Evangelical Compromise on Same-Sex Attraction with Jared Moore

The Burden of Addressing Same-Sex Attraction

I'm your host as always, John Harris. And we have an important topic today and a special guest to help us with this topic. This is a topic I've covered before in various ways, but I don't think I have as much knowledge as our guest.

Our guest is Dr. Jared Moore, who has written a dissertation. He's actually has a book coming out on the topic of same-sex attraction, the lust of the flesh. And he is a graduate of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

He has a PhD in systematic theology. And he is a co-author of the book, The Pop Culture Parent, Helping Kids Engage Their World for Christ. And he's gonna help us today on this topic of same-sex attraction, revoiced theology, and homosexuality.

Welcome Dr. Jared Moore.

John, thanks for having me, man. I'm looking forward to getting in this.

I appreciate you being willing to... First of all, I think I should just ask this question. You're willing to be brave. What's up with that? Because most seminary graduates, most classmates I had at Southeastern even, wouldn't want to touch this subject with a 10-foot pole.

So what gives you the bravery to touch this?

Well, for me, it's really a pastoral issue. When you think of Martin Luther with John Tinsel, folks, him teaching people that they can buy their loved ones out of purgatory, and that sparked the Reformation.

It was ultimately Luther's pastoral heart where he was concerned with his congregation, concerned with truth. And for me, I think of people in my church who are battling same-sex attraction, who have those desires, and them Googling some of the names that I'm about to mention, and being taught essentially heresy, that heresy is going to save them.

The ultimate issue is that this is a false gospel. People want to remove the sin of same-sex attraction by saying it's not sin. And the only way to remove it is by repenting and believing in Christ. Only Christ can take our sin away.

But they're trying to use empty rhetoric to take sin away. And it is critical theory. I mean, it is this issue of you're oppressed. They even use language of sexual minority. You're a sexual minority, therefore you're not sinning in this area.

And it's oppressed versus oppressor, and the oppressed can't sin. It's a pastoral burden for me, and that's kind of what's spurring me. And two, the sexual revolution doesn't have any breaks. They're not slowing down.

They're going to push this into further depravity. And if same-sex attraction is not sin, then pedophilic attraction is not sin. I just saw, it was a journal article from Cambridge just this morning, I believe, or last night, one was arguing for bestiality due to being one with, it was something about how we're one with the animal kingdom and all this.

But I mean, how can a pastor, if he says that perverse attraction is not sin, then how can he say that sexual attraction to animals is not sin? I mean, how can he say that it is sin? How can he rebuke somebody who comes to him and says, I experience bestial attraction?

And what can he say if he has said that same-sex attraction is not sin? Right. And so I'm concerned on those two fronts, that for my own congregation, for young people in my church, and also for young people in other churches, and then two, you can't unring the spell.

If you can't rebuke same-sex attraction, you can't rebuke any attraction under the sun.

The False Gospel of Revoice and Desire as Sin

Yeah, I mean, I pointed out before, and I'm sure you have and others, that they would never apply this logic to the things that are very unfavorable today, even to worldly people like racism or sexism or something.

They would never say, well, it's fine to fantasize or to just desire to beat your wife. You just don't do it, you know? Right. And we should form a society for Christians who desire to beat their wives.

We would never do that. And of course the accusation is, you're comparing same-sex attraction to beating her. It's like, no, they're just both, there's sins in scripture. And so, I mean, I think you're pointing out just some common sense things here, but it's lost on some of the supposedly smartest among us.

And that's where I think I've had trouble even myself trying to square, how does this particular individual, I'm sure you'll name some of them soon, have such good convictions in these other areas, theologically perhaps.

And then on this issue, it may be a few others, but as a small sliver of issues that are just in vogue today in the world, they just lose it. They don't have any sense of proportion or even an attempt to be somewhat consistent.

And, you know, it is disturbing. It is something I've seen work its way into the lives of people who legitimately do struggle with these temptations. And then they're given somewhat of a pass that they can have these temptations and it gets them to the next rung, which is to be more and more soft on the issue of homosexuality.

To the point, some of them have even gone into homosexuality because of this. And I see this as an on-ramp. And I'm sure you do too. Why don't we start here? Why don't you tell us a little bit, why don't we like lay a groundwork?

So we're just, everyone's clear on what are the revoice people? And I know that's a broad spectrum to some extent, but what is being argued on the other side of this issue? The thing that we're both concerned about here.

And then what is your basic response to this? From Augustine, from the scripture, and why you disagree with revoice theology, we'll say.

Sure, so revoice essentially argues that homosexual orientation, which is same-sex attraction, is not sinful. They argue that it's caused by the fall, that it comes from the fall, that it's fallen, but it is not sin.

But they do say that same-sex sexual attraction, so they separate same-sex attraction from same-sex sexual attraction. They say the same-sex sexual attraction is sin, but same-sex attraction can be inherently good.

And they actually argue that. They're telling people to act on their same-sex attraction or to act on their homosexual orientation, but not to act on their same-sex sexual attraction. And they argue that they affirm the traditional Christian sexual ethic.

And of course, what I just described is obviously not part of the traditional biblical Christian sexual ethic, where you parse out, where essentially you argue that the flesh can produce good, is what they're arguing.

And the Bible says the opposite of that. And as far as my response to that, Jesus said to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, love your neighbor as yourself. The 10th commandment says, you shall not desire anything that belongs to your neighbor.

In Romans 1, Paul rebukes not only actions, but desires, passions. In James 1, it is not just the behavior that God cannot do, but it's the actual inner temptation that God cannot do, because it is sin, because it is evil.

If the devil tempts you, the devil is sinning. But if you tempt yourself, revoice would have you to believe you're not sinning. But James says that's aimed at death. It cannot be aimed at holiness, but revoice wants you to believe they can aim their same-sex attraction to holiness.

And so they're saying that a desire of the flesh can become a desire of the spirit. That is not how Paul describes sin in Romans 7 or Galatians 5. There are desires of the flesh and desires of the spirit.

There are not desires of the flesh that become desires of the spirit, or desires of the spirit that become desires of the flesh. There are two distinct realities. The Holy Spirit, when you get saved, God, the Holy Spirit comes in your heart and He regenerates you, and now He gives you a new spirit.

And now you have the flesh-producing desires and the spirit-producing desires. Now, the spirit, the Holy Spirit has freed your will to where you no longer have to bow to the flesh. You can reject the old man and put on the new one.

You can walk in the spirit and not walk in the flesh. But to say that the desires of the spirit and the flesh are one and the same is just flat-out unbiblical, but that's what revoice has to teach. They either have to indot God on His design in saying that, they'll use language like same-sex beauty.

You know, same-sex beauty is what draws homosexuals. And they're trying to indot God. They're saying that the design of God is what is really drawing them to the same sex. And that just isn't true. It's like me saying that same-race beauty makes me a white supremacist.

Like, I'm a white supremacist because it is same-race beauty that draws me to the same race. I mean, it's just, all it is is empty rhetoric. It's just empty rhetoric. That's what all, that literally, this is not exegesis.

This is not Bible. It's not even historic Christianity.

It is rhetoric. Yeah, you won't find this if you go back to the reformers or the Puritans or really any example you can find from church history, Orthodox church history. I was wondering, I want to ask this question because I asked this to MD Perkins.

I asked this to anyone who tries to tackle this issue. The wiggle room, it seems like the revoice advocates find is that they will compare a homosexual desire to heterosexual. And they'll say, well, before you were married, weren't you looking around for a wife and weren't you looking for someone who you were attracted to?

Well, was that wrong to be attracted to someone at that time who wasn't your wife, became your wife later? Isn't that something that God creates in us? And I guess we would say that's part of the natural order to identify beauty.

We wouldn't say that that's necessarily lust. And they'll try to equate that and say, well, we have the same thing. We're just attracted to people of the same gender and we're not lusting either. We're not going that extra step.

What do you say to people who try to kind of hide their entire system, which is soft peddling homosexuality in that little, I don't know, technicality there?

Homosexuality is not heterosexuality, number one. God designed heterosexuality. Heterosexuality in its purest form is sinless. Adam and Eve in Genesis 2, sinless attraction. Homosexuality in its purest form is still sin.

On its best day, it's still sin because it came from the devil. I mean, the devil put it into the heart of man to turn creation upside down. And this is what Paul describes in Romans 1. He says upside down worship leads to upside down sexuality.

And to say that what Paul says is unnatural, meaning not God's design, to say and conflate that with heterosexuality is blatantly unbiblical. And this is one of the issues I have with the Nashville Statement, the SBC Nashville Statement.

It conflates, it puts homosexuality and heterosexuality side by side. And it even uses the language. And I've rewrote the Nashville Statement. It's called the Crossville Statement. And you can find it at credoalliance .com.

And we actually have it where I put both documents side by side and show the errors of the Nashville Statement. Nashville Statement was co-written by John Piper. John Piper teaches that same-sex attraction is not sin.

And so the language in the Nashville Statement doesn't say that homosexuality is sin. It says homosexual immorality is sin. So it condemns transgenderism outright. It doesn't say transgender immorality is sin.

It says transgenderism. But homosexuality, it says homosexual immorality is sin, but not homosexuality. And even the Nashville Statement, there are numerous people, Robert Gagnon. Robert Gagnon, who says same-sex attraction is not sin, signed the Nashville Statement.

John Piper co-wrote it, who says same-sex attraction is not sin. I mean, it's so frustrating because this is it. I mean, this is everywhere. It's infiltrated literally all of evangelicalism. There's very few groups in evangelicalism that is not fighting this issue.

The Nashville Statement, Concupiscence, and Augustine

I want to stop there if we can real quick. And I know you're on a roll. What you said, though, is like, it might shock some people. And sometimes we need the milk before the meat. And so what I'm hoping is you can explain some things.

We've already talked about revoiced theology. Now we're talking about the Nashville Statement and how that has kind of, I guess, more or less soft-pedaled or it's equated homosexuality and heterosexuality in a certain way.

It's created a comparison that has led to people who believe in revoiced theology to justify same-sex attraction. But wouldn't there be a big difference, though, people would say, between, I mean, I'm trying to even think.

A lot of people signed the Nashville Statement, right? I think Al Mohler signed the Nashville, I don't even remember. I mean, you would know more than me. Wouldn't, they're not in revoiced, right? You're not saying they're the same as revoiced.

So explain that to me, if you would, just the compromise that you see in the Nashville Statement versus the compromise in revoiced. Is revoiced just the logical next step for people who signed the Nashville Statement or is it something separate or what's the connection?

The Nashville Statement rebukes making homosexuality your identity, part of your identity. So run around calling yourself a gay Christian. That's essentially the good that came out of the Nashville Statement.

So everybody that signed it is against making homosexuality part of your identity in Christ, right? And so that rebukes revoiced. Revoiced hated the Nashville Statement, but it didn't go far enough. It still has these errors in it.

It still conflates heterosexuality with homosexuality. It does not condemn same-sex attraction. It condemns homosexual behavior. Okay. And, you know, the Bible condemns both.

Yeah, and that gets into this idea, co-cubescence. I'm probably still saying it wrong. It's a new word for me.

Yeah, you go for it. You say it for everyone. Co-cubescence. Co-cubescence. There we go. When I first read it, I did the same thing, man, so.

Yeah. Well, I mean, I just, I'm not used to seeing that word, but that was the term, I guess, in translations of Augustine's work that's used to describe the lust of the flesh. Why don't you tell us a little bit about that?

One of the things I found interesting in your dissertation was this, how Augustine went back and forth on this issue of co-cubescence. And the Roman Catholic Church essentially rejected Augustine. And so their theology on this particular topic is weak, just like revoiced theology is weak.

And you make the argument that the reformed or the Protestant reform view is stronger, and that we're kind of casting that asunder now. And that's one of the big problems. So can you take us a little bit through that history?

In the church of how we got to this point?

Sure, sure. So early on, Augustine basically said that co-cubescence or sinful desire is not sin, early in his ministry. But by the time you get like 10, 20 years into his ministry, he goes back on that and rebukes that and argues clearly that anything contrary to God in us is sin, that the will, whether or not you volitionally choose something is irrelevant concerning the morality of the desire.

The telos or the goal of the desire determines whether or not it is obedient to God. So is it aimed at God? Is it aimed at holiness? And this is what James 1 says, right? James 1 argues that inner temptation is always aimed at death.

It can't grow up into anything else. It can't become anything else. It is always aimed at death, right? And so Augustine argued that, and essentially it was the Pelagians, his arguments against the Pelagians where I think that helped to solidify his understanding of sin because they were arguing that co-cubescence is good, that you're created with these desires that are not sinful, right?

You become a sinner later on, you're not born sinful, you don't, you know, and Augustine rebukes Julian, for example, in one of his final works. And it actually was unpublished and they published it after he died.

It was unfinished. And so, but it's hundreds of pages long, it's huge. But then you get to the Reformation. By the time you get to the Reformation, both the Roman Catholics and the Protestants in the 1500s argued that co-cubescence is actual sin or it's a transgression against God, right?

So both the Roman Catholics and the Protestants were arguing that, but where they departed ways was at the Council of Trent. The argument was over what is sin in the baptized? What is sin in those who have been baptized?

Rome said that co-cubescence no longer had guilt. It no longer produced any guilt in the baptized. And they said, anybody who says otherwise, let, you know, anathema, let them go to hell. And they departed from both Augustine and Aquinas on that issue, because both of them argued that in the baptized, there was still the form of sin or there was still the relic of sin in the baptized.

And they were, you know, the people who opposed it, the Augustinians didn't win at Trent, but the people who opposed it, they argued that if there's still any form of sin in the baptized, then God must hate it.

So God must hate these individuals still. And so they, the first forum at the Council of Trent, and you can go read this in my dissertation, they quote both Augustine and Aquinas in the canon, I think it's canon five on original sin, and they quote them affirmingly.

But then the final product that actually made it into the canons of Trent, they leave out the quote of Augustine and Aquinas, like they reject the teaching of Augustine and Aquinas on this issue. And the reformers said, no, you know, sinful desire in a Christian is still sin, right?

It is still the same thing. It's just that it's imputed to Christ. Sin doesn't change in the baptized, is essentially what the Protestants argued. So sin is the same thing. It's just imputed to Christ.

And so both, so if you believe that same sex attraction is not sin, both the Roman Catholic Church, all the way up to the 1500s, and the Protestants all the way up to the early 2000s probably, would say you're a heretic.

I mean, there's no way around it. The Council of Trent would say that you're going to hell. The Protestants would say the same thing.

So Roman Catholic theology today, and I know that's not our main topic, but my understanding is they're also kind of soft on this, right, the same sex attraction.

Yes, they say that you're only culpable for what you choose. Right. And so that most of Revoice's language comes from modern Roman Catholicism.

Because I was about to say, Revoice advocates seem to always use the phrase unchosen desires. Right.

Right. Which as if that's what makes something sin, that's Pelagian. I mean, that's straight Pelagian. I mean, as if your choice determines what sin is? Like, does it matter if it's unchosen? Can an unchosen desire send you to hell?

You know, you look in the Old Testament, Israel had sacrifices for unknown sins. Right. Sins they were not aware of. Like, what is man's choice? That's Pelagian, an overemphasis on the volitional will, the capacity.

When you read Augustine, he says to starve all sin in you, starve it. I mean, that's how you fight it. Right.

You know, you starve it to death. Well, and that was the common understanding throughout all of church history and spiritual disciplines. The mortifying your sin was just a regular part of the Christian life until about five seconds ago on certain sins.

And so that's what you're dealing with. And we're all dealing with it now. So how far is this cancer that you've described that really is the overturning of all of church history and biblical theology?

How far is this gone? Because we don't hear people talking about it as much as perhaps you do, or I've certainly talked about it as well, but I'm not maybe talking about it at the level you're talking about it.

There's so few, I could count them on one hand, the people that are pointing this kind of thing out. That's a little surprising. So where are the guardians of orthodoxy? And if they're not around, then how far has this compromise taken us?

I'll just name heroes in this episode. Okay. So let's start with Kevin D. Young. Kevin D. Young, I appreciate a lot of D. Young's work, but on this subject, he has not been clear and he's actually part of the problem.

It's funny because he was on the council. So I want to say it was 2020 when Revoice, it's come to a head in the PCA. So Greg Johnson's church is a PCA church. He's a teaching elder. He was a teaching elder.

They just left about a month ago. They left the PCA, but his church would host the Revoice conference every year. So there was a big uproar in the PCA over this issue. And if you go look at it, most it's the teaching elders versus the ruling elders.

Interesting. Yeah, yeah. Which tells me that the PCA's seminaries or colleges have been producing or soft peddling this stuff. And that's why it's in the teaching elders primarily and not so much the ruling elders.

The ruling elders are more conservative than the teaching elders in the PCA generally. But looking at D. Young, and so D. Young, so they, in response to Revoice, they formed this group to kind of write the doctrine, to write this doctrinal statement responding to Revoice.

And D. Young was on that committee. So he actually had to wrestle with the history and study. And so I don't know if he still affirms this, but he has not renounced it. This is something that frustrates me with evangelical elites.

They can teach heresy. They can teach rank things that are unbiblical. And then they just ignore it. They memory hole it. They never publicly respond, you know, and it's political. There's no way biblically that you can say or never respond or never correct if you taught heresy in the past, if you taught that heinous sin was okay.

You taught something that, well, same-sex attraction is not sin. So D. Young back in 2015, and this is him answering the question, is homosexual orientation sinful? Is homosexual orientation sinful? And this is at Crossway.

So it indents Crossway. And here in a minute, I'm gonna talk about his book that is from Crossway that, again, indents Crossway in this issue, which shouldn't surprise Publishing Company Crossway, right?

What now? The Publishing Company Crossway? Yes, Publishing Company Crossway that has done so much good work over the years. I mean, you could argue that they're kind of the fountainhead of evangelicalism or at least of the reform movement of the past 20 years.

They are a big part of that. But in 2015, this is what he says.

The Bible is somewhat ambiguous about orientation as such only because orientation, that language is relatively new language. And so you're not gonna find a specific verse that talks about orientation.

What the Bible does say clearly is that to perform same-sex acts, to engage in homosexual practice or behavior is sin. Leviticus says that a man should not lie with a man as with a woman. In Romans, it talks about exchanging natural relationships, men with women, for unnatural ones with persons of the same gender.

In 1 Corinthians 6 and in 1 Timothy 1, in this vice list of sins, one of the sins mentioned are men who practice homosexuality. So the emphasis clearly is on the activity, the consciously chosen activity of homosexual intimacy.

What does that say about orientation? Well, it would certainly suggest that the desire to have a sexual desire for somebody of the same gender is sin if it arises at a level of lust, just like lust for somebody of the opposite sex would be sin.

Jesus says that in Matthew 5. And I think we go a little farther to say that the desire itself, the kind of attraction, is disordered, meaning it's not the way that God designed things from the beginning.

Now, having said that, there are many desires we may have in the Christian life that are disordered and all of us need to come daily to God in repentance for all sorts of desires. So is homosexual orientation sinful?

I wouldn't want somebody watching this who has a struggle with same-sex attraction to think that they're beyond the pale of God's mercy or forgiveness. And at the same time, to know that Scripture says clearly to act upon those and to engage in that behavior is sinful.

He says the Bible is somewhat ambiguous about orientation as such. And let me just correct. No, it's not. It's not ambiguous. Jesus said to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. If your orientation comes from any of those, it has to love God.

It can't be for same-sex attraction. You can't be oriented towards something contrary to God and it not be sin. So he says it's ambiguous about orientation as such only because that language is relatively new language.

So you're not going to find a specific verse that talks about orientation. What the Bible does say clearly is that to perform same-sex acts, to engage in homosexual practice or behavior is sin. What the Bible does say clearly, okay, so Leviticus says that a man should not lie with a man as with a woman.

In Romans, Paul talks about exchanging natural relationships, men with women for unnatural ones with persons of the same gender. In 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, a vast list of sins. One of the sins mentioned is men who practice homosexuality.

So the emphasis clearly is on the consciously chosen activity of homosexual intimacy. This is De Young. What does the Bible say about orientation? Well, it would certainly suggest that sexual desire for somebody of the same gender is sin if it arises to the level of lust.

Just like lust for somebody of the opposite sex would be sin, as Jesus says in Matthew 5. And here he is conflating heterosexuality with homosexuality. He goes on to say, is homosexual orientation sinful?

I wouldn't want somebody watching this, it's a video, who has a struggle with same-sex attraction to think that they are beyond the pale of God's mercy or forgiveness. The same time, I want them to know the scripture clearly says to act upon those attractions and to engage in that behavior is sinful, end quote.

So here he is back in 2015, arguing that same-sex attraction is not sin. He distinguishes between lust and lust of the flesh, which is something that Augustine didn't do. See, if you have a desire that's contrary to God, it is the beginning of the lust of the flesh.

It's not something else. It doesn't become lust of the flesh when you volitionally choose it. It is lust from the root to the fruit, from the seed to the deed, right? You can't distinguish morally between the two.

And in James 1, he uses this genealogy. What is the genealogy of sin? Well, you lure and entice yourself from within, and then you conceive sin, and then it leads to death, right? So he's not saying a good desire or something God produces in you becomes sin.

He's saying, no, no, no, you, it's your fault. Your flesh is what's producing this in you. If you want to understand James 1, you need to go read James 4, where he rebukes them for their desire. He says you're murdering one another because of your desires.

But here you have the young. Essentially, this is the modern Roman Catholic position on same-sex attraction that he argues. And it gets worse, because he has one of the definitive books from evangelicalism on this subject.

It's called, What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality? And it's published by Crossway. And he says there might be some neutral ground of approval or approbation that falls short of sinful desire.

A brother may be able to discern that his sister is beautiful, or a grown daughter may be able to recognize that her dad is handsome, without committing any of the wrong kind of epithemia or sinful desire.

In the same way, the person with same-sex attraction may be able to apprehend someone the same sex as beautiful or handsome without moral culpability. Now, think about that. He's comparing, you know, I have a daughter and she is beautiful.

He's comparing me believing my daughter is beautiful to someone who is sexually attracted or noticing that someone is handsome. Okay, so let me put it this way. The way that Eve looked at Adam before there was sin, Dee Young is saying that a man looking at Adam, the way that Eve first looked at Adam, is not sinful.

Right, he's putting it in the category of homosexuality because a heterosexual man can, I mean, actually I see guys even do this all the time who are into working out. They can admire the physique of another guy and it's not, and they're heterosexual, right?

They're not. So he's taking that, I guess, I know he doesn't use that example, but something as innocuous as that and then making that, putting that in the category of homosexuality to justify homosexuality, is that what you're saying?

Yes, absolutely.

He's conflating the two because it is not God's design. So God's design, me noticing that the opposite sex is beautiful, someone is objectively beautiful. Like there are tons of elderly ladies in my church that are beautiful ladies.

And by that, I don't mean anything sexual whatsoever. I mean, they're objectively beautiful. He is saying that there is an objectivity to a homosexual noticing that another man is beautiful. The problem is, is what I just said is according to God's design.

God has literally designed to where we are supposed to notice the opposite sex concerning beauty. We are not supposed to see the same sex the same way that we do the opposite sex. And that is not how Adam and Eve were designed.

It's all produced by the fall. So if there was no fall, there would be none of this, none of this argument about same-sex beauty, right? It is not same-sex beauty that draws homosexuals. I hate even using the term homosexual because that gives too much ground.

That is a modern term. It assumes ontology, that someone is ontologically a homosexual. Like this is who they are from birth. This is who, when it's just a pattern of sinful desire. I don't think, I mean, Rosaria Butterfield says this.

I don't think there's anything, there's any such thing as a homosexual. There are people with pathological sinful desires, habitual sinful desires. And we've got to redeem the language all the way back to the term homosexual.

Yeah, she actually wrote me a note on that. And I just remember, I think my response was like, I don't really know what to say or what to use. I mean, I guess you could say sodomite, but I mean, I don't know, what term do you use?

What I try to say is people who are having same-sex desires. Okay. Because then it put, so we've also used this language, like I experience, like it's happening to them. I experienced same-sex attraction, or which they're trying to take their responsibility away from having the desire.

They're the ones having the desire. Right. And so having, I say having same-sex attraction desires or having desires of same-sex attraction.

Because I know in certain versions, like arsenokoites, and what's the other word? For effeminate men, I'm trying to remember the word for that. The Greek terms, it can be translated as homosexuality. I mean, that's how some modern translators have approached it at least.

If you were on those committees though, you would suggest using the phrase, people who experience same-sex attraction though, or desires that are same-sex.

Possibly. But I love it if they put homosexuality because it rebukes it in toto, right? I mean, because the argument that DeYoung is making is that only the behavior is sinful, not the desire for the behavior.

Yeah. Okay, so this is, I know we just got in the weeds a little bit on the term homosexuality, but like what you just said about DeYoung might be earth-shaking for some people in the reformed world especially who think DeYoung is, he's not woke, right?

He's not like these other guys who are out in left field. He's the opposite of Tim Keller. He's a force for good in the PCA. And you're telling us that, well, not so fast. There's some compromise here.

That's, I mean, have you had reactions from people when you mentioned Kevin DeYoung's name or maybe some of the other names you're about to mention where they're just, they're in disbelief, they have a hard time accepting that?

Oh, yeah, yeah. And I mean, I get it. There are heroes, heroes in the faith that folks have benefited from for years. They've listened to maybe hundreds of sermons and they've never heard this stuff and they haven't read his book.

Or if they have read his book, they did not at the time have enough of biblical material on the subject to be able to rebuke it or their radar might not have been up because of who they were reading. And so people are shocked, people are surprised, but DeYoung has never went back on any of this, which is very frustrating.

He's a precursor to revoice. I mean, this book is a precursor to revoice. In my opinion, you don't get revoice without all these evangelical leaders compromising on this subject. The reason why you have tons, I mean, the teaching elders in the PCA, for example, you have so many who are not biblical on this subject is because of leaders like DeYoung.

And it's frustrating because these guys should know better. These guys should know better from the very simple command of Jesus. Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Anything that's contrary to that is sin. I don't care if you chose it. Quit talking about yourself. I mean, as if you choosing it has anything to do. The question is, is it obedient to God? Is it obedient?