In this post, I want to try to convince you to read a very interesting article about Christian apologetics and moral issues. It’s posted on the Stand to Reason web site. The author, Alan Shlemon, is an amazing Christian apologist, and very conservative on social issues. Striking, because that seems to be intentionally avoided by many popular apologists.

Here is his introduction:

In 2014, I attended Matthew Vines’s conference on the Bible and homosexuality. His stated goal was to “promote inclusion of LGBTQ people by reforming church teaching.” The organization he started, The Reformation Project, teaches that homosexual sex and same-sex marriage are biblically permissible, and its goal to mainstream this theology into the church is overt and clear.

Fast-forward to last month, when I attended the Unconditional Conference put on by Embracing the Journey (ETJ). Hosted by nationally known pastor Andy Stanley and held at his church, which boasts a weekly attendance of nearly 40,000 people, the event sought to create a theologically neutral space where parents and leaders could learn how to minister to youth who identify as LGBTQ. In other words, the stated intent was not to change anyone’s theology.

[…][T]he conference was deeply problematic because of the false and somewhat hidden premise that permeated most of the teaching: Followers of Christ can participate in homosexual sex, same-sex marriage, or transgender “transitioning.” That premise undergirds three serious concerns I have with the Unconditional Conference.

And he covers these points:

• the Unconditional Conference claimed to be theological neutral but wasn’t.
• the Unconditional Conference advanced a false dichotomy of possible responses to a child who identifies as LGBTQ.
• the Unconditional Conference wrongly presumed you can divorce theology from how you minister.

Then he has his case for Biblical standards on sexual morality:

• Scripture is univocal in its positive case for sex and marriage in both the Old and New Testaments.
• Scripture is univocal in its negative case.
• Scripture warns that those who engage in ongoing sexual sin will not inherit the kingdom of God.

A PDF is available.

Here is the part I liked the best:

[T]he hidden premise that permeated the conference was that walking with Jesus can include same-sex marriage as well as transgender “transitioning.” Not only did no one say anything to the contrary, but virtually every speaker, facilitator, and volunteer spoke in a way that led one to believe those behaviors are permissible.

[…]What the Unconditional Conference did was tantamount to a pro-life conference inviting—as one of their speakers—a Planned Parenthood employee who not only has had an abortion but also teaches as if it were a good, moral, and God-honoring decision. Attendees would reasonably conclude the “pro-life” conference believed abortion is an appropriate option.

What this abortion analogy also shows is that many pro-choice arguments sound persuasive because, like the Unconditional Conference, they are based on hidden (but faulty) premises. For example, pro-choice advocates claim, “Women should have the freedom to choose,” or, “Women should have the right to control their own bodies.” Notice how the fundamental question, “What is the unborn?” is not addressed. Worse, the pro-choice advocate simply assumes the unborn is not a human being and carries on making their case with that hidden premise.

The Unconditional Conference approached their topic in the same way. For two days, the speakers addressed how to minister to people who identify as LGBTQ but intentionally didn’t address the fundamental question of whether homosexual sex or same-sex marriage is sin. Worse, they simply assumed they are not sin and carried on offering advice with that hidden premise.

I really recommend checking out this article. It’s a very good article, on a very important topic. If you’re finding yourself getting soft on this issue, it might be good to look to someone who isn’t, and see how they manage to do that.