Cru on LGBT Issue, MacArthur on Begg, Mike Kelsey on Corporate Apologies, Stuckey on Tradwives

We are now live on the Conversations That Matter podcast. I am your host, John Harris. This is an unannounced podcast, so I assume many of you are gonna probably listen to this on the replay tomorrow, and it's also a weekend, so hopefully everyone is having a good time and they have their weekend plans already.

My plans this weekend are to have soup and to lay low. Some of you know I've been sick, and I still am, although my mind is getting a little better because I don't have a fever right now, and I'm still a little slow, but getting better.

But yeah, my stomach and the congestion, not getting so much better, so I'm just hoping that maybe a little rest this weekend will enable me next week to kind of hit things full steam because I'm gonna see some of you in New Mexico, and I don't have the slide up.

I should have had this up, but if you go to johnharrispodcast .com and go to the top, you can find my speaking engagements and information on how to get more info on New Mexico. I think it's Albuquerque that I'm gonna be in, so if you live near that area and you want to get more information, go to johnharrispodcast .com.

Anyway, thank you for your prayers, and I have decided a number of days this week, including today, to try to do a podcast anyway, and I think it's worked out so far okay. I don't think I've said anything too crazy.

Let me know if I do in the chat box, and I will take that into consideration. Now, and maybe I'm just crazy anyway, though, so I mean, that may have nothing to do with my sickness. Before we get started today, it's gonna be a news roundup, and so that's a little easier for me because it's just things that people have sent me from this week and really related to conservative evangelicalism, but things that they've wanted me to comment on and talk about, so I'm gonna play some video clips.

We're gonna talk about them, but before we do, one of the sponsors for this podcast is Equipping the Persecuted, and this is a one-minute little video that I wanna share with you all about that particular ministry.

Know that more Christians are persecuted for their faith in Nigeria than in every other country of the world combined. 90 of all Christians killed for their faith are Nigerians because Islamic jihadists are destroying Christian villages, homes, and churches, but there is someone doing something.

A team of American and Nigerian Christians called Equipping the Persecuted head toward the chaos while smoke is still rising. They pull lives out of the wreckage and help them rebuild. They provide emergency medical care, support for widows and orphans, security training, and meet other needs so Christians can rebuild their lives.

This year, they are building a hospital and a women's rehab clinic to help victims, two new schools to educate over 800 displaced children, and they continue to equip villages with the security training and infrastructure they need to protect themselves in the future.

Consider being part of the effort to support brothers and sisters on the other side of the world. Go to equippingthepersecuted .org. All right, so you can see Judd Saul from Enemies Within the Church.

He also is the founder and president of Equipping the Persecuted in some of those pictures. And you can go to, like I said at the end there, equippingthepersecuted .org and find out more info about that organization.

And of course, more than happy to sponsor helping our brothers and sisters overseas like that. Well, I'm gonna just jump right into it. So I think the first thing that I'd like to do today, if possible, is talk about this Mike Kelsey thing.

Actually, you know what, let's do that second because I just realized the crew thing is not a video. So I have all my videos queued up, but the crew situation is not a video. It's actually an article.

Some of you might've missed this article. It was in World Magazine. So just came out, I think, today, if I'm not mistaken. So here it is from World Magazine. And the title of it is, Taking Sides, A Growing Divide Over the Theology of Sexual Brokenness Threatens to Tear Evangelical Institutions Apart.

And for those listening, there's a picture of a church split in half, and you have one half going towards a rainbow flag, and the other half staying, I guess, normal. So if you read this article, it sets the stage.

It talks about Rosaria Butterfield and what she said before 10 ,000 people at Liberty University's convocation. And she called out Crew for supporting revoiced theology. And we covered this when it happened.

In fact, we covered it a few times. And it covers someone who heard this news, who worked for Crew. And so I don't really wanna get into all the details about that. I think that's what kind of personifies, I guess, the issue.

What I'm really more interested in is what Crew had to say about this. So it says that days after Butterfield's address, Crew sent an email to its staff linking to its media policy. So here's what was happening.

And I knew about this from people working for Crew, but this is public information now. They sent an email to people in their organization, reminding them about their media policy, right? Spokesperson resources and communication best practices.

It reiterated the message all staffers should share if questioned about the training. The organization holds a traditional, historical, biblical understanding of sexuality and gender. And this is no different than what they were saying really before this, but I think they just wanted to remind everyone, you're gonna get a lot of questions and this is how you handle it.

But Crew's leaders, the story says, didn't address Butterfield's accusations directly. The author says, I emailed Keith Johnson, Crew's director of theological development, to ask about the training and Butterfield's comments.

He never responded. Patrick Martin, Crew's director of communications, told me in an email that the organization would not participate in interviews on the topic. Quote, there are a number of issues surrounding sexuality and gender that we feel are best addressed in the context of relationships.

So that's really it. There's actually not a lot of ground shaking things in this article. I think that's the most important thing. And it then gets into describing kind of the broader issue that plagues and challenges Christian organizations on this topic.

It does talk about, and we've already talked about this, but their new sexuality and gender document states, we embrace the goodness of the sexual difference God created by living distinctly as male and female, which including using pronouns that align with our biological sex.

So they did change some things around. They're not commenting though on using Preston Sprinkle's material or, well, even their stance. They're just pointing people to, here's our documents. So I would say mixed bag.

Like the thing that is good, and maybe this doesn't provide a lot of information for those who have listened to this podcast, you've already known about this with crew, but at least it verifies that even media organizations don't seem to be able to get firm answers from them.

They can just observe what's happening externally, the documents that they're producing, but they can't actually have a conversation with someone on the record about it. And so the good part, I guess, is that they are changing some of their documents to align more with what the Bible teaches about sexuality.

The thing that does concern me, and it always has about crew, crew is to me one of the most frustrating organizations in evangelicalism that I've ever done any work on just because there's a very strong sense of hierarchy within the organization.

The people, and it's outside the local church, right? This is a para-church, but the people who work for the organization, even if they work part-time, they very strongly believe it is disrespectful to ever counter signal or challenge even their supervisors, especially talking to people outside the organization.

It doesn't matter if they've sometimes for years been banging their heads against the board trying to get somewhere. They still just feel that that's a dishonorable thing, that that's not above board.

And so when they finally did challenge the critical race theory stuff in their concerns document, it did not go well internally. I mean, the effect of it was that the Lenses Institute was essentially shut down, at least, I mean, at least as far as crews concerned, it doesn't exist in the United States.

They're not using that training as far as I know in the United States. And so there might've been a little movement, but there was never any apologies. There's never any acknowledgement, right? There was never any refutation of the things that they previously taught.

They still have stuff on their website that is CRT infused. And so the main thing that came of that was the people who raised the concern were then punished. And then you have this issue, this LGBT issue, especially soft peddling, transgenderism and same sex attraction and these kinds of things.

And the way they handle it is just to kind of edit some of their documents that were getting scrutinized. And again, there's no public repentance. There's no acknowledgement. There's no refutation. It's just, it's like they never had that position.

And so I guess it's a good thing to note that big organizations like that, they will bend to pressure, especially from donors if there's enough pressure. So that's good, but it would be preferable if they bent to conviction and they bent to what the word of God said because they're a Christian organization, right?

That's where I'm not seeing a lot of evidence the way that they're handling this. So little crew update there. Now let's get into the Mike Kelsey stuff since that was something that I was asked about.

I think this is from last Sunday. Two people sent this to me who wanted me to comment on it. And this is a clip from a sermon on Nehemiah chapter one, Mike Kelsey. And Mike Kelsey, for those who don't know, this is at McLean Bible Church.

He is now a senior pastor there. He's just been, I think it's senior pastor or teaching pastor, sorry, teaching pastor there along with David Platt. And he was the one in 2020 that talked about torching white evangelicals.

He wanted to do that because he was so upset. So that didn't cancel him or any, didn't seem to slow him down in his career. He's now has a higher office at the church. And here's what he said, I believe this is last Sunday from the pulpit.

Here, be attentive in your eyes open to hear the prayer of your servant that I now pray before you day and night for the people of Israel, your servants, confessing the sins of the people of Israel, which we have sinned against you.

Now, remember, this is why I gave you all that history. Remember, the people of God were taken into Babylonian captivity as a consequence of their own sin.

But here's the thing.

Nehemiah wasn't even alive when all that happened. And yet he's confessing sin that he's never even participated in.

Okay, let's stop right there for a moment. Let's just read ourselves the beginning of that passage in Nehemiah chapter one. So it opens, says the words of Nehemiah, the son of Hekeliah. Now it happened in the month Shislev in the 20th year, which I was in Susa, the capital, that Hananiah, one of my brothers, and some men from Judah came.

And I asked them concerning the Jews who had escaped and had survived the captivity and about Jerusalem. So he's in the Persian empire asking about his people. And they said to me, the remnant there in the province who survived the captivity are in great distress and reproach.

And the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates are burned with fire. When I heard these words, I sat down and wept and mourned for days. And I was fasting and praying before the God of heaven.

And I said, I beseech you, O Lord, God of heaven, the great and awesome God who preserves the covenant and loving kindness for those who love him and keep his commandments. And then the passage that you just heard Mike Kelsey read, let your ear now be attentive and your eyes open to hear the prayer of your servant, which I am praying before you now, day and night on behalf of the sons of Israel, your servants, confessing the sins of the sons of Israel, which we have sinned against you.

I and my father's house have sinned. Now stop there. Just to set the context so people know what we're talking about. Nehemiah, I should probably say, for me personally, right? Looking at what's happening to my own country, I've kind of put to shame a little.

Have I ever done this? I don't think so. You know, wept for days, but that's what Nehemiah is doing. He's weeping for days. He's praying. He's in agony over the situation of his people. And there's a beautiful thing in that, but there's, it's also sad and tragic, right?

And he wants to do something and you read the rest of the book and you find out he does. Now, in this particular, this initial setting up the stage for him becoming the governor and all the rest of the things he does, he acknowledges the sin that got Israel to that point that he also participated in.

And it says, so there's, I think there's two things to note here. It says that he was praying, hear the prayer of your servant, right? On behalf of the sons of Israel in verse six. He's praying on someone's behalf.

He's praying on his own behalf as well. He's also praying on someone else's behalf because he is, it's like his family, right? And then it says that the sins of Israel, which we have sinned against you, I and my father's house have sinned.

So there's a participation in this. And you find this in other passages too that social justice warriors want to use to try to approve of and endorse corporate apologies today for things that happened in the past in the United States that they're upset about.

But what often they miss is that these prayers are directed to God, right? Not to minorities who are oppressed or anything like that. It's, we're not going to people who are, think of themselves as homosexual and then trying to repent to them.

Because no, it's the repentance, whatever evil was done, the repentance is to God, first of all. So that the direction's important there. But then there's always an element of participation that the people who are repenting of these things, they may be repenting of things that have been sin patterns that have taken the course of generations to build, but they're also part of that.

So it's not something that they're excused from. It's something that they're within that they've also taken part in. So there is a sense of personal responsibility here as well. So it's not quite the same.

It's not a parallel thing to, we need to go apologize and do reparations and do this corporate repentance thing for things that we didn't do. And of course, the Bible is also clear that the sins of the fathers and the sins of the sons, they bear those themselves, right?

That's not talking about generational patterns though of habits of sin that are then taught and then reproduced and copied, right? So there's the difference there. In verse seven, it says, we have acted very corruptly against you, okay?

Against who? Against God, right? How did we do that? We have not kept your commandments, nor the statutes, nor the ordinances which you commanded your servant Moses. So, and then it goes on. So this is the stage.

This is what we're talking about. And Mike Kelsey, I'll show you what he does with this. He's already trying to weave an argument that this applies to America 2024. We need to have a repentance for sins that might not even be ours.

The sins that we didn't commit that we haven't participated in from the past.

And listen, this is especially difficult to understand for those of us in more individualistic cultures. But this kind of corporate confession is so important for a couple of different reasons. First, in corporate confession, we acknowledge the sin of the past.

Nehemiah starts by acknowledging the sinful history that has shaped his current context. He's not.

Let's stop there. That's not true. He's acknowledging his participation in a pattern of sin over the course of generations that God judged Israel for and was continuing to judge them for. So that's different.

Taking responsibility for their choices but he's taking ownership of the consequences.

He is taking responsibility for their choices together. The choices of Israel. Well, he's taking responsibility for his participation in a myriad of choices that were made because this is a covenantal relationship Israel has with God.

So they were all as a corporate body to honor the law of God and they did not, which is also a different relationship than the United States has, which is funny to me because the social justice warriors want to go after supposed Christian nationalists, right?

And say that, well, they believe that there's a covenant that the United States has with God and that's off. But then when they do things like this, they draw parallels and they try to make out like the United States or European countries are somehow in that same relationship and they're not.

So Nehemiah is in the context here, he is acknowledging there was a covenant that was broken and he was one of the people, a part of a myriad of people, but he was one who participated in the breaking of that covenant.

In other words, he's saying, God, it wasn't my fault, but now it's my responsibility.

Where does he ever say that? He says, he does acknowledge that it's his fault. It's his sins and the sins of his father. So Mike Kelsey is just making stuff up at this point. It's really pathetic that this even passes for preaching to be quite honest with you.

And this theology of corporate confession is so important for us in our own context, particularly as we think about the history of sin in our country, the patterns of sin in our particular ethnic community and the generational cycles of sin in our own families.

We don't exist in a vacuum. There's history that has shaped the context that we're in.

Obviously that's true. Of course, history shapes the context we're in and the choices that were made by previous generations are going to affect us, they come down to us. I mean, and there's a myriad of things.

It's so complicated. We don't even understand 1 probably of the different things choices that were made that affect us. So, I mean, he's right in that, but trying to use that to then say that we need to somehow accept the consequences for everyone else's sin who stands in our lineage, that's the dog that doesn't hunt.

When we confess those sins, listen, when we confess those sins, when we're honest about those things that maybe we weren't even directly a part of, we didn't participate in, but we know these are sins that affect our context or maybe in our own ethnic community, there are patterns of sin that we're often, because of our blind spots, prone to repeat or generational cycles of sin in our families that honestly gives so much explanation for the inclinations and temptations that we constantly battle against in our own lives.

Listen, when we confess those sins, we're not taking the blame, we're taking a stand.

What does that even mean? Where we're not taking the blame when we confess those sins, we're taking a stand. So, that's not even a repentance anymore. It's, I mean, he's admitting here that it's not even, so make sure that everyone is tracking with me.

What you just heard Mike Kelsey say is that you're not taking blame for this stuff, you're taking a stand. If you're taking a stand, then you're just making a statement. That's all you're saying. You're saying, I'm standing against this sin.

This is sin that happened. And in my confession, I'm gonna use this repentance moment, this corporate repentance to take a stand against it, to signal that I'm, it's a virtue signal, I'm against it. But you're not actually acknowledging that you are to blame for it.

So, it's not even repentance anymore. So, I mean, he just let the cat out of the bag.

And there's a difference. We're taking a stand to say, God, we acknowledge that we have a role to play in correcting the sins of the generations before us. The sins that have set the table we're currently sitting at, the sins that caused the consequences we've now inherited.

We're not trying to sanitize that sin. We're not trying to rationalize that sin. We're acknowledging the reality of their sin. And we're taking a stand to say that we don't wanna repeat or contribute to that sin in our generation.

That's what the depth of this kind of corporate confession looks like. And so listen, in corporate confession, we acknowledge the sins of the past, but we also admit our own sin. We admit our own sin.

And that's what Nehemiah does. He says, even I and my father's house have sinned.

All right, so it's a mess. That's all I can say about Mike Kelsey's preaching here. It's just a mess. You know, you're not accepting the guilt. You're taking a stand, but then you are confessing your sin, but your sin is now separated from the greater sin of the people.

And you have to acknowledge their sin so that you can move forward and not repeat their sin. But somehow your sin is distinct from that. Just read the passage. It's much easier. They're in a covenant relationship with God that's understood from the beginning.

If you just understood the relationship Israel, I mean, he even talks about it, but the relationship that God has with Israel and Nehemiah, him and his fathers, and the people of Israel have all taken part in violating the commandments of God.

It's as simple as that. He's responsible. He's, but he's part of this corporate covenant. So Mike Kelsey is trying to go in all kinds of different directions on this that the text just doesn't really merit.

So if anyone has any other questions on that or statements or whatever, then feel free to put them in the chat box and I can try to get to them a little later in the podcast. But I guess the thing that stuns me more than anything else is how unimpressive Kelsey's preaching is.

And I don't just say that to say it. It truly is almost insulting, the intelligence. It is insulting. It's insulting the intelligence of the people that are there. I don't understand how this kind of thing is allowed to happen.

It's certainly not, it's not even surface level attempts to understand what the text is actually saying. He's got an application in mind before it seems like before he's even approached it. And he wants to kind of use the text to cram into his application.

He has, it's a corporate apology and then it's not really an apology. It's an acknowledgement of other people's sin and taking a stand. It's a statement that you're making, but then it turns into a different apology for your own sin.

What is he talking about? All right, let's move on to the next thing. What is the next thing? I think we'll end with the Ali Beth stuff. Let's just, I don't know if I'll show the whole thing. I could probably summarize this in a few sentences, but some of you probably are gonna wanna see see some of this.

So I guess, I don't know if this is from last Sunday or what, but John MacArthur was asked a question about this Alistair Bigg attending a wedding with a transgender person situation. And here's what he had to say.

Good evening, Pastor John. My name's Neil MacLeod. I'm a Scott.

Yes.

Let me skip ahead with the, so he, this is the question essentially. I'm gonna skip past the question. Because the question is like, how could Alistair Bigg say what he said about attending a wedding with a transgender person, solemnizing that occasion, that kind of thing.

So here's what MacArthur, John MacArthur says.

Yeah, that question came up and has gotten all over the internet. Let me say, first of all, that Alistair and I have been friends for, well, 45 years. When I was in Scotland 45 years ago, I was pushing his 45-year-old son in a pram.

You know what a pram is, Neil? It's like a baby buggy. So we've had a lot of history together. And I have a great affection for him. I also wanna say that you shouldn't judge a man by his weakest moment.

All of us will have a moment of weakness. Having said that, I have to disagree with the answer that he gave to the question. A believer should not go to a homosexual transgender wedding.

Can I just say one thing? Because I agree with what he's saying about you shouldn't judge people on their weakest moment. All of us are gonna, we're gonna all look pretty bad. You think of David, right?

You judge him on his weakest moment, he's murdering someone. The thing about Alistair Bigg that's different to me though is it wasn't a moment. It was a, he was confronted many times and he doubled down many times.

And so while I agree with what John MacArthur's saying there Pastor John MacArthur, Pastor Alistair Bigg has given us more than just a moment on this issue. And it's come to define his ministry because of how resolute he is on this and unwilling to repent.

Now, the hope is still obviously that he would repent and he would say, oh my goodness, what did I do? And of course this is wrong, but he hasn't done that. It's just been double down after double down.

So while that might be true, I don't think that applies to the Alistair Bigg situation necessarily. It wasn't a moment, not at this point. So anyway.

For a lot of reasons, but he was making the argument that you go out of compassion rather than condemnation. You go to show love to them as a means to reach them. My response to that is the most loving thing you could possibly do would be not to go and to condemn the relationship.

That is loving. It's not loving to help somebody celebrate stepping into the fury of God's judgment. No transgender person, feminine, homosexual will enter the kingdom of heaven. This is not a time for you to celebrate thinking that your affection for somebody is the means of their salvation.

They will come to salvation when the Lord exposes their sin. That's why the Holy Spirit, John 16, convicts of sin and righteousness and judgment. And what should be said to somebody is this is wrong. This is against God's order.

This is not marriage. It is not a marriage because you can't have a marriage between two people of the same sex. It's not a marriage at all. It is defying God who ordained marriage, and ordained male and female, and designed procreation.

It is a blasphemy against God, as is transgender life and homosexuality as well. That is the message to give in love. I couldn't, beyond the theological reasons and the biblical reasons, I couldn't affirm that.

If I went, I would affirm that. Not only could I not affirm it, I don't think I could tolerate it. I don't think I could survive sitting in something like that and feeling like I was supportive of it.

And then to give them a gift, that is to aid and abet the celebration of something that is defying God's design. And the very, very, I would say, point of the spear currently of the corruption of this entire culture.

So you can't be a part of that.

Okay, for those who are just tuning in, there's actually a few more minutes to this, but it's nothing that different than what he just said. So it's more him reiterating. And you can see there's, I think, a grief there of some kind, because he's been friends with Alistair Begg for that many years.

But his answer, as far as how he would answer the question, is pretty solid. He's saying that people like that don't inherit the kingdom of heaven. Of course you can't. So that was the answer he gave.

Now, there was a few people who sent me, and including, there was David Morrill had told me he knew about this. I think he was gonna write something, and I don't know if he did or not at Protestia, but there was a video of MacArthur from a few years ago, I don't know how many, at a Ligonier conference, and someone pulled it back up.

And I think it was a blogger or a podcaster named, well, the channels, I think, Biblically. But they found this, pulled it back up, and I'm gonna show it to you. And I'm only showing it to you because this already got brought up, and I do wanna address it because people asked me to comment on it, a number of people, actually.

So here's the video. So I'm at MacArthur at a Ligonier conference, and he's asked a question that's kind of similar. Can a baker bake a cake for a gay wedding? Here it is.

Truly sinful for a Christian business person, for instance, a cake baker, to produce a product for a gay wedding.

You're on a roll.

No, it's not.

Now, I don't know what's funny about that. There's had to have been some context. I don't know what was coming before that, but I can't imagine them laughing at that question, so.

Sinful for a cake maker to make a cake for a gay wedding any more than it's sinful for a guy who runs a restaurant to serve dinner to somebody who's gay and sits in a booth and eats the food or goes to the market and buys a loaf of bread and you own the market.

So before we play the rest of the clip, just point out something real quick. There's a parallel MacArthur draws here, right? He says it's in the same category. So baking a cake for a gay wedding is in the same category as you own a supermarket and someone who considers themselves homosexual walks in and buys a loaf of bread.

So you could own a hotel and people come in that you don't agree with their lifestyle, let's say, but they're frequenting your business. So you're not endorsing their lifestyle. You're not endorsing their sin.

You're not participating in their sin. They're just using your service. That's what he's trying to say here. Now, it's an odd parallel in my mind because if we stop the video there and there's no more context, especially, it seems like he's saying like you could have a baker who specifically designs, sets up, celebrates a gay wedding by making a specifically gay wedding cake.

That's what I thought at the beginning of the question. That's what you think he's saying. That, of course, it's not a sin to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but if his parallel holds up, it sounds like what he's thinking about is like a gay couple walks in the store, the cake store or whatever, and they just wanna buy a generic cake and you're selling it to them.

That's what it seems like he's referring to if his parallel holds up, but it's poorly, I think he would hopefully admit that that's poorly phrased, but let me play for you the rest of it.

What the issue is is not whether that's sinful, it's whether the federal government can demand that people do certain things, which goes against their Christian conscience. The issue is, to me, is more of a political governmental issue.

I actually think that we need to show love to everyone, and particularly we need to do good to all those that are outside the kingdom as well as inside the kingdom as much as possible. So a gesture of kindness toward some unregenerate person is in itself not a sin, but again, if it violates your conscience in some way, then you don't wanna train yourself to ignore your conscience.

So I think it's a personal issue. The issue becomes when people are basically fined or imprisoned for doing things that are religious conscience matters, and that speaks to the issue of how much authority the government has to make you do that.

So it's extra confusing. This must have been like 2015 or so. That's what I'm thinking. This seems like it's around the time that we had people actually being fined for these kinds of things in places like Colorado and Arizona, and so he ends the whole thing with like, well, we don't want the government coming and forcing Christians to violate their consciences.

But the issues where they were violating their consciences is where they were celebrating, they were actually participating in these things. So it's a confusing take because it starts off with you think that he's going down the road of they're baking cakes specifically for homosexual weddings, but then it kind of sounds like he's actually saying, no, it's just couples coming in, they're buying a cake, and so you've inadvertently baked a cake, but it's not specifically for participating in the sin.

But then he ends with an example that makes you think again, this sounds like it's the issue of celebrating a gay wedding by baking a specific cake. So that's confusing. It's not good, it's not a great answer, but I don't know when that was.

I think it was probably a few years ago. So here's, since then, I gotta show you. The person who I think brought this up, now it could be wrong. Someone in the channel is saying that, actually a few people are saying that the book chap, is it the book chapter verse?

Seiko Woods, I think that he brought this up first, BCV podcast, I don't know. So that could be true, but whoever brought it up first, this is the, I think biblically. And so he did that video. That's where I got that video.

That's the only place I've seen that video, but he did a follow-up on this and there was a statement put out, and I think it was just to him, but he's putting out publicly from Phil Johnson on this. And it says, within the scope of how he interpreted the question, meaning MacArthur, it's the right answer.

It's not inherently simple for a Christian-owned retail establishment to serve a homosexual. John is applying the principle of 1 Corinthians 5, 9 through 10, where the apostle writes, I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.

I did not at all mean with the sexually immoral people of this world or with the greedy and swindlers or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. And the statement goes on. It says, nevertheless, it's not the clearest possible answer because it doesn't take into account what is required of a baker in the preparation of a wedding cake.

So at least there's an acknowledgement that that wasn't clear. The cake maker would have to decorate the cake to the couple's specifications, likely with little figures representing a homosexual couple on top, transport it to the wedding, set it up and help arrange it for display in the reception.

The baker would thus be present and taking an active part in the actual celebration of the solicit charade imitating marriage. And then it goes on. John raised that hypothetical in our conversation. This is really long, isn't it?

He asked, if you were a baker, would you sell a birthday cake to a homosexual? If that cake ended up being used in a celebration of gay pride, would you feel you did something sinful? It depends. I said, if a homosexual person bought a generic birthday cake from my cake counter, I am not responsible for what he does with it.

But if he asks me to decorate it with gay pride slogans or perverse imagery that violate my conscience, I could not do it. That's precisely the proper distinction John said. Producing and selling a product to someone living a sinful lifestyle is not inherently sinful.

Celebrating that person's sinful lifestyle in any way is a sin. And that's a spot on. I think that's the end of it. So if you wanna know more about that, since I don't have the primary source on it, you'll have to go to, I think biblically on YouTube and contact them about that.