Skip to comments.Why Won't the Gay Theologians Debate?
Posted on 11/06/2014 9:57:02 AM PST by Gamecock
Almost 20 years ago, I was speaking with an older Jewish couple who seemed very close to putting their faith in Jesus as Messiah, but they were not 100 percent sure.
I said to them, "Later this week I'm debating an Orthodox rabbi. Why not come to the debate to hear both sides of the issue, and then you can make an informed decision?"
Thankfully, they came to the event, they listened with open hearts and minds, and by God's grace, they came to faith.
More recently, I was invited to speak on a college campus about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, representing the Israeli side.
I requested instead that a debate be scheduled with a qualified Muslim or Palestinian representative so that the audience could hear both sides. When no one came forward, I requested that after the lecture there be an open microphone Q &A so the audience could challenge what I presented.
Why do I do this? It's because the truth has nothing to fear, and I am quite ready for my beliefs and viewpoints to be challenged.
If you believe you are on the side of truth, you need not be insecure.
Then why are "gay Christian" activists and theologians so unwilling to debate the issues publicly? Why do they consistently refuse public dialogue, especially when those who want to dialogue with them are committed to doing so with civility and grace?
Bear in mind that they are writing books, preaching messages, using social media and holding conferences, all with the goal of actively challenging the views of conservative followers of Jesus, seeking to overturn the Word and 2,000 years of consistent church tradition. Yet at the same time, when openly invited to debate their controversial new viewpoints, they grow silent. Why?
For many months now, my friend and colleague Dr. James White has invited Matthew Vines to debate him, since Matthew had become the poster boy for gay Christianity despite his lack of theological training. Matthew's serious research and winsome personality caused his talks to go viral, and since he has targeted conservative churches for his activism, it seemed only right for Dr. White to propose a formal, moderated debate with him.
In fact, Dr. White offered to pay his own way and attend a forthcoming "gay Christian" equipping conference in which he would debate Matthew or a qualified professor for the learning benefit of their attendees, but even that invitation was refused.
Back in June, I was able to do a 45-minute radio debate with Matthew on national Christian radio (with webcast as well), but that was only because Matthew didn't realize he would be debating me when he accepted the invitation. (You can watch the debate here, in which not one single verse supporting homosexual practice was offered by Matthew; for a synopsis of my viewpoints, which also express my heart, go here. On an interpersonal level, Matthew never responded to a single communication I sent him over the months.)
Dr. White and I have suggested to Matthew that he and New Testament scholar James Brownson debate Dr. White and me, since Matthew relies heavily on Prof. Brownson in his book. (Prof. Brownson is a respected scholar and also heterosexual.)
Finally, after months of non-communication, Matthew recently interacted with Dr. White, explaining why he refused to debate him and why he had no intention of engaging me. He wrote:
"I am happy to do dialogues, debates, etc., with anyone when I feel that the event is likely to be constructive, respectful, and relationship-building. I did a 'debate' with Michael Brown this summer that was largely a waste of time, because Brown is not interested in listening to and learning from LGBT people, only pontificating about them."
Come again, Matthew?
I've spent much of the last 10 years listening to LGBT people, amassing a large library of books simply to hear their perspective, taking every personal opportunity I have to sit with those who identify as LGBT—especially professing "gay Christians"—and specifically asking them to tell me their stories, yet I have no desire to listen?
According to Matthew, unless I'm willing to listen and learn from LGBT people, which must mean come to agree with them, he's not willing to debate. And we're supposed to take this seriously?
Matthew and his team are on the offensive, thinking somehow that they will be able to change the positions of committed followers of Jesus (trust me on this; it's not going to happen on any substantive level), yet they won't debate unless someone basically says, "You're making great points, and I'm learning a lot from you."
Who ever heard of prerequisites like this for debate?
I read Matthew's book carefully, including every endnote, praying for greater sensitivity of heart as I read, just as I have often prayed with tears of love when interceding for the well-being of those who identify as LGBT, but that's not enough. You're simply not allowed to reject their arguments as baseless. If you do, there will be no debate.
Matthew continued, explaining, "I see James White in the same vein as Michael Brown. He has shown no desire whatever to learn from or listen to LGBT people. He simply wants to preach condemnation to people he hasn't even bothered to get to know. There are far, far better interlocutors, and far more respectful conversations I am happy to have. That isn't one of them."
This too is remarkable. Dr. White has debated or dialogued with atheists, agnostics, Mormon apologists and Muslim leaders, including debates with Muslim apologists right in their mosques.
You don't get into a mosque to debate without being respectful and gracious, yet that's not good enough for Matthew or, apparently, Prof. Brownson as well.
Ironically, on numerous occasions I have told local "gay Christians" that I'd love to sit down with them and hear their stories, also telling them I'd be glad to have a meal together just to get to know them better. In the vast majority of cases (including all instances where I've offered to do this with a group of people), my invitation has been declined or ignored, yet I'm the one unwilling to build relationships.
Prof. Robert Gagnon, the foremost authority on the Bible and homosexuality, would be delighted to debate Prof. Brownson or any qualified gay theologian, yet he too is studiously avoided, despite his sterling academic background and his gentle demeanor. Why?
Dr. White ended his dialogue with Matthew by stating, "I stand ready to work with Matthew Vines to arrange a meaningful, constructive, respectful debate—but one that does not begin with my capitulation as the prior condition of the debate taking place!"
Precisely so, leading again to the question: Why are gay theologians and their allies so unwilling to debate the relevant issues, especially when they are so aggressive in arguing against our position? Why have Dr. White and I debated top scholars and religious leaders (from Jewish to Muslim, from atheist to Catholic, even debating each other), yet these gay activists are so reluctant to debate?
Why not put the issues on the table in full-length, moderated, civil debate?
Why not model in public how to have serious differences without personal acrimony?
What do these activists and theologians have to hide?
This is not a macho challenge to engage in verbal fisticuffs. It is an open invitation to examine critically important issues in a way that the entire body can observe.
Why not do it?
And there is the issue.
It is easy to defend God. It is impossible to defend Satan.
Liberals do not dialogue; they dual-monologue with the like-minded and call it dialogue. Anyone who does not share their views is not worthy of being considered; such people, they think, do not merit dialogue, but rather re-education.
I recently ended up on some sort of gay churches blog the other day.
I tried to have a debate with them...
If anyone mentioned scripture... they were derided as only spouting bible verses.
If you approached the issue from a purely logical perspective.. they would deride you as only “giving YOUR opinion” (which by the way they didn’t care to hear)
so basically, you cant use the bible OR logic or your opinions when talking with them!
only 100% agreement will be tolerated it seems!
ahh.. the left... so tolerant and open minded!
At the end of the day the only thing that matters here is scripture. What the left wants is to turn this issue into an emotional one where the logic of scripture is ignored. By “listening and learning” from homosexuals, those pushing this issue want to personalize the subject matter as though personal feelings and experience matter. The only thing that matters is what God has to say about this subject. In his revealed word is is abundantly clear that homosexual acts are sin. It really doesn’t matter how anyone feels about this or what anyone’s personal experience is.
Well said !
Exactly the reason the left cannot be up front about what they believe or intend to do.
Why? Because there simply is no case than can be made biblically for homosexuality, and there is an enormous roadblock to homosexuality within scripture. It is not possible to deny that the bible teaches that homosexuality is sin.
It is far better a strategy, the homosexualist advocates believe, to propagandize than to deal with the truth.
You can’t debate gays on this issue. They use the word “love” to mean “sex” and then quote Jesus on love. They refuse to accept Romans 1:28 and won’t even address it, except to say that it only applies to underage male prostitutes. They say that homosexuality is “normal” and “natural”, but refuse to address the meaning of “Natural Man”. They won’t accept that homosexuality is a sin, but will gladly point out that any heterosexual lust is a sin. They throw out the straw man that heterosexuals have no problem with a pastor who is an adulterer, and then refuse to accept that we don’t want that guy in the pulpit either.
Waste of time debating them.
For the same reason Pregnant men don't debate.
Give that man a prize!
They won’t debate because it is indefensible. These people act like homosexuality hasn’t been around since after the fall of man and we are stumbling upon something relatively new.
There is nothing new in this world.
I had the privilege of attending the John Ankerberg moderated debate between Walter Martin and John Shelby Spong at DFW in the 1980’s. Martin destroyed Spong in debate. Spong is an idiot who doesn’t care to know God’s word. Most recent outrage, Spong claims the concept of hell is a creation of “the church” to control people.
God created man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, and they alone are joined by God in marriage, with opposite genders being specified by both Genesis and personally by Jesus Christ. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4)
The Bible only condemns homosexual relations - by design and decree, in principle and by precept - and never sanctions them wherever they are manifestly dealt with, and the injunctions against them are part of the transcendent and immutable moral law. (Lv. 18:22; Rm. 1:26,27)
However, the inordinate effort prohomosexuals polemicists put into attempts to negate the Biblical injunctions against sodomy and even to find sanction for the same - such as are extensively examined and refuted here by God's grace - reveal that they understand the paramount authority of Scripture, as the devil does. Thus the hermeneutics and reasoning they employ, if valid, would not simply negate condemnation of sodomy, but immutable moral laws in general. Like the harlot whose covetousness constrained her to assent to the destruction of a child rather than let her opposing claimant have it (1Ki. 3), the end result of pro-homosexual polemics is that they effectively reject the authority of the very source they seek to use for their own purposes.
The prohomosexual Walter Wink even confessed, "I have long insisted that the issue is one of hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." And that "Paul wouldn't accept a loving homosexual relationship for a minute." However, he joins similar revisionists who disallow that the Bible offers a coherent sexual morality ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms interpretative quicksand. Instead, he joins others in asserting that people possess a right to sex that can supercede Biblical laws, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (Walter Wink, "To hell with gays" and "the Bible and homosexuality")
Likewise, pro-homosexual author Daniel Via states, "that Scripture gives no explicit approval to same-sex intercourse. I maintain, however, that the absolute prohibition can be overridden, regardless of how many times it is stated, for there are good reasons to override it." (Dan Otto Via, Robert A. J. Gagnon, "Homosexuality and the Bible: two views," pp. 38,94) This requires the same type of discredited reasoning as Wink, and Via's opposing co-author Robert Gagnon responded by noting that Via is an "absolutist about no absolutes." (http://www.robgagnon.net/2VRejoinder.htm) (Homosexuality and the Bible: A Real Debate)
But while a few pro homosexual writers concede that the Bible is contrary to same sex behavior, virtually all reject any Biblical censure of it. Author Robin Scroggs states, Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to todays debate. L. William Countryman contends, The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . .. bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts, or pornography. (Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)
More at link .
Spong sounds like an atheist hiding behind a clerical collar.
Matthew can't help himself...He sees the homosexual lobby use the forced acceptance mantra, why not use it in theology too.
Heh heh. Water shooting out of my nose:)
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.