “inner problems,” I was alluding to that when I said “two years, five years or a lifetime to accomplish.” Two years stands out to me.
It seems to me that there is more method than there is miraculous in Stephen’s approach, yet that seems to be a big part of the argument between he and Alan Chambers right now, i.e., God’s quick fix vs. a long arduous haul.
What took Stephen two years? Repentance? Healing? And what part did “God” play? Does Stephen need God anymore, regarding homosexuality, since he’s all better?
I’m reading between the lines here, but you seem to imply that Stephen may have dealt with the “inner wound” but has not “fix[ed] the problem in an enduring manner”?
This is not morbid curiosity, I fought this for 35 years and think I’m pretty familiar with the approaches. It’s hard for people like me to imagine that Stephen somehow was given something that I, and many like me, were not… since we were both asking the same God for the info.
I couldn’t agree more with ToujoursDan about the failure of churches of all stripes to address adequately heterosexual sin, including fornication and divorce. I think too many Christians not only look the other way when it comes to divorce and fornication, but even endorse it.
Churches are also not doing an adequate job of teaching their members about homosexuality. Few Christians are aware of the convoluted and contrived exegesis that is used to teach, for example, that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship, or that Ruth and Naomi had a homosexual relationship, or that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was really about rape or inhospitality, or that OT proscriptions were really only condemning temple prostitution, or that Paul’s writings on homosexuality are irrelevant, or that the fact that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, he condoned it.
The church definitely needs to improve its teaching on sexuality.It needs to present sound exegesis on the biblical arguments used to normalize homosexuality, and present a comprehensive understanding that “from the beginning, manhood and womanhood existed to represent or dramatize God’s relation to his people and then Christ’s relation to his bride, the church. In this drama, the man represents God or Christ and is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. The woman represents God’s people or the church. And sexual union in the covenant of marriage represents pure, undefiled, intense heart-worship.the biblical view of sexual differences and sexual union as a manifestation of the relationship between Christ and the church”(Piper).
Warren, I wanted to ask you three follow-up questions to one of your responses: You said you believe that any sexual behavior outside of marriage is “inconsistent” with biblical teaching. 1. Is there a reason that you didn’t use the word “sin”?, 2. Do you think that same-sex unions should be legal?, 3. If same-sex marriage were to be legalized, would you then consider homosexual behavior sinful, or “inconsistent with the teaching of the Bible”?
Paul, I don’t think there is necessarily an inconsistency or confusion in the Christian understanding of the relationship between sin and sickness. The Fall has affected every aspect of human nature: spiritual, emotional, psychological, and physical. Sin results in moral disorders and physical disorders.
Verbal communication is an imprecise and imperfect activity, so it is important to clarify how “healing” is being used. Healing can refer either to a long-term change of inclination or action or “immediate change wrought by a supernatural cause inserted into a natural causal system.†Although it’s certainly possible that healing in regard to homosexuality could take place via a miraculous, supernatural intervention by God who removes completely all same-sex attraction, it does not commonly happen like that. But to assert that slow change over time nullifies the long-term change as an act of God, does not comport with Scripture. The whole doctrine of sanctification teaches that it is both completely an act of God and a process that includes not only a few years but an entire lifetime.
Furthermore, if you are arguing that this life-long sanctification does not constitute a healing, you are not doing so on scriptural premises.
Paul – I think Stephen views homosexuality as sin and sickness. He wrote somewhere recently that once he dealt with his inner problems that led to homosexuality it went away. This is akin to “once a homosexual man begins to trust men, his homosexuality disappears” kind of idea. Once you fix the inner wound then the maladaptation goes away. I suppose there are some issues (some depression, anxiety) where that might be an apt approach. However, even for other real mental health problems, I doubt that insight alone helps fix the problem in an enduring manner.
(I also find this whole obsession on gays a little hypocritical. Christ has much more to say about divorce and remarriage than homosexuality and St Paul says that the only acceptable choices for divorc̩es are reconciliation with their first spouse or celibacy Р1 Cor 7:10-11.
Yet “born again” Christians look the other way when it comes to divorce for reasons other than infidelity. Or they say that as long as you repent of the act of divorcing you can stay remarried to your second (or third) spouse and commit ongoing adultery with them – which is like saying that if you repent of the act of stealing you can keep the loot.
When I see “born again” Christians establish anti divorce ministries that counsel people to end their adulterous relationships and embrace lifetime celibacy, I will take ex gay ministries a bit more seriously as responses to sin rather than political tools.
But it was this kind of pick and choose hypocrisy that caused me to reevaluate their approach to scripture and then walk away from evangelicalism altogether.)
There is ZERO biological, scientific “evidence†for homosexuality to this date. The biblical evidence for homosexuality is very clear: it’s sin.
I find this statement confusing in that point number 2 doesn’t tell us anything about point number 1.
Even if the Bible condemns all forms of same sex relationships, it doesn’t mean that sexual orientation can’t be biologically based or influenced. One could make the case that we have all kinds of biologically based or influenced aspects of our character that may lead us to sin.
Now I don’t believe that the Bible, in context, condemns all forms of same sex relationships. I think the concern was idolatry and cult prostitution (and perhaps procreation) but even if I did, I wouldn’t make this kind of argument. It puts one in a vulnerable place.
Stephen Bennett wrote:
“Warren, Alan is my brother in Christ. I have no doubt about that – and as a brother, we care for one another.”
Both Stephen and Alan seem to have no problem saying what “God” wants when talking to homosexuals, yet they don’t they agree with each other. Why should anyone listen to them when they both claim to proclaim God’s will, but cannot agree? If they are really “brother[s]” who “care for one another,” can’t they just get together and pray and let God tell them who’s right and who’s wrong and then at least present a united front? Neither seems to have much respect for the others ability to figure what God wants, so why should we? Do these guys really expect to be taken seriously by reasonable people?
Is it to much to expect people who claim to be children of God to be different from regular people who only have their intellects to figure stuff out. Aren’t these guys supposed to be led by the Holy Spirit?
When the gospel sets a person free, from what are they free?
Thank you, Warren.
I think the church gets so used to its own language that some of the most amazing concepts lose all meaning. We are so accustomed to being “set free” that we forget to ask, as you did, from what.
I personally believe the freedom in Christ is from “the law of sin and death”, ie the Law of Moses with its associations between sin and consequences. But I am probably the minority on this site – which is OK. The important thing is to ask and to not rely on phrases that have become so trite that we no longer have any understanding of them beyond their churchy feeling.
I too look forward to hearing what exactly from what Stephen thinks the gospel sets one free.
It seems to me that there is this divide in the conservative Christian psyche as regards homosexuality. They can’t seem to decide if homosexuality is sin or sickness.
Exodus makes the claim of “a sudden, radical, complete change.” That doesn’t seem inconsistent with the bible if the subject is sickness and healing. Indeed, I know of no biblical example of “healing” that took two years, five years or a lifetime to accomplish. Would we even be having this discussion if the Jesus of the bible had had only a “30%” success rate when it came to healing? Or if the God of the Tenach had only parted 30% of the Red Sea?
On the other hand, there is the head of Exodus, Alan Chambers, warning of a “long, difficult journey” that may never be “complete,” who claims to still struggle with homosexual temptation. This seems consistent with the notion that homosexuality is sin based. In conservative Christianity, sin is part of life. “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us…” I John 1:8. So, whether Alan actually indulges in homosexual behavior (in his heart or actually, they’re equal according to Jesus) his struggle is logical if we are talking sin.
Stephen Bennett seems to lean in the direction that homosexuality has it’s cause in sin, not sickness. If this is the case, I would think he would be agreeing with Alan Chambers, i.e., that temptation and the resulting “struggle” can always be a part of dealing with homosexuality.
Even though he didn’t ask me, I would also like to answer Stephen’s questions:
Q: Are you born again?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you believe engaging in homosexual behavior is “SIN�
A: Not always.
Q: Would you counsel a gay-identified person who wants to remain gay, to stay that way and be happy?
A: No. I am a therapist, and if the client is “gay, happy and wants to remain that way”, then I would ask the CLIENT what HE wants from therapy. Maybe he wants help overcoming his fear of public speaking…
PS – Who are the many?
And let me ask you a question Stephen. When the gospel sets a person free, from what are they free?
Stephen asked:
Yes, I consider myself born again. I believe any sexual behavior outside of marriage to be inconsistent with the teaching of Bible. However, in the counseling context, imposition of values and beliefs is not an ethical stance. The way you ask the question, it appears to me you are thinking of a pastoral counseling framework. In contrast, it is quite possible for me to work with a person and neither approve or disapprove of their value position.
I do not understand how that relates to your criticisms of Alan but perhaps you will explain.
I read Bennett’s rather arrogant rebuke of Alan — and was taken aback at Bennet calling Alan’s recent statements “irresponsible”. Really? How so? What did Alan do or say recently that was “irresponsible”?
(1) More than 30 years after EXODUS was created, Alan issued EXODUS’s first official anti-hate/anti-violence/anti-bullying statement. (He took a lot of flak for it, too, I might add.) The statement wasn’t perect, but it was a bold thing for EXODUS to do — since now everyone will be watching to see if EXODUS keeps its official word – or if will tolerate such behavior on the part friends, affilates and/or sponsors.
(2) He said that change (however one defines that) is not an instananeous, easy or complete thing, but a difficult process that lasts a lifetime — and the person may never completely lose the homosexual attractions or become truly “straight”. In other words, he was honest.
Even if we’re not talking about sexuality, making major life changes is hard work. Christians and non-Christians alike know that this is true. That’s why we have words like “perserverance” and “persistence” and “patience” and “progress”.
(3) In dumping the confusing term “ex-gay”, he paved the way for a more honest EXODUS.
How is ANY of that “irresponsible”? Since when is telling the truth a sin?
Eddy,
Thanks for catching that he married in the period between which everything change and when it completely changed. Ahhh, Stephen… just not the most credible of ex-gays.
I followed the link to Stephen Bennett’s article and found he took exception to Alan’s statement, “By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete.”
Yet, even Stephen’s own ‘change’ was not sudden. First it seems that for Mr. Bennett “everything changed in 1990” but then “he dealt with his root issues and in 1992 completely changed.” So, which is it? Did EVERYTHING change in 1990? If so, what was left to change in 1992?
BTW, I’m not asking for an answer to those questions. As the author of “Homosexuality: Laying the Axe to the Roots” published way back in 1980, I believe I understand the answer. One of the things this site has been great at is encouraging truthfulness on all sides of this issue. And we’ve been trying to reckon with the misconceptions created by ‘Christianese’. Mr. Bennett’s own brief story is ironic in that it gives such a vivid example of the confusion and all in the same paragraph! “Everything changed” in 1990 but he didn’t “completely change” til 1992. This is the type of careless speech that many of us feel has plagued the ex-gay movement.
I’m hunching that in 1990, his PERSPECTIVES changes…through his relationship with Christ and the church, he suddenly saw things quite differently. And then, in 1992, he had a ‘breakthrough’ with some root issues and, suddenly, homosexual temptations were not a big issue anymore. (He also got married and fathered children so, first logical question would be “did he have a bi-sexual phase in his pre-born-again days?”) But, when I hear someone say that they no longer have ANY homosexual temptations, I can only advise “let him who thinks he stands take heed, lest he fall.”
As Michael Bussee would be quick to remind us, the word ‘change’ is, in itself, ambiguous. Not only does it have different meanings for Christians and psychiatry/psychology but, as we’ve seen from Mr. Bennett’s own article, even a different meaning in the very next sentence. Kudos to Alan for stepping away from this confusion; I hope he can lead Exodus away from it too!
Fascinating webpage Drowsap, was it written by Paul Cameron? I got as far as Some homosexuals put perfume on their anus to make it smell better, but the alcohol may sting. before I started laughing out loud.
It’s full of the “some homosexuals” nonsense which seeks to find something done somewhere by someone and then extrapolate through inuendo (“some homosexuals”) to an entire group.
And you’ll forgive me if I don’t take as credible the book they are pushing that seeks to argue that homosexuality is a mental illness.
But I will keep in mind your point of view in future discussions.
No evidence? Maybe this guy didn’t get the memo…
BTW, an interesting page I ran across on the biology of homosexuality below.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050312035423/www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/updates_c5.htm
Stephen Bennett, an ex-gay himself now for 15 years, happily married for 14 years to his wife Irene and the father of their two children
In case we thought the recent digs about “real parents” was accidental, take that Alan.
Why is it that convincing yourself that you are holier than others and “won’t compromise with sin” turns you into such a nasty person?
Stephen Bennett declares “public divide†with Exodus
Lucky Exodus
Warren, I posted a response. It’s showing it is on hold. Why not release it? I posted it several hours ago.
Thanks, Warren. Actually, you should have been the one to issue a Press Release declaring “a public divide” in the debate over sexuality — right?
Warren, Alan is my brother in Christ. I have no doubt about that – and as a brother, we care for one another.
Yet on the issue of homosexuality, we now part ways. You will see I am not the only one.
A bunch of letters behind one’s name mean NOTHING – if you have lost the main focus of the gospel: to share the Good News that sinners can be set free.
Warren, a few questions many are asking… I’ve laid it out on the line, so I have nothing to lose; just want your honest, simple answers to the following questions (for clarification, of course):
1. Are you born again?
2. Do you believe engaging in homosexual behavior is “SIN”?
3. Would you counsel a gay-identified person who wants to remain gay, to stay that way and be happy?
I appreciate your time and answers.
Oh boy! Neither am I ashamed of the gospel but of those whom claim it the way he has.