Why Julie Rodgers is Right — and Tragically Wrong

By Julie Roys

Julie Rodgers, a counselor in the Chaplain’s Office at Wheaton College, announced Monday that she supports same-sex relationships and resigned her position at the college. Rodgers, who identified as a gay, celibate Christian, said she no longer sees celibacy as a viable option for most self-identified gays.

In a blog post, Rodgers wrote, “When young people have angsted at me about the gay debate, I’ve just told them to follow Jesus—to seek to honor Him with their sexuality and love others well.” For some, this means embracing celibacy, Rodgers said; but for most, it means pursuing marriage to someone of the same sex. “We’re made for long-term, committed relationships that bind us to one another and cost us something . . . Some might find that in friendship, which is wonderful. But most will find it in a spouse because that’s the context we have for making such serious commitments and staying true to them once life happens.”

I affirm an orthodox Christian sexual ethic and wrote an article for WORLD expressing concerns when Wheaton hired Rodgers. So, one might expect me to disagree with her. Actually, I think Rodgers is right – just not in the way she thinks.

I can’t fathom telling every twenty-something with same-sex attraction that the best they can expect is a future with no hope of marriage and family.

I agree that God made us for intimacy. I have been married for 29 years and I can’t imagine life without my husband or my family.  Being married and raising three children has been one of the greatest joys of my life. I trust that if I ever lost my husband, God would give me the grace to accept life alone. But, I can’t fathom telling every twenty-something with same-sex attraction that the best they can expect is a future with no hope of marriage and family. Sure, some may have the gift of celibacy and may joyfully embrace that path.  But, the vast majority don’t and won’t.

Yet, that’s the hopeless future Rodgers and other gay, celibate Christians have been communicating. Honestly, I am not surprised she has now rejected it. I am surprised, though, that Wheaton College ever embraced this message — and that this hopeless gay, celibate message has gained so much traction in the church.

What Begins in Defeat Ends in Defeat

About three months ago, I attended the Q Conference in Boston, an annual gathering of some of the most influential Christian leaders in the country. There, Christians with different perspectives, including Julie Rodgers, debated the “gay dilemma.” The church used to hold out hope of sexual transformation to people with same-sex attraction. They refused to label them “gay” and encouraged them to pursue personal healing. But at Q, it was clear, most Christian leaders had rejected transformation and were instead promoting gay celibacy.

The backdrop for the conference was the shuttering of the ex-gay ministry, Exodus International. In fact, at one point, Q founder Gabe Lyons referenced Exodus President Alan Chambers, who famously stated: “99.9% of people I met through Exodus’ ministries had not experienced a change in orientation.” Rodgers was a portion of that alleged 99.9%. For 10 years, she had reportedly tried to change, but couldn’t. So she gave up hope. And, it was clear at the conference, most everyone else had too.

One person, author Deb Hirsch, mentioned in passing that she had once lived as a lesbian and now was in a heterosexual marriage. But, not once was this kind of transformation offered as a viable option for those struggling with same-sex attraction. Sexual orientation was tacitly accepted as immutable. And, those who wished to maintain an orthodox Christian sexual ethic were simply encouraged to embrace celibacy.

Gay celibacy begins in defeat — a resigned embrace of gay identity and a loss of hope in sexual transformation. Not surprisingly, it also ends in defeat…

The bleakness of the gay, celibate option became palpable when gay Catholic, Andrew Sullivan, pressed Q founder Gabe Lyons and Gordon College President Michael Lindsay on the issue. Sullivan, who identifies as gay and is in a monogamous gay relationship, asked if celibacy was all conservative Christians had to offer. He then suggested that this option simply sentences the gay person to a life of loneliness and turning in on himself, both emotionally and sexually. Is this really a better way? he asked.

Though Rodgers was at Q to defend gay celibacy as a fulfilling option, I’m not sure she was buying it — even then. On her recent blog, she wrote that she’s “quietly supported same-sex relationships for a while now.” Though she dutifully maintained at the conference that “the boundaries God put around sexuality are for our flourishing,” she reportedly was not experiencing or witnessing that reality.

Gay celibacy begins in defeat — a resigned embrace of gay identity and a loss of hope in sexual transformation. Not surprisingly, it also ends in defeat — a life characterized by struggle and loneliness, instead of freedom and rich relationship. I believe celibacy can be a wonderful and fulfilling option for those who choose it and who truly possess the gift. But, for those who desperately want marriage and family, celibacy feels more like a life sentence with no hope of parole.

Recovering Hope

Scripture says, “Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint . . .” — or in some translations, “become discouraged” and “run wild.” Nowhere is this principle more poignantly illustrated than in the church’s response to the gay issue. If the biblically orthodox church is going to have any credible witness to those with same-sex attraction, it must offer a compelling vision for the future. It must believe in sexual transformation. To simply lower the bar and tell people they can expect victory over sin, but no degree of sexual transformation, denies the power of the gospel.

Second Corinthians 3:18 says that believers “are being transformed into (Christ’s) image with ever-increasing glory.” Second Corinthians 5:17 says, “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” Are we to accept that Christ’s image, into which we’re being transformed, is gay? Is not the process of sanctification one that increasingly aligns not just our behavior, but our desires, with our Lord’s?

So yes, I agree with Julie Rodgers. People were made for intimacy. But clearly, God intended us to find that intimacy in heterosexual marriage.

If same-sex attraction is sin, which biblically is the only defensible conclusion, then it’s a condition for which the church most certainly has a remedy. When we say to the same-sex attracted person, “I love you, but there’s nothing I can do to help you,” what gospel are we believing? Would we say that to the alcoholic? Or the person addicted to porn? Or the compulsive gambler?

I’m not saying we don’t acknowledge our past failures. But, let’s learn from them, not give up. Yes, Exodus folded. As I understand, it had become focused on reparative therapy, instead of the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. However, other less-known, gospel-centered ministries have been effectively helping people overcome same-sex attraction, and a host of other unwanted desires, for decades. I know because I served in one. I know because my church is filled with dozens of people who have found freedom from same-sex attraction. Pastors should be flooding these ministries with requests to train and empower their churches. Sadly, the church is marginalizing these ministries now more than ever.

So yes, I agree with Julie Rodgers. People were made for intimacy. But clearly, God intended us to find that intimacy in heterosexual marriage. Yet, if the church continues to affirm gay identity, and communicate to people with same-sex attraction that sexual transformation is impossible, it shouldn’t be surprised when these lonely and discouraged people find intimacy in sinful unions. The church needs to adopt a better, more redemptive solution. It needs to again embrace hope.

SHARE THIS:
  •   
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

GET EMAIL UPDATES!

Keep in touch with Julie and get updates in your inbox!

Don’t worry we won’t spam you.

More to explore
discussion

19 thoughts on “Why Julie Rodgers is Right — and Tragically Wrong”

  1. “If same-sex attraction is sin, which biblically is the only defensible conclusion…”

    Same-sex ATTRACTION is sin? Attraction?? This is neither biblical nor defensible.

  2. The notion that sin, like same-sex attraction, resides in our flesh is very biblical. “For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want.” Gal. 5:17

    1. Julie, I did not see your response to Nicole when I made my dissent down below (where I used a Heb. 4:15 defense to distinguish between temptation and sin, calling orientation a mere temptation) – my apologies.

      However, you raise a good point in your Gal. 5:17 defense; here are my thoughts: the fleshly desires of which you speak (e.g., temptation, orientation for samesex desires, and any other illicit preferences such as for adultery, anger, over-eating, etc.) … these are not sin in and of themselves, but rather, these are (I believe) the result of sin – original sin as well as worldly sin from the outside. Moreover, these desires and temptations can be the *cause* of sin, if it results in lust, sinful behaviour, etc.

  3. Julie, I appreciate your approach to the issue of “Gay Christianity”; however, I disagree with the assessment of the gift of celibacy, which equates to misery for those who do not have the gift.
    CCEF’s Journal of Biblical Counseling produced an article on Singleness. Here is a quote:

    “Albert Hsu points out in his book, Singles at the Crossroads, that the phrase gift of singleness or gift
    of celibacy never appears in the Bible. The closest it comes is 1 Corinthians 7:7, where
    Paul says, “But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind, one of another.”
    In context, the term gift does refer to being married or unmarried, but Hsu explains
    that confusion arises when 1 Corinthians 7 is combined with 1 Corinthians 12 and
    misinterpreted, leading to the mistaken idea that there is a spiritual gift of singleness.
    In the context of chapter 7, the word gift refers to an objective gift, such as the gift
    of eternal life (Rom 6:23). Just as God gives eternal life so, too, he gives you your
    marital status.

    “This stands in contrast to the way the term is used in 1 Corinthians 12 where
    Paul speaks about spiritual gifts. These gifts are Spirit-empowered for a particular
    function. One person is given “through the Spirit” the message of wisdom, to another
    the message of knowledge “by means of the same Spirit,” to another faith “by
    the same Spirit,” and so on (1 Cor 12:8–9).

    “So the Spirit empowers all these spiritual gifts. If you have them, he’s expecting
    you to do something with them. If you have the gift of prophecy, you prophesy. If
    you have the gift of apostleship, you exercise authority. If you have the gift of administration,
    you administrate. Do you see how a “spiritual gift” of singleness doesn’t fit?
    How do you “single”? As Hsu notes, there is no such thing as “singling” (except in
    baseball, of course). Singleness is not a Spirit-empowered functional gift like those
    described in 1 Corinthians 12.

    Spiritual gifts are meant to build up the body of Christ. Obviously, singles are
    to strengthen the church too—but not by virtue of being single. Rather, singles do
    it by exercising their spiritual gifts, just like everyone else. Your singleness isn’t a
    spiritual gift then, but it is a gift from God, one he wants you to receive and enjoy
    with thanksgiving. If you’re single, your singleness is a gift; if you’re married, your
    marriage is a gift. If your marital status changes, God has given you a different situation
    within which to follow him. Whether you are single or married, God promises
    to be with you and give you everything you need for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).”

    The vision and hope that the Church holds out is the Gospel and its implications. We are missing the boat if we think that the best thing we have to offer is the temporal institution of human marriage.
    I wrote about this a few days before Rodgers’ announcement and hope you might take a read:

    http://solofide.blogspot.com/2015/07/ssa-lost-theology-of-sin-and-its.html

  4. Deb… Point well taken and I agree. Excellent post too. I especially appreciated this paragraph:

    In this new teaching (which most of our contemporary churches have embraced), the sin nature is being baptized as human identity. One’s sinful temptations toward sexual deviance have been recast as inborn “Same Sex Attractions” and used as modifiers that people now use to publicly introduce themselves. The concepts of sexual orientation and same sex attraction have been adopted and embraced by the individual, the community, and the church as viable options of one’s biologically determined status. The church bought the new paradigm, hook, line, and sinker, with one minor caveat: as long as “they” don’t act on “their attractions”, we’ll co-sign the rest of this paradigm.

  5. A very thoughtful and thought-provoking piece, Julie. Without trashing the field of psychology entirely (throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak), let me say that the Church seems to have lost sight of the sufficiency of God’s Word and often falls into interpreting the Scriptures through the prism of psychology. The results are a weakened respect for the authority of God’s Word, an exaltation of the pursuit of personal happiness above all things, and a diminished trust in the power of God, among other things, I’m sure.

  6. good perspective as usual!
    Though in last para, I would not see “intimacy” as
    simply sexual, and so relegated for Christians to marriage only.
    I believe we believers can have intimate relationships without a
    sexual component – hence our relationship with God, or David
    with Jonathan.
    Long-time married folks may find this particularly hard since so
    much of their identity has become wrapped up in that one form
    of expression of intimacy – this is why it is so hard for the marital majority
    to understand the dynamics, stresses and strains of adult celibate believers – they
    have moved so far in their thinking and experience from where they started as
    “singles.”
    But Scripture is very clear that what we call sexual intimacy will be transcended in heaven as not being needed any longer – indeed, I believe all our “earthly appetites” will be transcended in some mysterious way – maybe we’ll get a new “user manual” for our new super-bodies…!

  7. After carefully reading Julie Rodger’s statements of her changing beliefs, I still do not know whether she is “OK” with a samesex relationship in the fullest physical sense, or whether she means that ‘celibate’ samesex relationships are Scripturally OK, but not more. (There is a difference: I have a gay cousin whose roommate is also gay, but my cousin tells me in no uncertain terms that he is celibate, and I believe him.)

    Compounding matters is the fact that I don’t know if a ‘celibate’ samesex relationship is Scripturally OK.

    I agree that it wouldn’t be a good idea to endorse a samesex relationship that is celibate, simply because it’s a temptation and thus risky, but, on the other hand, is it sin? I don’t know? (I mean, what if a celibate same-sex relationship is the best a gay person can do? Should we push them beyond their capabilities, possibly into sin?) Maybe it varies from person to person What does The Word say on this subject? Since I don’t know what is actually right according to The Word, it is appropriate for me to admit that & ask for others’ analyses.

    So, in short: 3 questions: what do you believe, what does Jule Rodgers believe, and most importantly, what’s the Word say?

    PS: Click my name to join the conversation on Facebook.

    1. You said above: [[“”If same-sex attraction is sin, which biblically is the only defensible conclusion, then it’s a condition for which the church most certainly has a remedy.””]]

      I respectfully dissent: Same sex attraction is a temptation, not a sin. There is a distinction: see e.g., Hebrew 4:15. :) The action, lifestyle, and behaviour, tho, can be a sin, depending on what it is.

      Additionally, having studied this matter at length, yes, I agree that a person’s orientation (temptation, preference) can be changed through the redeeming power of God, based both on the Bible’s clear Word as well as what my own eyes see: many people report changing from gay to straight — and also from straight to gay! While there is certainly a genetic influence on orientation (as with most or all other things about a person: see e.g., twin studies and basic biochemistry), obviously it is not all genetic: The environment can be changed with God’s help. In fact, while I’ve always been straight, my own orientation (preference in what I find attractive in women) has changed some thru the years. That said, orientation change is usually slow and difficult, so let’s be realistic as well – and patient with those who struggle – both gays and straights: we all have our challenges in life.

  8. What I find troubling about both Julies’ positions is what it says to heterosexual Christians who are single not by choice. To call celibacy “hopeless” unless you have a specific gift for it is, I submit, not consistent with Christian theology.

    The demographic reality is that there are considerably more single Christian women than men. Not all of them are going to marry if they are going to be faithful to the command only to marry a believer. (And there are some single Christian men who will never marry, though not so much for reasons of demographics.) While each individual can have hope that she is going to beat the odds, the fact is that many will not. Are you telling them that their faithfulness to God’s commands condemns them to defeat and loneliness? This, it seems to me, tacitly accepts the gay idea that the most important thing in the world is sex. Or perhaps simply the American Christian idolatry of the family. This is not to take anything away from the family as God’s intended vehicle for bringing up the next generation, but it ignores the NT usage of “brothers” and “sisters” to refer to fellow believers, and the OT promise that God “sets the lonely in families.” Does the church often fail in making that terminology meaningful? No doubt. But is the answer to give up on the church, or to call her back to what God intends for her to be, and remind us all that this isn’t merely nice to have, but essential to the flourishing of its members?

    1. How is the notion that “sex is the only important thing in the world,” a gay idea? I know many fellow heterosexuals who seem to believe this notion, especially young heterosexual men.

  9. One thing I would take issue with here is the notion that those who promote celibacy for gay Christians believe transformation is impossible. I think most all of us know someone who is/was gay and is now in a heterosexual marriage. However, it’s also true that this is not the case for everyone and that many who have gone on to a heterosexual marriages find that they do not experience the change they had expected. Another thing that I believe is also often overlooked in these discussions is feelings of the heterosexual spouse in mixed orientation marriages. One reason I have been hesitant to pursue this options is that it seems supremely unfair to ask someone to commit their life in marriage to a person who may never develop a sexual attraction to them or who may lose that attraction at some point in the marriage. For these reasons, my recommendation to young gay Christians is to keep your options open. Celibacy, mixed orientation marriage, and celibate same-sex relationships are all viable and to pursue one option to the exclusion of the others can lead to unnecessary difficulty for all involved.

  10. Gordon, I will gladly answer your three questions, though to my understanding, what I believe and what the Bible says are the same. If they’re not, then I’ll gladly change my view.

    I believe Scripture teaches that all immoral desires are sin arising from either the world, the flesh or the devil. But, the way people who identify as gay talk about it, they’re referring to a desire that comes from within them, so it seems clear they’re referring something that resides in their sinful flesh. To me, it doesn’t seem all that complicated. Galatians 5 is pretty clear:

    “For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want… The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry… 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

    So, same-sex attraction is sin that resides in our flesh and believers are to “crucify” it, just like they would any other sinful desire. And, as they continue in the Spirit, they should experience freedom. “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free” (vs. 13); “So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.” (vs. 16)

    However, Julie Rodgers and other gay, celibate leaders, like Wesley Hill, seem to believe this sin tendency is a permanent condition from which same-sex attracted people cannot ever expect to be free. Here’s an excerpt from Wesley Hill’s article published on July 15. In it, Hill compares Andrea, who identifies as a gay, celibate Christian, with his friend Holly, who is a straight, celibate Christian:

    “(I)n Andrea’s case, there is something in her faith that prevents her from marrying someone (or at least someone she’s likely to be sexually attracted to). Holly has at least some degree of choice in the matter, but for Andrea, there’s no real choice at all.

    “Because she’s gay, she feels that marriage to a man is not in the cards. And because she’s a Christian of a pretty traditional variety, marriage to another woman is not something she can consider and then freely decide for or against. Her sexual abstinence is a mandate.

    “It’s this particular conundrum of traditional Christian sexual ethics that my friend Julie Rodgers finds particularly soul-crushing for gay Christians.”

    I don’t find any Scriptural support for this view. If same-sex attraction is a manifestation of the sinful flesh, then it’s something to which a believer should not be in bondage. Christ died to set us free from bondage to sin.

    Matthew… I think you and Deb W. make a good point about celibacy not being a gift. I stand corrected. I think there is a big difference between celibacy that is imposed because one has not found a suitable partner — and one that’s imposed because of bondage to sinful desires and sexual brokenness. Again, Jesus came to give us freedom and make us whole.

  11. Thank you for clarifying, Julie. When I asked you this question, I had not seen your comment, which is #2, above, citing Galatians 5:17, as here. I replied with a Hebrews 4:15 analysis, and I’m not sure if you saw my reply.

    I’m still not sure if I’m correct or not, but I’ll elaborate, giving both arguments for this point:

    First off, I agree that 3 sources of sin are the world (other people), the flesh (ourselves), or the devil (including, of course, his fallen angels).

    But here’s where it gets confusing.

    If you are referring to lust for same-sex behaviour, then, according to Matthew 5:27-28 (NIV), this is sin, no different than for us straight folks: “27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[internal cite: Exodus 20:14] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

    If, however, you are referring to temptation to engage in same-sex behaviour, then, according Hebrews 4:15 (KJV), it would be temptation, but not sin: “15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

    James, in 1:13-15 (KJV), makes the distinction between temptation and sin even clearer: “13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”

    [Actually, lust *is* sin, according to Matt. 5:28, but James lists temptation as leading to lust (sinful thoughts), and lust leading to “sin” (sinful actions).]

    Of course, the root causes of these all these illicit temptations (be they for straight or gay sin – or even nonsexual sin – and there are many!), are the three sources you listed above.

    With regard to God’s redemptive power, yes, I agree that God can heal. But many physical sicknesses we encounter these days are not healed, and even Jesus needed two tries to heal one man: Mark 8:23-25 (KJV) (And, even when people experiences a healing in their orientation and desires, it is often a very slow process.)

    23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
    24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
    25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.

    So, yes, you are right and our peers are wrong regarding their claims of hopelessness, but healing of this sort is often a slow, difficult processes.

    With regard to your reply on other comments, where you compare celibacy that’s imposed because one hasn’t found a suitable partner — and one that’s imposed because of bondage to sinful desires & sexual brokenness, I will make this comment:

    Our gay friends may think they have a difficult situation with regard to their inappropriate desires, and it is certainly not easy. But, some of us who are very particular in what we feel God wants for us in a mate are probably in an even worse situation, wherein we have desires for and attraction to some people of the opposite sex who would constitute a straight or “heterosexual” relationship, but would go against our conscience as far as what we feel God has told us. Speaking only for myself, I am so particular that I predicted that gay friends of mine would get married to people of the opposite gender before I even got on first base and “found” the girl whom I feel God has for me, and, lo and behold, one gay high school friend, a guy, has indeed married a girl, and apparently changed orientation (thus proving that there is more hope for some gays than for me, myself!). I’m guessing that his change in orientation was simply as a part of maturing, growing older, and healing sexual wounds not unlike one might heal up from any illness or injury.

    So, long story short is that, depending on how we define terms, there seems to exist good arguments both for and against the assessment that the orientation itself is sin. But, even if the temptation for same-sex behaviour is not sin, itself, it is certainly the *result* of sin, and can be the *cause* of sin, if we unhook the branch from the vine, as implied by Matthew 15:5 (KJV)

    “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”

    But, to address the claims, by Julie Rodgers and others, that same-sex relationships are OK, I will say that if she includes the sexual behaviour, I would agree with you that she’s wrong. But if she claims that celibate same-sex relationships are OK, I would say that 2 arguments exist here:

    Pro: I don’t see a clear Scriptural prohibition against the mere existence of a same-sex relationship between 2 homosexual people.

    Con: As I finally thought to include in my own blog updates, such relationships as she described could possibly give the appearance of evil (see: 1 Thessalonians 5:22), but also possibly place the participants into unnecessary temptation. (Likewise, I admit that an “unmarried” man and woman (Heterosexual – Straight) couple living together in celibacy would not only give an appearance of evil, but also encounter temptation.)

    Pro: However, what if one of the participants is homeless, and the only place to live is with another gay Christian? See e.g., Isaiah 58:6-7 and Matthew 25:31-46 about taking in the homeless wandering stranger. Also, isn’t friendship and fellowship a good thing between fellow-Christians? But really: what if a celibate same-sex relationship is the best a gay person can do? Should we push them beyond their capabilities, possibly into sin?

    However, as yet, I do not see a reply from Julie Rodgers clarifying which of these 2 scenarios she supports (full physical relations or mere social relations but with celibacy), and, on my word of honour, I have posted a question on her blog, politely asking for clarification. Nonetheless, in the end, these questions are tough even for me, and so I can’t and don’t blame her for any slowness in responding.

  12. I really appreciate your thoughtful discussion on this issue that unlike a lot of other things I’ve read actually has something both serious and bold to say and yet you’re gracious. Thank you.

  13. Appreciate the encouragement, Michael.

    Gordon, I understand the distinction you’re making between temptation and sin. However, when temptations arise in the form of wrong desires within us, they are sin. Owen Strachan expresses it well:

    “Our desires constitute what we want. Here’s where we must step very carefully. It is true that Jesus was tempted by sin but without it. But Jesus was not a fallen man. He was not sinful, right? He never committed a sin, and he never wanted to commit a sin. This is where we see the clearest difference between Christ and us. He never desired sin; we regularly desire it. Denny Burk has said it like this: Jesus was tempted externally, but we are tempted not only externally but internally.

    “In other words, our desires are corrupted by the fall. Jesus’ desires were not corrupted by the fall. But Jesus experienced the effects of the fall by living in a world that externally placed temptations in his path. We face this predicament, but our state in Adam is much worse. Sin is not only outside us (bad ads on the web, debauched movies beckoning to us on Netflix), but inside us. This is the major contribution made by Augustinian, Reformed, and Protestant theology on the subject of hamartiology (our doctrine of human depravity). Sin is not only external, and the act of a positive, conscious choice. Sin is inside us. We carry a monster in our heart.”
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2014/12/gay-christianity-toward-a-theological-and-pastoral-response/

  14. Thanks for posting this. I agree with everything written, except one important detail…we cannot put-down reparative therapy in particular. Exodus crashed because of its focus on binary, immediate change. Reparative therapy and other means of change always focus on a continuum and offer realistic hope. Hope is always key though; anything is possible!!

Leave a Reply

Donate

Hi. We see this is the third article this month you’ve found worth reading. Great! Would you consider making a tax-deductible donation to help our journalists continue to report the truth and restore the church?

Now until Aug. 31, become a monthly donor at $25 level or more & receive a mug!