We knew that homosexuality and gender dysphoria were being elevated to a sacrosanct level in Western culture. But now there are voices calling for something that amounts to a ‘sacred gayness’ which, we are told, must be celebrated by the church. How is it that self-identifying as being ‘gay’ could be seen as making a person gifted and having a special status among Christians? Let me attempt to explain what I think is going on.
Recently, a watershed event, a conference called Revoice, took place. Like so many things, it was relatively small, yet its influence will ‘punch far above its weight.’ The conference promoted the ideas of people in the church who have been looking for a way to bridge the gap between the ethical demands of the Scriptures, and the powerful cultural demands of ascendant same-sex affinities. Like a black market operating in parallel with a nation’s economy, or a shadow cabinet in parallel to a sitting government, the sacred gayness movement is attempting to set up a parallel universe between LGBTQ+ culture and the church.
This playbook is so often employed by special interest groups that the leaders of the ‘sacred gayness’ movement may not even admit to an explicit strategy. But their habits of mind fit perfectly with the patterns of the world. So they move toward two crucial steps:
- Carve out an oppressed minority status.
- Demand concessions as reparations for the oppression.
This is not seeking to paint the worst case scenario. Rather, it is to note the language being used by the sacred gayness evangelists, identifying themselves as ‘sexual minorities’ (see Kevin DeYoung’s TGCUS article on this term).
There are a host of theological errors which are covered over with great subtlety by numerous category switches. In the rest of this article, I want to look briefly at a few of the doctrines affected by this new move for ‘sacred gayness.’ I am not expanding on the doctrines, but assuming the standard discussions by good systematic theologians (See Berkhof, Bavinck, John Murray, etc):
Conversion
- There is no real ‘turning’: no metanoia, no repentance.
Sanctification
The ‘no-lordship’ position rises again.
- Progressive sanctification is neither progressive nor sanctification. The Holy Spirit is viewed as powerless (contra, for instance, the Tim Chester book, You Can Change). Or, calls to holiness are viewed as oppressive or arrogant to claim that progress ought to be made in sanctification.
- Definitive sanctification is neither definitive nor sanctification. Because the same-sex desire is viewed as essential to identity, then definitive sanctification must make being gay sacred. Normally definitive sanctification is viewed as a positional status, but now being gay is included there, making gayness redeemed and sacrosanct. This idea is developed in the language of ‘redemptive suffering’ which attempts to create a sacred, divine category, akin to a new monasticism, which is on a higher spiritual plane than those not ‘called to’ the sanctity of gay celibacy.
- The ‘givenness’ of
same-sex attraction would make it seem to be a gift, as in ‘the gift of singleness’ (cf.1 Cor 7), and this contributes to the self-understanding that ‘LGBTQ Christians’ have a role as ‘prophets’ to the rest of the church. In other words, they have a special ecclesiastical role to play which is distinguished by their ‘sacred gayness’. (For example, see Nate Collins speaking on Jeremiah 15 at Revoice, as referenced by Al Mohler). - The identification of what is sinful as a mere cultural proclivity, leading to the redemption of ‘queer treasure, honor, and glory’ for Christ.
Sin
- Sin is redefined and reduced to external acts only (such as same-sex intercourse).
- Absent are the categories of a sin nature which would produce internal affections that are offensive to God’s designed order. Are you a sinner because you sin, or do you sin because you’re a sinner? The sacred gayness (SG) movement is not recognizing the call to mortify the flesh: “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (Col 3:5).
- No apparent clarification of the doctrine of the Spirit and the flesh in the Christian believer. It is as if the flesh has been mistakenly redefined as only referring to the physical, when it is actually a metaphysical principle of the old age, that must be mortified according to the power of the Holy Spirit in the new age of the kingdom of Jesus Christ.
Marriage
- SG advocates will be ‘prophetic’ in challenging ‘heteronormativity’ in evangelicalism, as they view it as the idolization of the ‘nuclear family’ (see, again, Nate Collins).
- There is a desire for new Christian covenantal partnerships where two people of the same sex can be bound together in a Church-affirmed, Church-celebrated way.
- If the Church affirms spiritually defined covenant partnerships, then you will have civil ratification for those partnerships. In this
way you will have a Church branded version of same-sex marriage that enjoys the same privileges as same-sex marriage in the culture at large. It creates a parallel marriage structure for same-sex partners in the church.
Ecclesiology
Consider the false ecumenism of the sacred gayness movement:
- Revoice was lead by Protestants and Catholics. Although Nate Collins affirmed a Protestant view, he was sharing platforms with Catholics (for instance, Eve Tushnet). This confuses the gospel and the fundamental question, “What is a Christian?”
- As Al Mohler points out, SG endorses the Council of Trent’s view that concupiscence is not sin. So same-sex desire is permissible, but acting on it is not. This permissibility then allows them to build massive structures of sacred gayness, much like the declension in the monastic movement which the Protestant Reformers universally condemned.
This new movement is making an unholy demand upon the church. It is the demand to affirm the sanctity of gayness. To do so is to deny the holiness of God and the strong injunctions against same-sex desire in Romans 1:24, 26-27. It is a crafty way of creating a shadow culture that parallels the biblical culture. Yet affirming any sacred gayness is merely another example of permitting the worship of Baal in the house of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:17).
