Pro-LGBT as heresy?

[C. M. Sheffield]

I hope it didn't come off as I was accusing you of saying that, if it did than I apologize. It's just that everyone seems to throw that word around so much that it loses its value. Words are like currency the more in circulation a word is the less value the word has.
For instance (this only an example and not meant to change the subject) I have defended Dr. Oliphint's book "God With Us" on this site before. I'm still not persuaded that he teaches what his critics say he's teaching. But if I was I would be inclined to call that heresy because it then would distort the most central doctrine we have, theology proper. But I don't consider Lutherans heretics.

I completely agree with you on the need to be judicious in our use of the term. But given the fact that we are talking about churches that openly affirm homosexuality as a wonderful blessing from God, I think your concern for not throwing the word around seems a little out of place in this discussion. We are not talking about people who differ with us on the mode of baptism or nature of church government. We are talking about people who claim to be minister of Jesus Christ teaching people that good is evil and evil is good.

 

[jwright82]

I completely agree with you on the need to be judicious in our use of the term. But given the fact that we are talking about churches that openly affirm homosexuality as a wonderful blessing from God, I think your concern for not throwing the word around seems a little out of place in this discussion. We are not talking about people who differ with us on the mode of baptism or nature of church government. We are talking about people who claim to be minister of Jesus Christ teaching people that good is evil and evil is good.

I agree to a point and I agree that such ministers should not be ministers at all, but that is their right and I do support that right only. I also agree that we have a Godly and moral duty to call them out and use our freedom of expression to do so, I support that right as well. I think the only place we may disagree is in what word to call it. I prefer other words than heresy in this particular situation to maintain both the severity of the word (so that it's not overused and possibly abused) and the severity of how unbiblical and immoral the belief is.

 

[A.Joseph]

I agree to a point and I agree that such ministers should not be ministers at all, but that is their right and I do support that right only.

I actually don’t support that right because it makes a mockery of Christianity and can be used to make what’s orthodox appear to be the fringe. If they want to call it a different religion I think it would be more fitting. I don’t think these ideas translate well even from a natural theology/law position.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

I wouldn’t call it heresy but I would definitely probe further to see if their denial of scripture leads to denial of biblical doctrine.

Most “Pro-LGBT” “pastors” come out and deny the perspicuity of scripture, are in favor of reducing Jesus to a figure of political liberation, some may deny Him as the second person of the Trinity, etc. it a symptom of straight up unbelief In 99% of cases.

 

[jwright82]

I actually don’t support that right because it makes a mockery of Christianity and can be used to make what’s orthodox appear to be the fringe. If they want to call it a different religion I think it would be more fitting. I don’t think these ideas translate well even from a natural theology/law position.

I completely agree with you here. Names matter if someone wants to call something "Christian" that isn't, they should call it something else. I merely referred to their legal right to do so, not moral right (have some integrity you know). Sorry I didn't make that clear. But we agree on everything except the best word to use. I'm open to calling it heresy if a more nuanced definition of heresy was spelled out and that would avoid it's over use. It's bad no matter what we call it.

 

[jwright82]

I wouldn’t call it heresy but I would definitely probe further to see if their denial of scripture leads to denial of biblical doctrine.

Most “Pro-LGBT” “pastors” come out and deny the perspicuity of scripture, are in favor of reducing Jesus to a figure of political liberation, some may deny Him as the second person of the Trinity, etc. it a symptom of straight up unbelief In 99% of cases.

I agree and it does, "so goes the bible so goes the church".

 

[jwright82]

Oh and as a side note my thinking on the Oliphint matter has changed. I still basically agree with him but in a more critical way on both him and his critics, more nuanced. To not sidetrack this discussion anyone interested who read my defenses of him hear on this forum can PM for my current views.

 

[arapahoepark]

What then should we make of worshipping alongside those who may affirm our distinctives yet side with 'side A' but they themselves are not homosexuals?

 

[jwright82]

What then should we make of worshipping alongside those who may affirm our distinctives yet side with 'side A but you themselves are not homosexuals?'

That's a great question and I hate for the simplicity of the answer, as don't want to seem "crass" but try to change things from within and if you realize it's lost go somewhere else. We all have that option. It is saddening to see Christ's church like this but he's come and we've already won. He'll come again and mop up the mess, we just have to fight. Take pleasure in our as yet physical victory but it is coming! We just need to concern ourselves with what we're supposed to do and let him take care of the rest.

 

[SRoper]

Calling support of LGBT a heresy is an example of what I'll call "error escalation." This is when an error of an opponent is shown, by a series of steps, to deny an essential doctrine of the faith. Therefore, the one who holds an error that seems insignificant at first is logically a heretic.

You may have seen a demonstration where, starting with a false statement, the teacher works out through valid mathematical operations that 1 + 1 = 3. Any competent mathematician can "prove" this or any arbitrary false statement when starting with a false premise. Similarly with error escalation a seemingly benign error becomes a denial of the Trinity.

Error escalation, then, is a tool to dismiss and exclude those deemed to be the enemy. It is applied unevenly so that the dangerous are disfellowshipped as heretics while friends are excused as being inconsistent. The side-B gay Christian, despite his protests, must deny the authority of the scriptures while the white supremacist we named our building after was merely a product of his time. Or vice versa.

The real tragedy is that the methods of error escalation could actually be used productively rather than as a weapon. The practitioner could believe his opponent when he says he believes the same fundamentals and work with him that he can't hold to both these fundamentals and the erroneous belief. Perhaps he'd be persuaded, perhaps not. Maybe the one with the concern would find that his argument wasn't as airtight as he supposed. Charity rather than suspicion should at least be our starting point. Explicit denial of the faith is different than holding a belief that, if worked out, couldn't logically be held at the same time as a tenet of the faith.

 

[Jack K]

Calling support of LGBT a heresy is an example of what I'll call "error escalation." This is when an error of an opponent is shown, by a series of steps, to deny an essential doctrine of the faith. Therefore, the one who holds an error that seems insignificant at first is logically a heretic.

You may have seen a demonstration where, starting with a false statement, the teacher works out through valid mathematical operations that 1 + 1 = 3. Any competent mathematician can "prove" this or any arbitrary false statement when starting with a false premise. Similarly with error escalation a seemingly benign error becomes a denial of the Trinity.

Error escalation, then, is a tool to dismiss and exclude those deemed to be the enemy. It is applied unevenly so that the dangerous are disfellowshipped as heretics while friends are excused as being inconsistent. The side-B gay Christian, despite his protests, must deny the authority of the scriptures while the white supremacist we named our building after was merely a product of his time. Or vice versa.

The real tragedy is that the methods of error escalation could actually be used productively rather than as a weapon. The practitioner could believe his opponent when he says he believes the same fundamentals and work with him that he can't hold to both these fundamentals and the erroneous belief. Perhaps he'd be persuaded, perhaps not. Maybe the one with the concern would find that his argument wasn't as airtight as he supposed. Charity rather than suspicion should at least be our starting point. Explicit denial of the faith is different than holding a belief that, if worked out, couldn't logically be held at the same time as a tenet of the faith.

Well said, Scott!

I will note, though, that I think most readers take the description pro-LGBT to mean something more fully affirming than what is found in the typical side-B position. I for one have not assumed we are discussing side-B churches.

In addition to not describing even someone who is full-on "pro-LGBT" with the label heretic, I also would be careful not to describe someone who is side-B with the label pro-LGBT. That too would be escalation. Even if their position is wrong, an honest representation of it deserves more nuance than that. And "error escalation," as you call it, since it is easily seen to be over-the-top, usually causes the escalator rather than the person in error to be shut out of important conversations.

 

[arapahoepark]

Well said, Scott!

I will note, though, that I think most readers take the description pro-LGBT to mean something more fully affirming than what is found in the typical side-B position. I for one have not assumed we are discussing side-B churches.

In addition to not describing even someone who is full-on "pro-LGBT" with the label heretic, I also would be careful not to describe someone who is side-B with the label pro-LGBT. That too would be escalation. Even if their position is wrong, an honest representation of it deserves more nuance than that. And "error escalation," as you call it, since it is easily seen to be over-the-top, usually causes the escalator rather than the person in error to be shut out of important conversations.

Correct. Hence why I clarified using 'side A.'

 

[A.Joseph]

What then should we make of worshipping alongside those who may affirm our distinctives yet side with 'side A' but they themselves are not homosexuals?

Are you sure you are characterizing this right? Or is this a hypothetical? Im having trouble reconciling your scenario, which is why I went to Side B. I don’t see what you propose as even feasible.

 

[arapahoepark]

Are you sure you are characterizing this right? Or is this a hypothetical? Im having trouble reconciling your scenario, which is why I went to Side B. I don’t see what you propose as even feasible.

Yes. It is both hypothetical and something that I have been increasingly running into. I mean they aren't 'theologians' though they claim evangelical distinctives while believing in homosexuality.

 

[Jack K]

Are you sure you are characterizing this right? Or is this a hypothetical? Im having trouble reconciling your scenario, which is why I went to Side B. I don’t see what you propose as even feasible.

Trent is right. It is becoming pretty easy to find churches that have an evangelical-sounding faith statement, outwardly affirming inerrancy and the deity of Christ and the like, but do not hold biblical positions when it comes to sexual morality or other issues that offend the surrounding culture. Their actions feel like theological liberalism, but their faith statements do not align with theological liberalism. I really do have a difficult time knowing what to call them. If anyone has a better idea than what I've proposed, or knows of a helpful term scholars are using, I'm eager to hear it.

 

[ZackF]

Trent is right. It is becoming pretty easy to find churches that have an evangelical-sounding faith statement, outwardly affirming inerrancy and the deity of Christ and the like, but do not hold biblical positions when it comes to sexual morality or other issues that offend the surrounding culture. Their actions feel like theological liberalism, but their faith statements do not align with theological liberalism. I really do have a difficult time knowing what to call them. If anyone has a idea than what I've proposed, or knows of a helpful term scholars are using, I'm eager to hear it.

If a church’s preaching regimen is only topical rather than expository it is far easier to avoid the subject.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

If a church’s preaching regimen is only topical rather than expository it is far easier to avoid the subject.

Correct. Hence why one can go to a Life.Church or a Willow Creek clone and never once hear The gospel or anything that would cause offense to a largely effete, suburban sensibility.

These “churches” merely exist as vectors to paint over Enlightenment and American attitudes with a Christian veneer and “reconcile” Christianity with elite sensibilities

 

[jwright82]

Correct. Hence why one can go to a Life.Church or a Willow Creek clone and never once hear The gospel or anything that would cause offense to a largely effete, suburban sensibility.

These “churches” merely exist as vectors to paint over Enlightenment and American attitudes with a Christian veneer and “reconcile” Christianity with elite sensibilities

How is it enlightenment sensibilities to hold that view?

 

[Minh]

I am not sure whether LGBT constitute "heresy" but in my opinion, I would simply have no fellowship with churches that promote LGBT, women pastors, etc...as they undermine the word of God.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

How is it enlightenment sensibilities to hold that view?

I’m saying that a lot of those style of churches I described have members who confuse “liberty” with libertinism.

 

[Howard the Reformer]

This thread is an interesting read. Thanks to all who have participated. Much to think about.

My question is concerning what I would call a matter of degrees. Is the pro-LGBT stance taken by many churches any different than the reformed view on egalitarian teaching? Is a pro-LGBT stance any different than the reformed view on Federal Vision? Is the pro-LGBT view any different than the reformed view on the Roman Catholic Church? In my opinion sin is sin and it should be pointed out, and as a challenge to pastors, frankly thundered from reformed pulpits. Many reformed pulpits today are knuckling under to BLT, BLM and other errors, which are sin, so why should we as laymen expect pulpits not do the same for the pro-LGBT view?

Maybe if we returned to the simple theological proper term of SIN and proclaimed the Inerrant Infallible Word of God form our pulpits we would not be so concerned with labels. Where are the Edwards, Whitfield's, Spurgeon's of our day especially on this issue? Every age has theologicially incorrect issues and every age has a few Godly men willing to speak out publicly on the issues of their day. If you know of someone doing this please let me know.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

This thread is an interesting read. Thanks to all who have participated. Much to think about.

My question is concerning what I would call a matter of degrees. Is the pro-LGBT stance taken by many churches any different than the reformed view on egalitarian teaching? Is a pro-LGBT stance any different than the reformed view on Federal Vision? Is the pro-LGBT view any different than the reformed view on the Roman Catholic Church? In my opinion sin is sin and it should be pointed out, and as a challenge to pastors, frankly thundered from reformed pulpits. Many reformed pulpits today are knuckling under to BLT, BLM and other errors, which are sin, so why should we as laymen expect pulpits not do the same for the pro-LGBT view?

Maybe if we returned to the simple theological proper term of SIN and proclaimed the Inerrant Infallible Word of God form our pulpits we would not be so concerned with labels. Where are the Edwards, Whitfield's, Spurgeon's of our day especially on this issue? Every age has theologicially incorrect issues and every age has a few Godly men willing to speak out publicly on the issues of their day. If you know of someone doing this please let me know.

Well now we can’t quote Whitfield because of slavery. Same for Edwards. Can’t quote Gouge because he’s a patriarchalist. But we can still quote Rev. Paul Woolley despite his pro-abortion minority report at the OPC GA and have a chair in Church History named after him at Westminster Seminary Philly.

 

[W.C. Dean]

Pro-homosexual churches are outside Christianity. That does not mean one who believes in its doctrine cannot be saved. Think of it like the Roman Catholic church, or the Eastern Orthodox.

Personally it always saddens me to see an historic church, especially historic Presbyterian churches, displaying rainbow flags or some such. I traveled through Charlottesville Friday and Saturday and saw such a display a few times. Upsetting.

I have thought about this matter a little more and I am not sure I completely agree with my previous position. I believe it is more situational. Pro-LGBT is vague. If the church or its members understand what the Scriptures say about the subject and deny it, I would say it is safe to assume they do not believe the Bible, and evangelism instead of fellowship should be the default position. If the church is just ignorant, or believes that we should not come down as hard on homosexuality, I think that you may assume to find a mixture of apostates and brethren. If the church is Trinitarian and has basic beliefs about the gospel I personally would not be quick to condemn that church due to their error regarding the topic. I hope I explained myself well.

 

[jwright82]

I’m saying that a lot of those style of churches I described have members who confuse “liberty” with libertinism.

Well I would choose the word autonomy myself but that's just me.

 

[jwright82]

I actually don’t support that right because it makes a mockery of Christianity and can be used to make what’s orthodox appear to be the fringe. If they want to call it a different religion I think it would be more fitting. I don’t think these ideas translate well even from a natural theology/law position.

In retrospect I'm looking at it and I do support that right. It gives me the right to believe as I choose. What's the alternative and how is that better?