J.D. Greear's Mishandling of Romans 1:24-32

Well, hello again, and welcome to the Conversations That Matter podcast. I am John Harris, and I have a guest with me today, my Assault Bible, otherwise known as the Preacher's Bible, which MacArthur put out I think about a year and a half ago.

It's got great margins in it, really holds up. I think it's like sheepskin. I just wanted to brag, that's why I brought that up. But if you're listening, you'll just have to take my word for it. It's very heavy, it's very nice, and I'm going to be using it.

If you are listening in and can get to a place where you can read a Bible or open a tab in your browser and pull up a Bible, it may be helpful, because we're going to be reviewing a sermon today. If you're driving, please don't do that.

I don't want anyone going off the road. We're going to be reviewing a sermon called How the Fall Affects Us All, and I have some notes on it. It's from Romans 1, 24 through 32, and it was preached on Sunday, the 27th of January at Summit Church in Durham, North Carolina, by J .D. Greer, and for those who don't know, he is the president right now of the Southern Baptist Convention.

There's some really dangerous stuff in this sermon. If you are listening and you're a member of the PCA and you're familiar with the Revoice Conference and what's happening in the PCA, you may know where this is going.

If you're part of the Southern Baptist Convention, you may not yet, but mark my words, you will know, and I think within a year you will know, about gay Christianity, which is really the topic we're going to be talking about.

I want to be careful. I want to give you my starting point here. I am not trying to play criticize the pastor. I'm not starting from that angle. In fact, I have a dad in ministry. I am friends with people that are in ministry, and I know how harmful it is when someone rates the sermon A, B, C, F, especially based on emotional considerations and not biblical considerations.

That being said, it is important, though, to have discernment, and I do care about J .D. Greer. I do care about the Southern Baptist Convention, and I'm very concerned, and I haven't seen a lot of pushback online.

I'm not sure if it's because people haven't heard this sermon yet, the word hasn't gotten out, or if it's because the word has gotten out and people have listened, and I know I've seen a few comments like this online, they just didn't understand why it was a problem, and they may have a biblical view on homosexuality, but they just didn't see what Greer, the fast one, if you will, Greer is pulling here, and Greer may not even be aware himself exactly what he's getting into or where it leads.

I want to go through this step by step, and I want to be careful. In fact, pull up the sermon and listen to it if you want before listening to me or after listening to me. See if what I say is true. Better yet, get the transcript.

It'll be the first link in the info section here. I started listening, I got about 20 minutes in, and I stopped, and I decided to just get the transcript and I read it because I want to deal objectively with the facts.

What did he say? How does it compare to scripture? Not what is his personality, what were his mannerisms, so I'm not going to be playing a clip of his and then responding, I'm going to be reading something he said, and I think it's just better to proceed that way.

He does say homosexuality is a sin, you need to know that, but he is open to, or I should say he opens his audience to a mild form of gay Christianity, and I'm going to use an analogy. It's like a ladder.

If it's a 20-rung ladder, he brings us up 18 rungs, and then he says, don't go up those last two. That's gay Christianity. Don't go to the top. But he gives the foundation for accepting gay Christianity in his sermon.

It's there. He brings his audience to the cliff, and if the whole Southern Baptist Convention is listening, he brings all of them to the cliff, and then he says, don't jump. And that's where we're at.

And so I want to show kind of how we got here and analyze this, because he uses some language that I would consider to be, the word is sneaky. I'm not sure if he's intending to be sneaky, but it comes off sneaky and it is a Trojan horse, I'm afraid.

The Missing Context of Romans 1 and Romans 2

So here are the problems before I get into the specifics. He's preaching a different sermon than what the passage supports. So that's not exegesis. He probably thinks it is. His church probably thinks it is, but it's not exegesis.

He, you know, look at the title, How the Fall Affects Us All, Romans 1, 24 -32. Is Romans 1, 24 -32 about how the fall affects us all? No. In fact, there's a specific group in Romans 1, there's a specific group in Romans 2, and then in Romans 3, a new group is introduced, the redeemed.

Romans 1, the immoral and righteous, truth suppressors. Romans 2, the moral and righteous, they have the law, but they're still sinning. And then those who are under grace. And he just kind of mixes them all up.

He doesn't even mention that there's a difference between these audiences, these groups, I should say. So he gets the context all wrong from the beginning. The title gives that away. Number two, he essentially destroys Paul's argument in Romans 1, because he redefines what Paul is talking about.

Paul is talking about a decline into depravity, those who suppress the truth, exchange the truth of God for a lie, worship the creation, not the creator. They fall into all these horrible sins, these horrible practices.

They give hearty approval for those who do them. And Greer basically says, well, sins are afflictions we don't choose. Well, Paul's talking about all these choices. This is what they did. This is what they did.

This is what they did. And here's where they ended up. I gave them over in judgment. And these sins are the judgment. Greer just says, you know, hey, Christians, non-Christians, all of us, one group, we all have these sins and we didn't choose them.

Okay, that flies in the face of Paul's entire argument. He says homosexuality is a special category. He doesn't use those words, but that's the concept he conveys. And the reason for that is because he minimizes it by comparing it to other sins.

First, every sin's the same. You struggle with overeating, homosexuality, you know, they're all the same. But he then says, at one point he says, we should be the fiercest advocate for LGBT plus rights.

Now, think about this. Would you ever say, well, we should be the fiercest advocate for racists' rights? We should be the fiercest advocates for pornography for his rights, adulterers' rights, murderers' rights, liars' rights.

We would never say that. It sounds weird coming out of my mouth. But an exception is made for homosexuality in Greer's thinking. Why is that? Why is that? So there's a bad method, a bad doctrine, and a bad result in this sermon.

Now he's a smart guy. So how does he do this? How does he introduce this Trojan horse? Well, let's walk through the section on this. I'm going to use his transcript for clarity's sake, and it is linked, so you can go check that out.

But he starts off fairly decent. He says, homosexuality is not the worst sin, but it is the clearest example of elevating our desires over God's design, which is interesting because it almost seems like he contradicts that later in his message.

But he says, yeah, it's this clear example. And yeah, it's not the only example. There are other examples in the passage of desires that contradict the design of God. Okay, good. Right? Not bad. He starts off that way.

But then he quickly gets into not the greatest territory. He starts down the slope, as it were, almost immediately by quoting Romans 1, 26 -27, which is obviously, we love Romans 1, 26 -27. In fact, I'm going to flip there right now, and I'm going to read it for you.

I'm reading out of the NASB. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions, for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural. And in the same way, also the men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty in their error.

So this is judgment. This is flipping the created order. Homosexuality is flipping God's design, and it's part of God's judgment. Greer does not focus on that, though. So the next word out of his mouth is, we in the church haven't done a great job talking about this or a great job caring for those going through this.

Now that may be true, but that's not what Paul's talking about. In fact, Paul's using this as an example of depravity and judgment. It's a slide into depravity. Greer doesn't mention this ever. He starts off with, church has been bad.

Now I'm taking this opportunity because a lot of advocates of gay Christianity like to beat on the church and say, hey, the church has been bad for 2000 years and we're the ones getting this right now.

We got to correct these issues. It sounds kind of like a corporate apology, and C .S. Lewis has a great article on corporate apologies. I'll put that in my second link in the info section. He's not talking about homosexuality, but he essentially says, if you start to enjoy giving apologies, it's not good.

There's a pride behind it. And he's talking about those who would be apologizing for England for foreign policy or whatever in the late 30s, early 40s, whenever he wrote it. But yes, corporate apologies, apologizing for the group that you're in, are not always a good thing.

And I can't get into Greer's heart, but the question is in my mind, what was his attitude when he said this? And I know I said I didn't want to evaluate his mannerisms, but this is where I guess content and mannerism kind of overlap.

Was Greer broken hearted that the bride of Christ has been stained for so long with not treating this sin the way that it should, that she should? Or is Greer almost, you know, is he giddy? Is he glad to just kind of throw the church under the bus and now, hey, I'm going to move on.

I'm going to show you a better way here. It's something worth asking because why else would you say in a passage about the depravity of rejecting God, what he says to, and gets off on that foot. That's not where we're camping though.

That's not the main issue. That's just something I thought I should at least mention. So then Greer quotes Romans 1, 29 through 31, and that passage says being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, et cetera.

Let's jump down to verse 32, this list of sinful things. And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

So the list in Romans chapter 1, 29 through 31 is about those who are filled with these things and they're giving hearty approval for these things. So this is key. Greer then says, Paul is going to show us that they are we.

This list I just read, that's us. Paul considered himself to be the chief of sinners, considers himself to be the chief of sinners in this group. This is not a, those people have this problem, but we all have it in some way and it manifests itself in different forms.

He's going to come back to this. He's going to keep saying how we all have sins and we don't really choose these sins, but he includes Paul in the group in Romans 1. Now Romans 1 is about a specific group of people.

Paul doesn't include himself in that group. Paul wasn't, he wasn't suppressing the truth and exchanging the truth of God for a lie. He didn't, not acknowledging God, giving hearty approval for those who practice evil.

What? That's not Paul, right? But Greer is clearly talking about Christians here because he's saying in a room full of Christians, it's a church, he's saying this is a we, not a they. That's very interesting.

He doesn't use past tense. We were like this. He's saying this is us. He insinuates that in Romans chapter 2, Paul's going to show us, he's going to show us that it's really us that he's talking about in Romans 1.

Well, okay, we're in Romans 2. Does Paul say that? Let me read for you the only candidate for where Greer could possibly try to make an argument. Romans 2, 3, and we're going to read through verse 5. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

Or do you think lightly of the riches of his kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? Listen here, but because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath.

And he goes on, he says, there's no partiality with God, verse 11. What's the reason people are judged in Romans chapter 2? This is a different group of people. This is the moral and righteous. They have the law.

They're pointing their finger at the group in Romans 1 and God comes along and says, no, you don't get to point that finger. Yeah, they're, they're sliding deeper into depravity, which is the point of Romans 1.

They've slid to this horrible, horrible depth. But just because you haven't slid to that depth, does that mean that you are guiltless? No, you're, you're guilty. You're just as guilty on the basis of verse 5, your stubbornness and unrepentant heart.

He doesn't use the same terms used in Romans chapter 1. He's not talking about exchanging the truth of God for a lie. He doesn't accuse them of not acknowledging God. And this passage is not even talking about Christians.

Romans 2 is about moral unrighteous people. It's talking about people who have the law and they have a moral standard, but they can't keep their own moral standard. So even if it was talking about Romans 2, which it's not, Romans 1 is not talking about Romans 2, it's still not talking about Christians.

There's two groups here. Greer conflates them. Where does Paul use we? Right? He uses they in Romans chapter 1 and Greer says, oh, it's a we. Where does Paul use we? Turn with me to Romans chapter 5. Romans chapter 5.

We'll just read the first few verses. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God. Verse 2, through whom also we have obtained our introduction and we exalt in hope. Verse 3, not only this, but we also exalt in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance and perseverance, proven character and proven character, hope.

So what's the group that Paul is part of? What's the we? What's the Roman church? The Christians? Well, they're the group that according to Romans 5, chapter 4, has proven character and hope. Different list than Romans chapter 1 or Romans chapter 2.

These things don't characterize them, whereas in Romans 1, these activities, sinful things thoroughly characterize that group. Greer conflates all of this and it's very dangerous and I'm going to show you where it leads us.

Greer says the curse of sin affects different people in different ways and we don't always get to choose which way it affects us. Okay, where does it say that in the passage? It doesn't. He doesn't argue for it.

This actually destroys the argument Paul is making, like I said before, because it's the suppression of truth that leads to these horrible sins and Greer wants to make it out like everyone, including saved individuals, are in the same boat, whereas Paul's saying no, there's a descent into depravity.

This also insinuates that homosexuality is not chosen and this is the bingo moment where the light bulb should go off. Orientation is separate from action in the minds of gay Christian advocates. So you can have the orientation of being homosexual and still be a Christian.

Just don't act on it. That does fly in the face of such were some of you, but you're changed now. You're a Christian now, a new identity. You don't identify with sins. But I think more importantly for the sake of this discussion, this is a category that's introduced from sociology, psychology, so it's not a biblical concept.

You can't find it in the Bible. You're not going to find this orientation that is separate from action. Homosexuality is action. It's a lifestyle of action, perhaps, but it's actions that you do. You're homosexual, just like you're a liar if you lie.

It's what you are doing. It is a sin. Now, of course, sin starts in the heart, but we don't have orientations like, well, he's just a lying Christian or he's an adulterer Christian or that makes no sense.

He's a racist Christian, right? But this language is introduced here, and I think one of the things that makes this so deceptive is he says, we don't get to choose the way it affects us. And later on, he's going to use the word affliction.

He doesn't use the word orientation here, and I think that's why some Christians listening, they missed it. Well, he doesn't say orientation. If he had, maybe they would have heard the buzzword, but he actually is insinuating that.

He's revealing that that concept is something that he believes in on some level. Now, it goes on and he says, in some people, it manifests itself in pride and envy, pride, unbridled personal ambitions, out of control, temper, maybe an inability to control your impulses for food, a propensity towards doubt, worry, or depression.

Now, compare that list to the list Paul gives in Romans 1 28 through 32, Romans 1 28, just as they did not see to fit to acknowledge, literally, they chose to have no knowledge of God any longer. God gave them over to paradidomi right there.

Matthew 17 says, the son of man was delivered into the hands of men, delivered. So God gave them over, he delivered, fully gave them over to a depraved mind. They're owned by that now, they're slaves to it.

To do those things which are not proper, being filled, plerao, completely controlled, saturated with, all unrighteousness, wickedness, evil, greed. And it just goes on and on with this list. They're inventors of evil, they're disobedient to parents without understanding, untrustworthy, and unmerciful, all these things.

And in verse 32, he says, yeah, these people do these things and they also give hearty approval to those who practice them. So they're the cheerleaders for sinners. They're saying, yeah, go sin. That's good.

So where, you see, all sin is connected in some way, right? Because God judges it. But Paul chose these particular sins for a reason in Romans chapter one. And he uses language to show how utterly controlled and how this is the judgment of God actually upon them.

It's, where does a propensity toward doubt or an inability to control your impulses for food fit in here? That's my question. He's talking to Christians. He's saying, hey, you're part of this group, having a hard time controlling your weight, have depression, you struggle with depression.

Well, you know, Romans one, that's talking about you. No, it's not. No, it's not. It's not saying that God is giving Christians over to judgment because of overindulgence in food. So there's, this is not, he's going to put this, he's massaging the text and he's going to put homosexuality, you'll see on the same level as these things.

That was the setup. Here's where the bad theology creeps in. He says, in others, it manifests itself in the form of corrupted sexual desire. And by the way, Al Mohler points out that all of us have corrupted sexual desires in some form.

Okay. This may be true. We have corrupted sexual desires. I'm a man, right? Let's say I'm attracted to someone who's not my wife. Should I conclude, oh, I'm a polygamist? Maybe. Well, no, that would be ridiculous, right?

I won't. I'm a Christian polygamist because I have this desire that I'm struggling with. It makes no sense. No, I'm not a Christian polygamist. I need to try to temper this desire. I need to ask God for help.

I need to resist, as Jesus said, to the point of blood. I need to, you know, take drastic measures against this sin. That would be what I would need to do. But let's say, I don't want to use myself here, but let's say, you know, someone who is a Christian has an affair.

Are they on the same level as a homosexual? Are they committing the same sin? In one sense, they are. It's sexual sin. In another sense, they're not. Because Romans 1 makes a distinction. Romans 1 actually says, these are unnatural acts.

This is an unnatural thing that's going on, as I read before. So, again, heterosexual man, you know, I don't even like using that term. Okay, but someone who's attracted to women goes and does something with a woman that he shouldn't outside the confines of marriage.

He is practicing a natural desire in a sinful way. It's wrong because it's outside of the confines of marriage. There is no way, shape, or form to practice homosexuality in a legitimate way because it's unnatural.

I'll put it this way. And I'm not going to make a statement. I'll just ask the question. Was Jesus tempted by homosexuality? Or pick your sin, bestiality. But it says he's as tempted in all points as we are.

But does that mean that he was tempted in unnatural ways, disordered desires? There is a difference. And that's what I'm trying to get at here. He says, Greer, that no, there's no difference. So, even though Paul specifically highlights homosexuality as an exchanging of the natural for the unnatural, and the first sin mentioned in exchanging the truth of God for a lie, Greer is starting to say, we all have corrupted sexual desires.

So, why did Paul highlight homosexuality then? Why did he do it? Why did Paul make that choice? Paul could have used obesity, according to what Greer is saying, right? What is it about homosexuality that makes this the sin that Paul uses?

And it's clearly, in the passage, it's because it is a flipping of the created order. That's why Paul uses that. Greer doesn't mention this. So, watch this. Greer then says, you can think of homosexuality as an affliction.

There's the orientation language. And not just a sinful choice. For most gay people, they feel they didn't choose those desires. Now, let me ask another question. Is Greer standing on the authority of scripture?

Does he have a verse to back this up? The answer is no. He is making the statement that gay people didn't choose these desires after reading a passage in which there are multiple choices. Exchanging the truth of God for a lie.

Serving the creation. Worshiping creation, not the creator. And then there's this dissent. So, as choices have been made, there's a dissent. Greer says, no, it's not a choice to do these things. So, this contradicts Romans 1, in a way.

He's made this argument that all sins are the same. Christians are no different than non-Christians. All these things have been introduced to us, perhaps without knowing it. Some people out there have listened.

They probably agree with what I'm saying now. But they didn't realize what Greer was setting them up for here. And then he uses a word to describe a disease. Affliction. So, homosexuality is an affliction.

Wow, I can't stop lying. It's an affliction. I can't stop being racist. It's an affliction. We don't use this language. This sounds like Alcoholics Anonymous language to use. This doesn't sound like Romans 1 and what Paul is saying.

So, where in scripture is homosexuality ever described as an affliction? It's not. That's the answer. Greer's evidence? This is the dangerous part. Because there is a new final authority in town. And it is called experience.

Not revelation. Quote in Greer. You can think of homosexuality as an affliction. We read that. Here's what I've learned. Almost every person I've encountered, in the church at least, who struggles with a same-sex attraction is almost always dealing first and foremost with an unanswered prayer.

God, why won't you take away these desires? Let me say this again. Every Christian I know struggling with same-sex attraction is first dealing with an unanswered prayer. Is Romans 1 talking about Christians?

No. We already answered that question. So why is Greer bringing in Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction as his example? We've left Romans 1. We're not talking about Romans 1 anymore. Greer left it.

He's on his own topic right now. And the authority of scripture has left the building at this point. Who is choosing these sins that we're afflicted with? Is it God? Because he's not the author of sin.

Where are they coming from? Greer doesn't answer that. Would we say this about any other sin? I've talked to a lot of murderers. I've talked to a lot of liars. I've talked to a lot of racists. I've talked to a lot of pornographers.

And they're dealing first and foremost just with unanswered prayers. We wouldn't treat those sins that way, would we? Let's ask. Is Paul dealing with Christians struggling with same-sex attraction? No.

He's dealing with people who suppress the truth. Those who exchange the truth of God for a lie. They didn't acknowledge God. They were filled with unrighteousness, giving hardly approval. Doesn't sound like a Christian.

You see what Greer is doing here? This conflation now is massaging the sin of homosexuality in a way that makes it palatable. Greer goes on to say that first we should have compassion. Not arguing that we shouldn't have compassion.

In fact, I'm not going to talk about it in this podcast but in future podcasts that I make on this subject I am going to talk about my own ministry personally to one homosexual individual in particular and how compassion works itself out.

How I believe it works itself out. What it looks like. I'm not arguing this but I think Greer's concept of compassion and mine are not the same. Compassion is repent. That's part of compassion. Maybe Greer would say that.

I think he would. But what does repentance look like? Repentance is an immediate turning from sin because that is God's judgment and it is screaming. You're going towards a cliff. There's a fire. Get out.

That has to be part of it. I'm not saying you don't put your arm around someone and bear one another's burdens in the church. But someone outside the church because that's what Romans 1 is talking about I do think there is compassion but there is more importantly a call to repent.

Enough on that. I'm not going to get into detail. Let's stick with Greer here because we're almost done. Greer says this doesn't make same-sex behavior any less sinful. That's his safety net. That makes it hard to criticize him because he's saying it's sinful.

Any more than it makes outbursts of temper or envy or materialism less sinful. Is that how Paul presents it? Continuing, Greer says just that we don't always get to choose our weakness or our corruption.

Stop. Where in Scripture does it say that? Continue. That means gay and lesbian people are not worse sinners than other people or a different kind of sinner. They just got affected with a different dimension of the curse.

So it didn't come from suppressing the truth on some level. That's my question. It didn't come from suppressing the truth on some level. That's what I was adding into the transcript here. Then Greer says and that changes how we think about it.

Yes it would. It would change how we think about it because he's contradicting what Paul says. He's introducing categories Paul doesn't have. If the church has said what Paul says for 2 ,000 years and then Greer comes along and says something that Paul is not saying, of course it's going to change the way that we think about it.

So Greer ends with this. He says there's three ways we really go wrong with this in the church. Number one, believing God doesn't care about this. He's right. God does care about it. But he also says in that discussion, someone says, but I was born this way.

I don't dispute that. That's a quote from Greer. Again, the whole idea of orientation slipping in there. Number two, he says churches go wrong when they think it's the worst sin. Now let me read a few quotes here.

He says all sins in the list of Romans 1 are equally sinful. Now remember what we said. Being filled and giving heartily approval is in that passage. So is this true? Are they all equally sinful or is there a slide towards depravity?

Again, Greer doesn't ever bring up this slide towards depravity and away from the plan of God. The Bible appears more to whisper. This is actually a key thing. He says the Bible appears more to whisper on sexual sin compared to how it shouts about materialism and religious pride.

That's a quote from Greer. What? I mean, I can take you to about a hundred passages that talk about sexual sin. There's a lot of passages about sexual sin. I mean, it's church discipline, capital punishment in the Old Testament.

I mean, it's left scratching my head. What are you talking about? God whispers about sexual sin as compared to materialism. It's a little bit like I borrowed this analogy from someone else, but it's a little bit like looking at a cookbook.

Let's say it's a gluten-free cookbook and saying, look, not much about gluten in this. Well, yeah, because it's a gluten-free cookbook. The Bible is for heterosexuals. It is a book about man and woman.

The responsibilities of man to woman and woman to man are in the Bible. It's not going to talk about same-sex relationships. It does talk about it. It is mentioned in a sinful category. In fact, I believe in Leviticus, it's right alongside bestiality, which I know a lot of people don't like, but God categorizes it in a sinful category.

There's no doubt about this, but if you don't think it's mentioned enough, well, it's because the Bible assumes at the outset that heterosexuality is the standard. That's not a surprise, but again, there's over 100 verses on sexual immorality in the scripture.

Anyway, I don't know what he was thinking when he said that. The reason it's not the worst sin is because God doesn't call it that. That's what I would say. We're not going to find a verse that says homosexuality is the worst sin, but it is a mark of depravity in Romans 1.

It is unnatural. It is a disordered desire. That doesn't make it the worst sin, but it is on a different level. It's not a level all to itself. There are other perversions out there. Enough about that.

Greer says, and you'll treat them meaning homosexuals, first and foremost like the people who deserve compassion, not scorn or judgment or a political voting block to be marginalized. This is a shot at the religious right, obviously.

One of the reasons we stand against any discrimination or bullying and we'll count ourselves among the fiercest advocates for dignity and the rights to be extended to this community is because we recognize gay and lesbian people are just like us, made in the image of God and deserving of dignity and our respect.

What rights are we talking about? What rights have not been extended to the gay and lesbian community? See, this is vague. And he's using, I think, purposely vague language here. Would we say this about any other sin?

Would we say that we need to advocate for the rights of racists? We would never say that. Put your sin in there. I don't care which one it is. We don't say that we advocate for those rights. We advocate for human rights and responsibilities attached to them that God has given us.

But we don't get categories of sinful people and say, we're going to advocate for their rights. They don't get rights based on the fact that they're sinful. Just based on the fact that they're human, there are some rights.

Romans 1 says, the people who practice such things are deserving of death. I'm quoting Romans 1. I'm not advocating. I'm not giving you my opinion. I'm giving you the opinion of Paul. Where does Greer ever deal with that?

It almost sounds like he's saying the opposite of what Paul's saying. That we've got to have no scorn or judgment. Paul says people who He contradicts Paul. That's the point. Part of me is struggling for words because I don't know what to say at this point.

It's just such a clear 180 from what Paul is arguing in Romans 1. It's like, where do you even start? Here's a good question though. Where do the Jack Phillips or the Clines fit into this? Those who have been discriminated against because of quote unquote homosexual rights in this country.

They are Christians who are sticking by their convictions. They're not going to participate in gay marriage. They've been taken to court. They've been sued. Their reputations have been tarnished. You want to talk about victims?

That's what Paul's talking about in Romans 1. They're so depraved. They give hearty approval to those who do these things. That's what's happening to Jack Phillips. That's what's happening to those who are being discriminated against because they were business owners that had business attached to weddings.

Now they are Christians and they have convictions and they can't do that anymore. They've been taken to court. That's evidence of Romans 1. He doesn't talk about it. He says instead, I'm sorry, I'm getting passionate here, we need to advocate for LGBT rights.