Reviewing a Patheos Article from the UK

The dividing line. I have no video here today whatsoever. Oh, there we go. If you're happy that I'm not wearing just a plain old t-shirt, you can thank a brother from New Hampshire. I came into the office today and there were four brand new shirts waiting for me and they're really nice.

They're from the UK, I think. And so I couldn't keep wearing just a plain old Mount Lemmon t-shirt. And so here we go. We look a little more respectable. It's because someone was kind enough to drop some real nice.

The rest of them are long sleeve shirts. I think at least two of them are long sleeve shirts. Anyways, looking forward to getting those and using those in the future. Thank you very much. On the program today, lots of things to get to.

I was just noticing an article in Modern Reformation magazine authored by Adrian Warnock on the subject of continuationism in the church. That made me all the more interested in the article that I was directed to that was published in Patheos about what, two weeks ago?

Somewhere around in there. Why Christians Should Support International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia. Also by Adrian Warnock. We had a rather surface level exchange on Twitter yesterday that troubled me.

And I think once we work through the article, you'll see why it should trouble us because I think it represents a fundamental degradation of commitment to scriptural authority in the United Kingdom and in Europe as a whole, which is not anything new, but it is definitely something that we should be aware of.

The Image of God, Homosexuality, and Christian Love

Looking at the article, today is commemorated around the world as the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia. I somehow missed the note on that. In this article, I want to persuade you that Christians should support such a day and speak out against violence, against gay people, against discrimination, and against rejection.

We should instead offer an olive branch of love to these human beings as made in the image of God and people for whom Jesus died. Well, let me just start off. Obviously, the terms homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia are terms that have been coined by the homosexualist movement and used as a bat to abuse anyone who would dare to say that homosexuality is an aberrant sexual orientation behavior.

Anyone who dares to stand for biblical morality will be called a homophobe, or a biphobe, or a transphobe, or whatever, despite the fact these words have almost no meaning. I mean, I suppose there might be a tiny small percentage of people somewhere that have an irrational fear of whatever.

I mean, homophobia would be an irrational fear of other males, which would be ridiculous, or of transgendered people. But the movement itself fails, and purposefully fails, and some of the people specifically mentioned here, like Matthew Vines, market the rejection of any meaningful use of those terms whatsoever.

They absolutely support the utilization of those terms in the most irrational fashion, so as to use them to shut down critical discussion, and critical thought, and dialogue on the subject of homosexuality.

So, immediately, that's never mentioned. Mr. Warnock does not, Dr. Warnock, he's a medical doctor as I understand, Dr. Warnock does not even note the fact that, well, of course, we have to get over the fact that around the world, 99 of the utilization of these terms is inappropriate, and used as an anti-christian mechanism, but we should still celebrate the day.

Speak out against violence against gay people. Well, I don't know of anyone, well, okay, I'll take that back. Okay, again, you've got the small, radical, wild people in the mountains of Arkansas or someplace that might, well, you've got Steven Anderson, you've got nutcases like Steven Anderson, okay, but we recognize the nutcases on both sides, take them out, and no one is talking about going out and beating up gay people.

And then it says against discrimination, in what way? Discrimination means to make choices. A church should discriminate against all forms of unrepentant of sinful behavior. We cannot exist without discrimination.

Discrimination is a good thing. When I turn a corner, I discriminate and drive in the right lane, I discriminate against the left lane. Now, of course, he's British, so that might have something to do with all this, but the point is, discrimination is a word that has been completely removed from its meanings and turned into this pliable thing that you can use simply to attack anyone who disagrees with you.

And so when it says against discrimination, what do you mean by that? In employment? Well, how about in the church? How about what's being forced upon, the fact that Christian groups being forced off of university campuses on the basis of discrimination, that Christian groups can be forced to employ homosexuals or to put homosexuals in position of leadership, even though it's directly against their fundamental beliefs.

How about that? Should we be forced to have atheists as president of the local Christian college? Is that quote-unquote discrimination? So what do we mean by discrimination? And against rejection, what do you mean by rejection?

Rejection of what? Rejection of homosexuality as something that God designs for people? We're not supposed to reject that? Rejection in what way? I need to know what we're talking about. Are you talking about rejection as in not being willing to speak the truth and love to people?

You see, this kind of surface level, shallow terminology is being used as a cover for the attack upon the Christian faith. It's an attack upon the Christian church demanding that we change our theology.

And unfortunately, it seems that Dr. Warnock is celebrating that later on in the article. He's celebrating that the church is changing. But in what way? That's what's frightening here. And then, of course, we should instead offer an olive branch of love to these human beings as made in the image of God.

Well, of course, they're made in the image of God. Everyone's made in the image of God. That does not change the reality that, according to Romans chapter one, they are suppressing the truth of God and perverting that image.

And that image of God is never, ever, ever honored or expressed in a homosexual relationship. It is damaging the image of God. And there's nothing in this article that would say to the homosexual, you are specifically perverting, damaging, destroying, and denigrating the image of God in the seeking the relationships that you seek.

There's nothing there. Makes me wonder if Dr. Warnock even believes that that works that way. I have no earthly idea. And people for whom Jesus died. Well, we can get into discussion of the atonement at another point.

I was speaking to a friend recently who told me that when he comes out as a Christian, he finds it harder than when he comes out as gay. His experience is that people are not happier to accept him as gay than as Christian.

And of course, from my perspective, we're talking about two contradictory things here. I don't believe any Christian should ever, ever define himself by sexual desire. And if a person has same sex attraction, and I believe this is a small minority of homosexuals that actually truly have only experienced that.

Um, no Christian should ever identify himself as gay because that fundamentally communicates God made me this way. And it's a good thing. This is the way he's made me. This is the way that I am to function.

This is no one who takes the Bible seriously can possibly come to that conclusion without in essence, overthrowing all scriptural sufficiency and all scriptural authority. Um, anyway, his experience is that people are not happy to accept him as gay than as Christian, but that what, what baffles others most is when my friend comes out as both gay and Christian at the same time, we've got to the point in the culture wars where too many, it now seems impossible that someone might both have a homosexual orientation and be convinced by the claims of Christ.

I, I would, I would agree with that, uh, in the sense of embracing a homosexual orientation as a God-given gift, as something that is natural, as something that is appropriate, something that's proper.

I'm not talking about those who recognize that this is, this is a disorder that it is inappropriate. It is not honoring to God. It is not, it is not something that is reflective of his creative purpose, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

Cultural Collapse, Alan Turing, and Sexual Ethics

Uh, unfortunately, as we get, unfortunately, you have to get toward the end of the article before you really start seeing what's being said, which is, which is a bit of a shame. Um, I'm convinced that this is less about the beliefs many Christians share and more about the perception the church has given.

Now, um, it does seem to me that especially, uh, in, in the UK, there has been a tremendous collapse on the part of the large portion of what calls itself evangelicalism in regards to, uh, perception of society, uh, and determining theology and practice by perception of, of society rather than by biblical norms.

Um, part of that comes from the degradation of the view of the Bible, uh, that is so common in most UK education, unfortunately, but, uh, bid as it may, we'll see, as we'll come out a little bit more within the lifespan of many serving pastors today, society as a whole has changed in a remarkable way on how it treats gay people.

Yes, there has been a massive moral and ethical revolution, but I don't see how anybody can call it anything less than an utter, complete collapse and utter rejection of the Christian tradition, especially in the UK that had stood for so many centuries.

I mean, the, the entire view of marriage, sexuality, gender, the Bible has been rejected as a source or a guide for any of those things. It is now absolute moral chaos. Uh, it's not just, it's not just changed.

It has reversed course toward utter anarchy, how the church responds. These changes become a crucial issue that affects her witness more than any other today. Well, how the church responds to these changes.

So the church needs to be defined by the culture it lives in, or by its faithfulness to what God has called her to be. That's one of the questions I would ask. Um, then you have a story about Alan Turing and the, and it's amazing the, uh, relevance of movies.

I remember I mentioned just what last week, uh, that a movie had been used and in a fallacious and false way in testimony in regards to the New Jersey, uh, law outlawing, taking away the freedom of, uh, of people to be able to seek help if they do not want to experience homosexual attraction, you're not allowed to do that anymore.

Um, and that the homosexualists had lied that a person had testified before the Senate committee and had pretended to have experienced all these horrible things, shock treatment and all the rest of this stuff.

Uh, and it was all from a movie, a 1999 movie. Well, now you've got the imitation game and Alan Turing and how brilliant Alan Turing was and that Alan Turing took his life, uh, because it was illegal, uh, to be involved in the lifestyle of homosexuality in England.

And he goes on to say in some States in USA laws against homosexual sex remain on the statute books, although in practice they are not enforced. Um, Adrian really, uh, we make, I'm sure we make this mistake when talking about things in the UK, but, um, all those laws were struck down by the Supreme court quite some time ago.

So it doesn't matter whether they're on statute books or not. Um, they were struck down, uh, when the Texas law was struck down, uh, quite some time ago. So that's irrelevant. Uh, it is hard for modern Western people to imagine a world where someone could be arrested and sent to prison for practicing gay sex.

Why? I mean, um, let's, let's just fast forward in the future, 15 years, will we be reading Adrian Warnock or someone else writing? It is hard for most, for modern Western people to imagine a world where someone could be arrested and sent to prison for practicing intergenerational sex.

Uh, how about it is hard for modern Western people to imagine a world where someone could be arrested and sent to prison for practicing incest or practicing bestiality. Um, what's the difference other than where we are in time, where we are in this, this, this complete collapse of cultural and ethical morality.

What, what, what does it matter where you are in the free fall? It doesn't make any difference. Does it? I can't see how it does. Um, there was a day when you would be arrested, uh, for adultery. There, there, there was a day when that was illegal.

And does that, what, what does, I suppose this has a whole lot to do with the relationship between God's law and, and national law. But are you suggesting that the law, and notice it says Western Christians, the Western people, I'm sorry, are you suggesting that it has always been improper for any nation to enforce sexual purity laws?

Was it wrong for Israel to do that? If so, why? Just, just a question that seems to be underlying all of this. Harder still to appreciate, harder still to appreciated that. I think it's, I think there, that shouldn't be, I think harder still to appreciate that was only in 1861 that in the UK, the law was changed that the penalty for what was then commonly called buggery or sodomy was no longer death by hanging.

Okay. Yep. That's the way it was. Um, I'm not sure when those things changed in the United States, but the question is, are you saying a nation does not have that right? Based upon what? I mean, obviously if the vast majority of the people in a nation do not view themselves, do not believe that there is a God and do not believe themselves to be just basically animals, uh, then law is going to be just dependent upon whatever man decides and thinks and feels.

Do you think that the Christians who passed those laws in the 16th, 17th, 18th centuries were evil people? Just questions. Um, because I mean, there are people today that would like to see pretty much everything decriminalized every form of drug use, sexual behavior.

Um, you know, I mean, I just don't, I don't know where the, you know, when, when the anarchy just gets to such a level that common sense prevails again, but there's lots of people that want to change all sorts of laws and decriminalize all sorts of behavior.

What's the standard? How do you, how do you even know what the standard is supposed to be? I'm not sure. I mean, I'm not an expert on Adrian Warnock theology, so I don't know. I mean, almost, almost all that I know about Adrian Warnock, I learned after the strange fire conference, uh, and listened to the back and forth.

I mean, that really wasn't relevant to this very much. And yet globally, there are many nations where homosexual activity remains illegal. Some where gay people may still be executed by the state as a penalty for their crime.

Well, um, why did you put crime in parenth in, uh, apostrophes? Uh, again, we, we recognize it's all Islamic countries, at least Islamic countries that are even pretending to practice any form of Sharia.

Um, this is the case there. There are few other countries that criminalize that activity, but do you not think that they have the right to do that? Again, take out homo and notice where gay people, I, I question where you, it seems there's been a complete collapse already on how the Bible defines people as image bearers of God, not defined by their sexual behaviors and how the quote unquote homosexual community, a phrase I utterly reject.

You, you, you can't have a human community based upon aberrant sexual desire and behavior. It's just not that, that is demeaning to God, his creation and to man himself. It may be very common in our society, but again, what's common in our society today is moral and ethical insanity.

Our society calls what is black, white, and white, black, good, evil, and evil, good. So maybe part of my assumption here and where I'm getting in trouble here is that I'm assuming a commitment to biblical authority that may not be there because it just seems like what we've got here is, well, I'm trying to hold on to biblical authority, but the society is demanding that I, I accept these things.

And maybe that's where part of my problem is. I don't know. Um, okay. Uh, I know of no Christian in the West who would advocate homosexual sex, becoming illegal once more in our countries, still less that the punishment should be death.

Well, that depends on whether your society desires God's blessing or doesn't. Um, are you saying that a country could not be so focused upon seeking to walk before God properly, that that country would do what our country did and what England did and said, said it should be illegal to engage in incest, to engage in polygamy, to engage in homosexuality, uh, to, to engage in bestiality.

These things are detrimental to individuals, family, society as a whole, and therefore should be illegal. Are you saying that that's not a possibility or that it's just, or what you're saying is there are so few Christians left in England or in Western society as a whole, that it is impossible for those standards to exist because these are fundamentally unregenerate, rebellious, God-hating cultures that are begging for God's judgment to come upon them.

And that our role is to prophetically announce the coming of the wrath of God, uh, and call people to flee. And the only place to flee is to Jesus Christ. And maybe that's what you're saying. I don't know.

Sure. I would imagine I didn't look, but I would imagine Patheos has a real limit on article sizes and stuff and could be things like that. Um, but it all depends on whether you believe that the laws of a land should have a meaningful basis that reflects what God has revealed is appropriate for mankind.

And so would you say, I know of no Christian in the West would advocate, um, intergenerational sex should be illegal, should be illegal. So would you advocate that, uh, incest should be, that should be okay.

Uh, bestiality, pedophilia on what basis? What's the difference? Because I almost never get meaningful discussions on this because when you raise this with a homosexual advocate, they just, their, their emotions just explode.

How dare you compare these things? And I just go, calm down, turn, turn the emotions off, try to turn the brain back on. Let's be human beings instead of just animals that are just controlled by their, their emotions.

And let's ask the question, what's the difference? There are people today, scholars with degrees, writing papers saying that intergenerational sex, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, they're all just sexual orientations, just like homosexuality.

And the people promoting those things are using the exact same tactics and the exact same arguments. And I just want to go, why is that wrong? And all the time I go, well, it hurts people. And I get these, I get these utterly arbitrary, um, muttered things just said quick enough to move on to the, try to move on to the next topic rather than a reasoned, thoughtful explanation, which would expose the fact that a fundamental assumption has been made.

And that is that there is something from a biblical perspective that is wholesome, good, appropriate, proper, positive in homosexual desire and action. And every time I've asked someone, you want to try to make a biblical case for that?

I can't. Everyone has to admit there is not a single positive word about homosexual behavior in scripture. And the best thing they can say is, yeah, well, the scripture writers didn't know about what we know about today.

Well, so much for the inspiration of scripture and scriptural sufficiency. Just go ahead and check it out the window because you don't believe in it. You telling me Jesus didn't know about this stuff?

You telling me Holy Spirit didn't know about those things? He who searches the deep things of God is going, wow, I didn't know. Look at, look at that. Now that, now that the, uh, you know, all the psychologists have come along, well, we didn't know.

No, there's, there's not anything positive there. So you have to fundamentally be elevating this behavior and this, this desire, accepting the idea that this is an orientation and not a choice. And like I said, even if someone properly experiences only properly in the sense of in their experience, only experiences same sex attraction.

And I believe that number to be small, maybe at max 20 of the homosexual movement at max. I mean, I'm being extremely generous there. So you're talking about 0 .03 of the, of the population upon which we are for their sake, changing everything, destroying marriage, destroying families, putting children in situations where they do not either have a father or a mother and just, just engaging in the most intense moral insanity that's ever been seen on the planet for the sake of 0 .03 of the population.

But even for them, just because you have the desire is not a moral factor in the behavior. We may well have desires for all sorts of things. There are people who have, who are just constitutionally given to anger, but the Bible says we're creating God's image.

We're not animals. We don't have to do what we feel. We can transcend that because we have been made in the image of God. So you look at all this, it's like there, there seems to be a complete collapse on the idea that, well, yeah, you know, yeah, it's, it's not a choice.

And, you know, we can talk about gay Christians and so on and so forth. Christians, Christians, uh, would do well to add their voices to campaigns, the repeal of such anti-homosexual legislation. We must speak out for true tolerance everywhere.

So should we be, should, so is it your perspective that we should also be seeking true tolerance for pedophilia, bestiality, incest for all of these? Or is that, must that wait until the society changes?

And then we promote the tolerance of that. That's what I'd like to know. We must speak out for true tolerance everywhere. Well, uh, true tolerance for, should we be speaking out for true tolerance for continuing to liberalize divorce laws so that it has, it becomes, you know, everywhere, every, every nation that's true tolerance, just a question we have to ask.

God loves everybody and teaches us to do the same. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I mean, are you saying God's love is equal for every single individual? You know, like Moses, Pharaoh, equal, always makes me wonder because theology matters.

And when I hear someone say, you know, doing the peanut butter love thing, God just loves everybody equal. Um, I'd go the Bible and I go, well, he has a specific people that he has. Even till today in more liberal and theoretically accepting societies like America and the UK, gay people are stigmatized, verbally abused, and even sometimes physically attacked because their sexual orientation.

It seems that Dr. Warnock has completely purchased lock, stock, and barrel the entirety of the pro gay rhetorical stuff. You know, Matthew Shepard, now the story comes out, gosh, it looks like the guys that killed him, uh, he'd had sex with them and means they are, well, I guess they might've been gay.

Um, but, but we can't talk about that. No, no, no, not allowed to talk about that. Not allowed to talk about that. And we're not allowed to talk about homosexual violence against heterosexuals. And so instead it's, it's all just the one thing, the one perspective, um, Christians should stand up for them and argue strongly for fair treatment for all.

Well, if you actually believe that the law should be applied, that the law a needs a proper moral foundation and B needs to be applied all the way across the board, that's a given, that's a given, but it also needs to be applied to the homosexual.

Who does these things? Uh, I am thoroughly 1000 opposed to every hate crime law, period. You know why? Because the law should be the law. And from a Christian worldview, these laws are insane because they require a judge to be able to see into your heart, which the Bible tells us only God can do.

And if you haven't already figured out that these hate crimes laws are now being used and will be used against us, then you haven't been paying attention. Um, did it, did it, did it? We must speak out for the persecuted, the oppressed, for the minority.

Imagine day in the church is known for its love for gay people. How would that, what would that look like? Dr. Warnock, how do Christians show love for someone? Doesn't that require speaking the truth to them?

What amazes me is there's nothing in this article anywhere about repentance on the part of homosexuals. Nowhere. Only people have to repent here are Christians. And while Christians may have much to repent for, if you're not doing, if you're not calling homosexuals to repent, do you really love them at all?

That's my question. Do you really love them at all? We must speak out for the persecuted. Well, that would primarily be Christians in Islamic lands today, actually, and in North Korea, places like that.

Uh, that's where the primary persecution is. Um, how about, how about the people that are losing their jobs for continuing to believe that marriage between a man and woman, the way Jesus taught it, do you include them in the persecuted for the minority?

How about believing Christians who still stand firm on this? That's minority. That's a minority. And imagine a day of the church is known for its love for gay people. Dr. Warnock, you've bought the society here, lock stock and barrel, shutting your mouth about the need for repentance and the wrath of God that comes upon homosexuality is not showing love.

That's how the world defines love. Not how the Bible defines love. Look to the cross for how the Bible defines love. God's wrath coming upon his son in its fullness. Christian, when you think of gay people, what is your immediate thought?

Is it revulsion? Do you avoid them? Do you angrily denounce them? Notice it's all them, them, them as if there's nothing that they can do about who they are. Again, completely bought the world's paradigm here.

There is no ATA in first Corinthians 611. I even asked about this on Twitter yesterday. I didn't really get much of a response there. I didn't get much response at all. ATA being such were some of you, sorry.

Then you are contributing to the notion our society now has that Christians hate gay people. Dr. Warnock, as long as our society is in rebellion against God, refuses to submit to God's law and to God's way, they will always redefine love into its opposite.

We as Christians should be proclaiming what true love actually is, which is speaking the truth, not compromising. You do not compromise God's truth and by that show love to anyone. It's not possible. It's not possible.

It is no longer considered to be acceptable to feel such animosity towards people who are of a different race. Why should it be acceptable to react in such a way toward those of a different orientation?

There is the complete capitulation on Dr. Warnock's part to the most vacuous, ridiculous element of the pro-homosexual movement. That is the absurd parallel of civil rights regarding race to homosexuality.

If I were a, well, I almost am an ethnic minority, at least not here anymore. I almost am an ethnic minority, but if I were, I would find, and I know many, a black Christian here in the United States that finds this thinking to be so rabidly offensive.

And it is. It is. Oh, it is. Here you have sexual behavior specifically marked out in scripture as to eva in God's sight, being paralleled with the skull, the color of one's skin, the color of one's skin.

I know it's been accepted. That doesn't make it right. It's still stupidity exemplified. It really is. I mean, just because even the majority on the Supreme court obviously have bought that argument, it's not because a single one of them could ever defend it in a meaningful fashion.

It's just, it's been repeated and we don't want to think too much. And so we accept it. There's how can anyone who speaks the gospel buy into such, such thinking? I don't, I don't get it. God created all the races.

I guess you have to believe that now God created every kind of person, which includes homosexuals and people who want to have sex with dogs and people who want to have sex with their grandmother and everything.

Oh, you can't parallel them. Yes, I can. Yes, I can. I have to, there has to be a moral and ethical foundation. And just simply moving the line over here and saying, oh, we can't talk about that. And then you move the line.

Oh, we can't talk about that and move a little bit. By the time it's over here, there's no time to talk about anything anymore. There is no parallel. This statement is absolutely morally bankrupt. It's bankrupt.

There it is. The way the church has treated gay people historically has not been her finest hour. Again, this is like straight out of the Matthew Vines playbook. I mean, this is complete capitulation and just in passing.

You know, I'm thankful Michael Brown isn't following this direction, but it does seem to me, does seem to me that a lot of people who fundamentally compromise on sola scriptura with new revelation don't seem to be finding a solid ground to stand on this issue.

And when you're just repeating Matthew Vines here, word for word, the way the church has treated gay people historically has not been her finest hour. There is no doubt in my mind that Christians will one day look back on this previous approach.

Previous approach of what? Hasn't even been defined. Previous approach of defining homosexuality as sinful, self-destructive, as representative of the creator-creation distinction being blurred and twisted by the effect of sin, which is Paul's entire argument in Romans 1.

Of having actually believed 1 Corinthians 6 .11, such were some of you. But now, there's no doubt in my mind that Christians will one day look back on this previous approach with the same degree of shame and embarrassment currently felt over the church's history with slavery, racism, and apartheid.

Wow. Again, straight out of the pro-homosexual playbook. Total capitulation here. Total capitulation. No discussion of the different kinds of slavery. I hate when this happens. I hate when this happens.

Totally giving in to the idea that slavery in the Bible and slavery in the South are the same thing. That shows such rabid ignorance of history. Of what was going on with the Hebrews in comparison was going on.

It just. It just. Are you saying there was actually a biblical foundation for racism? Where? Where? How? You telling me that the exegetical foundation that I can provide that demonstrates that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes that needs to be redeemed by the precious blood of Christ is the same as someone might have used for racism or apartheid?

If you think that, let's schedule a debate because that will be the easiest one I've ever done. That would be the easiest debate I've ever done because that is just. That's absurd on a level it's difficult for me to comprehend.

The "Pray the Gay Away" Critique and the Appeal to Ex-Gay Testimonies

It's amazing. Absolutely amazing. In particular, there is no question that the pray the gay away movement offered a misguided and dangerous view that a homosexual orientation was always a choice. It could be easily changed by counseling.

Wow. The pray the gay away movement. I guess that what that means is it now what we can do thanks to. Thanks to Alan Chambers. Is you can look at all of the people who have invested their lives in helping people to overcome their same sex attraction.

Are just part of the pray the gay away movement. The simplistic, the simplistic type little thing. This is straight out of the playbook, folks. Just get used to it. You're going to see authors, well-known authors, contributor to modern reformation, repeating the pro-homosexual rhetoric straight out of the playbook, not making the necessary differentiation, ignoring the testimonies of those who have, in fact, found deliverance from same sex attraction in the Lordship of Christ.

Oh, can't, no, can't have them. Nope, nope, nope, can't have them. The simple fact is that many gay Christians were driven to despair by thinking they were the only ones who are unable to confirm, should be conformed to the heterosexual expectations being placed on them.

Now, notice again, just the assumption, gay Christian, incestuous Christian, adulterous Christian, thievery Christian, just you can put anything on Christian and it's okay. As if I can define Christianity, I reject it.

We're driven to despair. Now here's, here's this. You see, if you, if you say something's wrong, then you're driving people to despair. So, you know, Christians who just have to engage in, in multiple sexual encounters with people, polyamorous Christians, driven to despair if you read Matthew chapter 19 to them.

So what do you do? Well, if you love people, you won't read Matthew chapter 19 to them. That, that monogamous expectation being placed on them drove them to despair. It's the church's fault, the church's fault.

And there are Christians that just simply weren't made by God to believe in property laws. They just have a liberal view of the possession of things. And so the thieving Christian, the thieving Christian is shown such hatred by the church because the church dares to say that theft is wrong and they're driven to despair.

It's the church's fault instead of the reality that it is the day by day grind of suppressing the natural revelation of God's truth upon the part of those who in their inner self have been twisted at that very point of self-identification as to gender and sexuality that destroys human beings.

That's the difference between a Christian answer and a non-Christian answer. But today, many Christians are giving non-Christian answers as to why these things are. Meanwhile, even the leaders of the so-called ex-gay organizations hid the uncomfortable secret.

See, Alan Chambers, let's, let's wave the Alan Chambers thing. I mean, I, especially the end of this, I don't know if Matthew Vines wrote it or Adrian Warnock wrote it. The same, it's the same rhetoric, the same stuff.

Meanwhile, even leaders of so-called ex-gay organizations hid the uncomfortable secret that change from exclusively homosexual orientation to exclusively heterosexual orientation almost never occurs.

I'm glad I said almost never occurs. Most of them would say never occurs. It's a good thing that such an approach has now virtually disappeared. Really? I suppose if you're just talking about the pray the gay away movement, but I guess there's no discussion of the serious people who have experienced redemption in their lives.

They don't exist. So it's good. But it leaves in its wake thousands of damaged, hurting people, many of whom never want to go near a church again. It's all the church's fault. Has nothing to do, nothing at all to do with a perversion of the sexual orientation internally due to sin.

No, no, no. How dare anyone even think that? The church owes, now here, the church owes an apology to people like Vicki Beeching and Matthew Vines, the overly harsh way they describe having been treated.

They describe having been treated. Dr. Warnock, I responded to Matthew Vines after his video came out years ago, five hour response, played every word he said and responded just as I did with David Gushy recently.

And it was a thorough response I did not call for anyone to be violent toward Matthew Vines, but I honestly identified the young man as a heretic seeking to fundamentally undercut the gospel of Jesus Christ and to damage the church of Jesus Christ.

Now I have to ask you, Dr. Warnock, is that what he is? Or is Matthew Vines your brother in Christ? I'd like to know. In fact, if you happen to be listening, you said you were going to catch the, I don't know if you listen a lot, maybe you're just writing these things down for a future article or something, but if you could, I'd like to know, do you believe that Vicki Beeching and Matthew Vines are your brothers and sisters in Christ?

That would say a lot. I'd like to know. That would say everything. That would say everything. Many people, having listened to my thorough refutation of Vines' original video that was very surface level, was dependent primarily upon Boswell, Skaggs, Skanzonian, Mullencott, other people like that.