When it comes to reaching the “lost,” one of the most tried-and-true methods is the personal conversion story. Whether done privately or publicly, it’s compelling to hear a person’s testimony about how they came to believe in the truth of the Gospel, the truth of the Bible, and embraced the Christian faith. Such testimonies can personalize and soften the message so it is more easily understood and received.
But when it comes to reaching the “found,” there’s an equally effective method—and this is a method to which the evangelical church has paid very little attention. It’s what we might call the de-conversion story.
De-conversion stories are designed not to reach non-Christians but to reach Christians. And their purpose is to convince them that their outdated, naïve beliefs are no longer worthy of their assent. Whether done privately or publicly, this is when a person simply gives their testimony of how they once thought like you did and have now seen the light.
Of course, there have always been de-conversion stories available throughout the history of the church—if one would only take the time to dig them up and listen to them. Christianity has never had a shortage of people who were once in the fold and then left.
But in recent years these de-conversion stories seem to have taken on a higher profile. Part of this is due, no doubt, to the technology that makes these de-conversion stories more available whether through podcasts, blogs, or other forms of media.
But, it’s also due to the fact that many of those who de-convert have realized a newfound calling to share their testimony with as many people as possible. Rather than just quietly leaving the faith and moving onto other things—something that would have been more common in prior generations—there seems to be a new guard that has made it their life’s ambition to evangelize the found.
Indeed, many of these de-conversion stories are told with the kind of conviction, passion, and evangelistic zeal that would make any modern televangelist blush. In their minds, they’re missionaries to the “lost” in every sense of the word. They just have to help these Christians realize they are mistaken and lead them to the truth.
Modern examples of those in the de-conversion business are well known: Bart Ehrman, Rob Bell, Peter Enns, and (as we shall discuss below) Jen Hatmaker.
Of course, it should be acknowledged that each of these stories is very different. Ehrman moved from fundamentalism all the way to agnosticism, with no desire to retain the label “Christian.” In contrast, those like Bell would still consider themselves “Christian” in some fashion, maybe even an evangelical of sorts.
But what all these folks do share is the same background. They were all once what we might call traditional, evangelical Christians and have now come to see the error of their ways. Whatever they embrace, it is no longer that version of Christianity.
I’ve seen a number of these de-conversion stories over the years in the books I’ve reviewed—a number by Ehrman, and some by Bell and Enns (you can find them all here). And a few years ago, I had a number of guest blog posts responding to Enns’ “Aha Moments” blog series (see responses here).
But, I was particularly reminded of the power and impact of de-conversion stories when I listened to last week’s podcast of Jen Hatmaker being interviewed by Peter Enns (you can listen here). This interview has been making the rounds, and I can see why. She’s a friendly, charming and well-spoken woman who is easy to listen to.
And the title of her interview fits this de-conversion theme perfectly: “Changing Your Mind about the Bible: A Survivor’s Guide.” As many know, the main issue Hatmaker changed her mind about is that she now fully affirms the LGBQT lifestyle as consistent with biblical Christianity.
But, Hatmaker’s journey in this interview should be viewed in light of larger trend. In effect, she simply follows the same basic playbook used by Rob Bell, Bart Ehrman and others. The details may be different, but the overall point is the same.
The purpose of this post is to lay out the steps in this de-conversion playbook and offer a quick response to each of them. My hope is to help others who hear these de-conversion stories and struggle with how to respond.
Step #1: Recount the Negatives of Your Fundamentalist Past
The first place to start in every good de-conversion story is to tell about the narrow dogmatism of your evangelical past. You begin by first flashing your evangelical credentials—Hatmaker was a Southern Baptist who went to a Southern Baptist College—and then you recount the problems you observed.
For Hatmaker, her evangelical past included people who are afraid to ask questions, won’t let you ask questions, only give pat answers, and never acknowledge gray areas. She says, “I had no idea that we had permission to press hard on our faith.”
Of course, there are some evangelical groups that are like this. And apparently Hatmaker is from one of these groups. It should be noted, however, that Hatmaker’s language does not apply to evangelicalism as a whole.
Many evangelicals believe what they believe not because they are backwater bucolic yokels who are scared to press hard on the text, but precisely because they have engaged the text and are persuaded it teaches these truths.
Indeed, it’s usually evangelicals who are actually reading both conservative and liberal arguments and weighing them against each other. There are plenty of liberal seminaries and universities that never have their students read a single conservative book. And it’s supposedly evangelicals that are in the intellectual echo chamber?
It is not fair to suggest, then, that evangelicals give “pat answers.” No doubt this is sometimes true. But, liberal complaints against “pat answers” are typically just veiled complaints about answers in general. It’s just another version of the oft-repeated idea that “Religion isn’t about answers, it’s about the questions.”
This is why Hatmaker often describes herself as merely exploring or on a “journey”—it’s a way to disarm a postmodern world who wants there to be no answers (all the while she is happy to sneak her own answers through the back door—more on that below).
Step #2: Position Yourself as the Offended Party Who Bravely Fought the Establishment.
One of the major themes of Hatmaker’s interview was the relational-social trauma she experienced as she left the evangelical world. She says she was mistreated in ways that were “scary,” “disorientating,” “crushing,” “devastating” and “financially punitive.”
Of course, it’s difficult to sift through these sorts of statements. No doubt there were people out there who were cruel, mean and unchristian in their response to her. And such behavior should be called out for what it is. It’s wrong.
At the same, there’s nothing illegitimate about people criticizing her newfound theology. Much of the response to Hatmaker was simply vigorous opposition to her new direction that many regard as fundamentally unbiblical and out of sync with the entire history of Christendom.
Regardless, the tone of the interview very much set Hatmaker up as an oppressed minority fighting against what she called “commercial Christianity.” She is the victim of a powerful evangelical world bent on revenge.
Needless to say, this portrayal needs to be balanced out by an acknowledgment of the current cultural climate where LGBTQ-affirming people are embraced as heroes (including Hatmaker herself), and evangelicals are being fired and sued for enacting their convictions that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
And if we want to talk about “satire” and “outrage” and internet “hit pieces,” we need to also acknowledge the intense level of vitriol displayed by the LGBQT community, and its advocates in the mainstream press, toward any Christian who shows the slightest hesitation about our culture’s new sexual direction.
Step #3: Portray Your Old Group as Overly Dogmatic While You Are Just a Seeker
In our current postmodern culture, there’s nothing more offensive than being dogmatic. Just about anything is allowed except certainty.
Thus, the quickest way to win points in a de-conversion story is to admit you used to commit this cardinal sin but now you know better.
Hatmaker states, “For a season that sense of certainty was wonderful…but of course upon scrutiny it breaks down because, as always, we come to Scripture and the things that we say are certain are obviously not certain to other people . . . certainty really only works in an echo chamber.”
In other words, Hatmaker now believes that certainty is not consistent with the way religion works. All of us who have a deep conviction about the truth of our beliefs just need to realize how wrong we are. It turns out we can’t really be certain about what the Bible teaches after all.
Of course, there are numerous problems with this sort of position. For one, it’s profoundly self-contradictory. Hatmaker seems certain this is the way the Christian religion works. She’s dogmatic in her condemnation of dogmatism.
Even more than this, later in the same interview Hatmaker is certain about what the Bible teaches on a great many things. In particular, she is sure the Bible accepts the LGBTQ lifestyle and that the historic evangelical position is wrong and harmful.
Apparently she is not uncertain when it comes to that issue.
And there are additional issues beyond this. If we’re all required to be uncertain in our interpretations of the Bible, then what doctrines can really be affirmed? On those terms, aren’t all doctrines uncertain? And if that’s the case, then we cannot affirm with assurance even the most basic Christian truths—e.g., the divinity of Jesus, his resurrection from the dead, the forgiveness of our sins.
I doubt Hatmaker is willing to abandon the certainty of these basic truths. But, that just reveals that her commitment to uncertainty is being selectively applied. The appeal to certainty seems designed mainly to justify belief in homosexuality.
Step #4: Insist Your New Theology is Driven by the Bible and Not a Rejection of It
Hatmaker wants people to know that her newfound theology is due to rigorous Bible study: “It was a lot of work, a lot of labor. It wasn’t just a feeling, it was an incredible amount of study and inquiry.”
Thus, she is bothered that anyone could doubt her commitment to the Bible. How could anyone question “our faithfulness, our commitment to Scripture”?
Well, perhaps, one reason people doubt her commitment to the Bible is because she’s rejected one of the plainest teachings in all of Scripture—that marriage is a union between a man and a woman—and one that has been uniformly affirmed for 2000 years of church history.
Of course, Hatmaker claims to have good reason for her new interpretation of the Bible (an interpretation that coincides with the biggest cultural shift on sexuality in the modern world). And what are these good reasons?
Here is one: “Obviously so much of what is written about homosexuality in Scripture is contextually bound; and there’s not much in there, frankly. But it’s deeply bound to culture…just like a thousand other points in the Bible are.”
But this sort of statement is overly simplistic (and misleading). It is by no means “obviously” true that scriptural teachings on these issues are contextually bound, nor are there a “thousand other points” in the Bible that do this.
Hatmaker makes it sound all too easy. With the mere wave of the hand, she takes the mountain of biblical teaching on sexuality and sweeps it under the rug of “culture.” Easy as 1-2-3. Nothing to see here.
If there were ever a concern about evangelicals giving pat answers, then here is a prime example of one from the left.
Moreover, to say that “there’s not much there” in regard to guidance on sexuality is stunning. The Bible has an enormous amount to say about sexual ethics, male and female, husbands and wives, and the institution of marriage.
But, Hatmaker will have none of it. She insists the Bible is just unclear about such things: “When we struggled to find clarity [on sexuality issues]…the Bible refused to cooperate.”
But is Genesis 2:24—“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,” a verse reaffirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:4–6—really that fuzzy?
But Hatmaker isn’t done. She has a second argument: “We have the gift of looking backward to see all the other places where the church collectively decided… ‘I think we’ve understood this incorrectly.’”
And to top it off, she says, “There’s never been unanimity ever on anything.”
Such statements reveal a jaw-dropping unawareness of church history. To portray the last 2000 years as “there’s never been unanimity ever on anything” is not only mistaken but irresponsible. The Apostles’ Creed itself shows otherwise.
Moreover, when it comes to the actual issue at hand, homosexuality, the church has been absolutely unified for 2000 years without exception (for more on that see here).
Step #5: Attack the Character of Your Old Group and Uplift the Character of Your New Group
The final step in the de-conversion playbook is attack the character of the group you left, while upholding the goodness and integrity of the new group you have joined.
Hatmaker states, “When I looked at the fruit of the non-affirming Christian tree, the fruit was so universally bad. It was suicide, it was broken families, it was folks kicked out of their churches, it was homeless teenagers, it was self-hatred…depression, crushing loneliness…If we are being honest, the fruit of the tree is rotten.”
This sort of rhetoric is so uncharitable one hardly knows where to begin. Aside from repeating the cultural trope about evangelicals kicking kids out of the home (with no evidence to back it up), and aside from judging every human heart that believes in traditional marriage as “rotten” (after complaining how judgmental other people are), she actually bases this whole argument on the teachings of Scripture about good and bad fruit (after declaring that Scripture is just not clear about these things).
But perhaps most troubling is Hatmaker laying the blame for suicides, loneliness, depression, and more, all at the feet of evangelicals who believe in traditional marriage. Those are very serious charges. But is not just modern evangelicals she is throwing under the bus. She is condemning two millennia of Christians all who believed the same thing about marriage.
Such language gives fresh meaning to Isaiah’s warning, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Is 5:20).
Conclusion
In the end, there’s no doubt Hatmaker’s de-conversion story will be persuasive to our postmodern world. And I am sure some will adopt her newfound theology as a result.
But, upon closer examination, it is rife with problems. While claiming to be non-judgmental, she declares the fruit of those who believe in traditional marriage as “rotten.” Despite her insistence that the Bible should be read without certainty, she offers all sorts of dogmatic claims about what the Bible teaches. While claiming her views are due to a deep study of Scripture, she offers only simplistic explanations for the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, while disregarding 2000 years of church history.
Yes, we should not settle for pat answers. But, sometimes the Bible does give clear answers. And when it does, we should be willing to listen and receive them.
Caylon says
Michael, I am actually really grateful you wrote to address this. A few years back I discovered Brandon Hatmaker and Jen Hatmaker, and was very interested in their approach to serving “the least of these.”
But, my wife and I were blown away when they came out in support of LGBTQ culture and ultimately denied clear Biblical teaching on the subject of marriage and sexuality. It broke my heart.
Thank you for approaching this subject seriously, logically, and with the grace to say that we must treat even those who err kindly.
Donna Hagerty-Payne says
Thank you so much for your clear article on Jen Hatmaker. I was dismayed by her abandonment of the truth and validity of scripture. Unfortunately the secular world has called her out as one of the most influential Christians of our day. It is all very heartbreaking.
Bruce Cooper says
Excellent post Michael, thank you!
Michael Farley Jr. says
Hi Michael,
I enjoyed your article. I do have a question about something I see a lot of bloggers and pod casters do – they refer to the “LGTBBQ(whatever alphabet combo)” folks on their own terms, instead of refereeing to them as God does, which is homosexuals, effeminate, etc. Why do we allow them to control the terminology there?
Thanks,
Mike
Michael Snow says
Mike, because we did the same thing with ‘gay’ [While others implored us not to, including a pastor named Gay in a letter to Christianity Today]
SS says
Do you have a link to this letter?
thanks.
Jen Oshman says
From a woman in the thick of women’s ministry, a sphere enamored with Hatmaker, thank you for this thorough and clear response to her strategy for the last two years. The proclamation of these truths is needed.
Melissa says
Thank you so much for writing this.
Matthew Tringali says
Thank you Mike. Assuming you have some awareness of it, I can’t help but wonder if this is, in some way, responsive to my wife’s facebook post on this topic which riled some good conversation with members of Uptown Church. In any case, I have some thoughts I would like to share.
I generally prefer to keep my faith rather private and am not one to bring a discussion like this to the internet. But, there is a time for everything and I would like to use this opportunity to respond to Mike’s blog article.
Mike, I love and respect you and you have taught me so much of what I know and I will ever be grateful for it. Please receive my comments with that genuine backdrop. In my opinion, this post is a missed opportunity to welcome and include disagreeing voices into the (hopefully) broader community of evangelicalism. This post is precisely why Jen shed the label. Instead of encouraging and welcoming the fact (it is a fact) that faithful people can take the Bible seriously, disagree with many of the conclusions and yet still worship together, you chose to dismiss the opposing viewpoints and end the conversation.
Please consider the following examples:
“De-conversion stories are designed not to reach non-Christians but to reach Christians. And their purpose is to convince them that their crusty, backwards, outdated, naïve beliefs are no longer worthy of their assent.”
***This is an unfair caricature Jen and those like her.
“Rather than just quietly leaving the faith and moving onto other things—something that would have been more common in prior generations—there seems to be a new guard that has made it their life’s ambition to evangelize the found.”
***As with anything, there is a silent majority that do quietly leave and are not trying to bring anyone along. I personally know very many of these people. But, all of the examples you gave are public figures who, with the exception of Ehrman, were public figures as evangelicals and therefore, by nature, it was a public departure. I can personally attest to how incredibly grateful I am to some of these public examples. Without them, I wondered if my only option was to depart the faith completely as I found myself incompatible with the boundaries that were given to me. But, through the examples of others I was able to discover broader boundaries of inclusion and a place for me at the table without having to walk away completely.
“They just have to help these Christians realize they are mistaken and lead them to the truth.”
***No, they don’t. I listen to a lot of them and have even personally gotten to know a couple of these leaders. They are not looking to evangelize their ways. They are not looking to convince anyone of anything or change anyone’s minds. Indeed, this would be completely juxtaposed to their worldview! But, they are trying to provide a community for people who are already questioning and need a safe place to do so. Those same people have not found that safe place to question things within the confines of their evangelical churches. When these people do question, evangelical leaders can respond in multiple ways, but the way that I have seen and experienced is that a certain amount of questioning is permitted up to a certain point or a certain length of time, so long as the questioner ultimately recognizes their folly and assents to the right way of thinking, or else be considered “out of bounds” and there be some process of correction in place to protect the “peace and purity” of the church. I hope I have not presented a caricature here, I have tried to faithfully describe that process and completely understand why it exists when at the core it is built on the belief of how important boundaries of the faith are. I get it. But, for people wanting to explore what exists on the other side of the fence, it is a challenging place to find oneself while inside the fence. Forgive the limitations of my analogy.
“The problem, however, is that Hatmaker’s language is a caricature of evangelicalism as a whole.”
***This is dismissive of her personal experience. You have not validated that she had this experience and whether or not she should have had that experience.
“Many evangelicals believe what they believe not because they are backwater bucolic yokels who are scared to press hard on the text, but precisely because they have engaged the text and are persuaded it teaches these truths.”
***Who are you talking to? Did Jen say this? Does Jen even believe this? I don’t think she does. I think she validates how very seriously she took the Bible previously. I don’t think she is saying I did not used to take the Bible seriously and therefore believed X, but now that I take it seriously, I believe Y. No, she is simply saying, I took it seriously all along, but have realized there is a way to still take the Bible seriously and yet reach different conclusions than I previously held. Mike, please find the irony in your statement here that while trying to accuse someone else of creating a caricature it was what you, very unkindly, have done to them.
“Of course, it’s difficult to sift through these sorts of statements. No doubt there were people out there who were cruel, mean and unchristian in their response to her. And such behavior should be called out for what it is. It’s wrong.”
***Thank you for acknowledging! This is very hard.
“At the same, there’s nothing illegitimate about people criticizing her newfound theology. ”
***No doubt this is true! Indeed, it is welcomed and encouraged! But, it is also a two-way street.
“…she turns around in this very interview and lambasts evangelicals with language that would make any good Pharisee proud.”
***Calling her a Pharisee? This is not kind or helpful. Let’s please start taking each other seriously and stop the name calling.
“Hatmaker is absolutely certain this is the way the Christian religion works. And she is quite prepared to set us all straight about it. She’s dogmatic in her condemnation of dogmatism.”
***You have trained me well in the ways of the Van Tillian force. And yet, it is true that even on matters that are within the agreed upon evangelical boundaries there are countless disagreements about certainty. The hundreds (thousands?) of different denominations and new splits and creations every year. And each one of those every year disagrees about this or that at their annual assembly. This used to confound me, but now it doesn’t; because Jen is right, all of this uncertainty is not only okay, it is actually welcomed and the way religion is supposed to work. In any case, you have taught me well on having good varying degrees of certainty. The only thing that changed for Jen is not some fundamental worldview change on absolute certainty, but rather a shift on her degrees of certainty on this matter or that. In this case, the shift is about LGBTQ certainty. Or are you saying there is absolute certainty about matters concerning LGBTQ? I highly doubt you are suggesting that, but, honestly am not sure (I am even uncertain about your certainty!).
“Even more than this, Hatmaker is apparently unaware that later in the same interview she is very certain about what the Bible teaches on a great many things. In particular, she is sure the Bible accepts the LGBTQ lifestyle and that the historic evangelical position is wrong and harmful.”
***I am sure she is certain about that. But, again, no one is abandoning certainty at all cost. We all have opinions about varying things with varying degrees of certainty. I can’t speak for Jen, but I am guessing her certainty on this is not absolute, nor is she trying to evangelize anyone to this viewpoint. I am sure she is very understanding and accepting that her evangelical friends (hopefully she still has some of those) disagree and have their own level of certainty on the matter.
“And there are additional issues beyond this. If we’re all required to be uncertain in our interpretations of the Bible, then what doctrines can really be affirmed? On those terms, aren’t all doctrines uncertain? And if that’s the case, then we cannot affirm with assurance even the most basic Christian truths—e.g., the divinity of Jesus, his resurrection from the dead, the forgiveness of our sins.”
***Indeed, yes, they do all have some degree of uncertainty. That’s okay.
“Hatmaker states, “When I looked at the fruit of the non-affirming Christian tree, the fruit was so universally bad. It was suicide, it was broken families, it was folks kicked out of their churches, it was homeless teenagers, it was self-hatred…depression, crushing loneliness…If we are being honest, the fruit of the tree is rotten.” This sort of rhetoric is so uncharitable and over-the-top, one hardly knows where to begin.”
***Perhaps you are right. But, perhaps you are being uncharitable in your reaction. Perhaps she has personally heard and knows these stories and experiences. I agree with you that they are not normative (at least not normative to my experiences), but probably we should start by validating any of the ways in which they are common and if the church should be doing something about that or not.
“Such rhetoric gives fresh meaning to Isaiah’s warning, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Is 5:20).”
***I understand why you said this. And it certainly achieves your objective of rallying the troops. But, it so very much marginalizes those people who are asking to not be marginalized and are asking for a seat at the table. It is a missed opportunity to extend them a hand and open a conversation.
“Yes, we should not settle for pat answers. But, sometimes the Bible does give clear answers. And when it does, we should be willing to listen and receive them.”
***Even when the Bible gives “clear” answers, we still disagree about them! There are many examples where one group (in time and space) thought the Bible was very clear and another group of people (in time and space) came to a different conclusion about the Bible’s “clear answers”. Beware “clear answers” in the Bible, be willing to to listen and receive alternatively “clear answers”.
Michael Snow says
“The ever present fog of existentialism, casting ghostly shadows over an already confused landscape.”–W.F. Albright [x 10 in todays zeitgeist]
Karson says
Thank you for this
Matthew Walker says
And that (Matthew Tringali’s post), friends, is classic New Evangelical thinking (in a lengthy nutshell). If you want to know if the ideological underpinnings of biblical modernism is still alive, look no further. There is no place at the table for people who deny the inspiration/authority of Scripture, or twist its meaning to make it say something else. That this writer couches it in “spiritual lingo” makes it all the more troubling. I feel the slap of his post as it asks me “which way went the Spirit from me to you?” As no doubt many of you will want to consign me to the bread and water of your internet prison, I say, that if Matthew’s position stands the Spirit did not speak by me.
Alas, it cannot speak because Matthew’s position is no grounded on the true word of God. What rubbish!
Dean says
Perhaps Jesus should have been less assertive to the seven churches (Revelation), perhaps John the Baptist should not have been so critical of Herod or calling the leaders a brood of vipers?
Surely Scripture calls Christian leaders to defend the faith & challenge those that would undermine & attack it. Do you really think Scripture encourages and teaches the very obscure message of hatmaker?
Perhaps…perhaps not…certainty…uncertainty…did God really say? did Jesus get it wrong, was the apostle Paul or Peter mixed up whilst the modern day prophets have had a special revealing to share with the masses apart from the Word of God.
DH says
You speak of boundaries. A Christian’s boundaries are found in the Bible. We don’t get to make the rules. God did that.
One big problem today is the belief of some that if I disagree with you and believe you are wrong in your belief, that I dislike you or even hate you.
I believe this is a direct result of the last few generations of children, youth and young adults being overly validated constantly in order not to crush their poor fragile spirits. They have been told they are right when they are wrong. They have been given trophies when they did not earn them. Now as full fledged adults they cannot stand to be told they are wrong and they rebel against the boundaries that Almighty God set himself.
Your words drip of sweetness but they are poison.
DH says
This was written in response to Michael Tringali’s lengthy post.
timothy ellison says
I guess you are assuming that the bible is ‘God’s rules”? There are many of us who love and use the bible (2 Timothy says it is a ‘useful book” – but we do not believe it is God’s rules; it is humans writing about their own encounters with the divine.
C.M. Granger says
No, it is God-breathed and therefore useful for training in righteousness. Not human writings about encounters with the divine. That is not a claim the Bible makes
GJW says
“They just have to help these Christians realize they are mistaken and lead them to the truth.”
I watched a few videos of Rob Bell and that was exactly what he was doing – in a rather condescending way towards any who’d still cling to the old and tired ways of the traditional churches. I was done with all of that pretty quick..
Ryan says
I will answer all of your uncertainty with the certainty of scripture. The Bible is firm on this matter. Homosexuality is a sin.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” — Notice verse 11, Paul is acknowledging that was their past, but no longer do they commit these sins because they were washed in the sacrificial blood of Jesus.
1 Corinthians 7:2 “But since sexual immorality IS occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.” — No way to misinterpret this one, only sexual relations are permitted between opposite genders who are also married.
1 Timothy 1:8-11 “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.” — The law of God, which is unrelenting, yet forgiving of a repentant heart, is always plain in text. It is easy to understand, you can’t twist it.
Hebrews 13:1-4 “Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters. 2 Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it. 3 Continue to remember those in prison as if you were together with them in prison, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering. 4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” — This is a chapter someone like you may really enjoy until you get to verse 4, but unfortunately for you, God considers homosexuality as sexually immoral.
Romans 1:26-28 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.” — The Bible is clear, homosexual relations are unnatural. Or stated another way, they are against GOD’S nature. Don’t miss that part in verse 27 that says the homosexuals received punishment within themselves for being gay. Most likely a STD of some sort.
Any questions? For a Christian who has the reading comprehension of an 8th grader can understand that having 100% certainty of God’s stance on homosexuality is indeed ok. It is backed by scripture and I didn’t even have to do any hermeneutics or Greek word studies! Imagine that! Please don’t let Satan decieve you or lead you astray. GOD is judgemental, but swift to forgive the repentant heart.
Richard P. says
But the Bible also states that men can have sex with their wife’s slaves, at one point his daughters, the women he rapes… Etc. But not another man. Yet the modern church does a good job of sweeping sex abuse under the rug. I’m just picking and choosing bits and pieces of the scripture, but, gosh their is a lot of sex in the Bible, and it’s not just between a man and a woman.
Ike says
[Pro 10:8, 23 KJV] 8 The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall. … 23 [It is] as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom.
[Pro 12:15 KJV] 15 The way of a fool [is] right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel [is] wise.
[Pro 14:16 KJV] 16 A wise [man] feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.
[Pro 15:5 KJV] 5 A fool despiseth his father’s instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent.
[Pro 24:7 KJV] 7 Wisdom [is] too high for a fool: he openeth not his mouth in the gate.
[Pro 26:5, 11-12 KJV] 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. … 11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, [so] a fool returneth to his folly. 12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? [there is] more hope of a fool than of him.
Richard P. says
Call me a fool, but you can’t deny that there are multiple holy biblical men whom have several wives and concubines. I’m not denying that the Bible in fact states the passages regarding sodomy are mentioned. I’m adding that since biblical times, the idea of marriage has changed. I know a lot of Christians that claim that marriage is between one man and one woman. But Solomon had 700 wives, and many concubines. Abraham slept with his wives handmaid as she was bare. Now these ideas are ignored, but traditional marriage is not allowed to two consenting adults, but a man can have a free for all as long as he procreates? How can we not, as a Christian community, understand that we have come away from “traditional marriage” and be more accepting of our queer brothers and sisters? Whom are we to judge? Why do we lambast them and call them foolish, because they ignore some scripture, whilst we ignore other Traditional marriage laws? Can’t we afford to these people the love Christ wants for them, or will we turn them away for something beyond their control? God made them to love, and we, as a community, have turned our backs. We cast stone, and claim higher ground.
Johanna in New Zealand says
Richard P. – Reporting an event and condoning it are not the same thing.
JH says
God never ever condones any of the above. Israel was immersed in the godless culture that had surrounded them. He actually sets specific boundaries to protect women and slaves already in these relationships. Perhaps a thorough reading and study of the OT would help here.
JH says
The above is in response to RichardP.
Richard P. says
Numbers 31:15-18, Moses, after exacting revenge on the Midianites, commands his army to kill all the boys and every non-virgin woman while telling them to “save for [themselves]”
Where is the protection, some cases the maiden is stoned to death, the passage does not show whether or not she consented to the encounter, leading many to believe that in having laid with a man, makes her worthy of death? There is no protection for the abused woman.
Richard P. says
What protections? Like being stoned? Is it still OK for me to take 700 wives and some concubines like Solomon? Or can we just agree that traditional marriage ideals are obsolete because of our culture? Can’t deny that I can sleep with my wives housemaid because she can’t conceive. I don’t see where in the scripture the abused are protected. Help me understand.
Melissa says
Amen
Joan S Kirk says
“They are trying to provide a community for people who are already questioning and need a safe place to do so.” Not all questioning is well received by or honored by God. There is a big difference between Satanic a challenge question, “Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say….????” and asking genuine, sincere questions in search of what is true, “And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
There is nothing safe or loving about providing a place to challenge the ways of God in His design and clearly stated purposes of man. “While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.” Scripture is full of these types of warnings and it confounds me how this Book can be read and the wrath of God toward the rebellious not be understood. The scriptural fences are truth and are meant for safety and protection from lies and deceit.
Steve says
“But, it so very much marginalizes those people who are asking to not be marginalized and are asking for a seat at the table. It is a missed opportunity to extend them a hand and open a conversation.”
Matthew, what would happen if you took this statement and applied it to anything other than LGBT issues?
“Child molesters are a marginalized group who just want a seat at the table and an open conversation”
“Muslims are a marginalized group who just want a seat at the table and an open conversation”
“Arsonists are a marginalized group who just want a seat at the table and an open conversation”
Must the church invite those who unrepentantly embrace what the Scriptures without exception call sin and give them an opportunity have a conversation about where they fit in the church? Surely the answer throughout church history has been to call on such to repent of their sin, take up their cross and follow Jesus.
Glandu says
Excuse me sir. You are associating muslims(i.e. more than one billion people of extreme variety, from the most honorable to the least honorable) with child molesters?
Steve says
Only insofar as they are people who need to repent and therefore do not get a “chair at the table” for how the church should be run. Nothing more.
Karie says
I personally do not know much about Jen Hatmaker, however I am thankful for this post.
Pride is breeding in our nation.
For any of us to ever try and play God or alter his word is prideful and a very dangerous place to be in. If you want to find a good read, read From Pride to Humility from Stuart Scott. See one piece below.
When someone is proud he or she is focused on self. This is a form of self worship. Prideful people believe that they are or should be the source of what is good, right, and worthy of praise. Praise from men. They also believe that they, by themselves, are (or should be) the accomplisher of anything that is worthwhile to accomplish, and that they should certainly be the benefactor of all things. In essence, they are believing that all things should be from them, through them, and to them or for them. Pride is in competition toward others, and especially toward God. Pride wants to be on top. Thomas Watson is quoted to have said, Pride seeks to ungod God. This phase certainly describes the arrogant.
God gives us wisdom in his word and very clearly tells us we must never change the Bible for today’s culture, and if anyone is doing so they are being deceived.
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-
7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Galatians 1:6-10
Matt D Gilligan says
Sounds very much like an understanding (ish) of the Bible that has evolved through ones own mental capabilities. Period.
C.M. Granger says
You know, that old apostle Paul apparently missed a lot of opportunities to “open a conversation and extend a hand” to those of an opposing opinion. What was he thinking? I guess he just assumed he could declare the truth without asking others what they thought. Weird
Rachel says
I’ve known many deconverters, and most of their apostles share a personality characteristic: they are crusaders addicted to new experiences. As such, they are internally driven to find new things (ideas, strategies, people, communities) and to bring others along with them. Keep watching them. In 5 or 10 years they will have another epiphany, convert others to this new new thing and then start the cycle all over again. It’s their followers who pay the price.
pentamom says
Franky Schaeffer being one of the more glaring examples, and he followed the pattern of the article pretty closely. He left even the vestiges of evangelicalism behind for Eastern Orthodoxy, and is now some strange breed of agnostic who nonetheless clings to his Orthodox identity — probably because it’s a more in-you-face rejection of his father’s teaching and religious culture than plan agnosticism would be. Even the Orthodox mostly think he’s pretty strange.
Lpadron says
Also, they’re addicted to being the center of attention. They absolutely crave attention. It’s not about leading anyone anywhere other than “me”.
Richard P. says
Why must we as Christians, characterize other Christians as them? We are all of the same flock. What gives us authority to judge our brethren?
Josh Bishop says
I find it interesting that Hatmaker (and others) leans so heavily on the idea that the Bible’s ideas about sexuality are “culturally bound” without acknowledging that her own ideas of sexuality are also culturally bound. Is Paul’s understanding of sexuality tied to his cultural context? Sure. Is Hatmaker’s understanding of sexuality tied to her cultural context (LGBTQ+ affirming, secular humanist, postmodern America)? Certainly. If I should dismiss a biblical sexual ethic because it’s culturally bound, I should also dismiss the revisionist sexual ethic because it’s culturally bound. Now what?
Ryan says
Be careful Josh. Logical thinking and dismantiling of one’s argument will make the left wing “believers” label you as homophobic, mysogynistic, old, ancient, backwards, inbred, illogical, irrelevant, non progressive, stupid, a sheep, and more!
Not speaking from personal experience or anything…
Dean says
Which is of course, why we need an ethic rooted, not in culture, but in the character of God. In Scripture, we have that ethic.
Richard P. says
Some of the Ethic rules written in the Bible have no place in society today. Give how one should treat their slaves. Back then, in Bibical culture, as long as the slave woke after 48 hours of being beaten, it was OK to do so. Now we don’t, as a society, accept slavery, or beating people into unconscious for two days. We must understand that culture plays an important part in how we interpret the Bible. The way we read it in English is man’s interpretation. Does only the most learned of men get to decide what interpretation is right, or does it depend on a collection of ideas? God hasn’t sent a revision in quite a while, so what are we to do?
Dorothy Greco says
“Hatmaker is absolutely certain this is the way the Christian religion works. And she is quite prepared to set us all straight about it. She’s dogmatic in her condemnation of dogmatism.” Indeed this is ironic and she, and others like her do not see it. It also causes me great distress that she categorically claims the fruit of the Christian tree (i.e. any church that disagrees with her theology) is all bad. Her circles must be way too small.
Randy says
Matthew, at what point does an ‘alternatively “clear answer”‘ step outside the bounds of what can be called the Christian faith? I can’t help but liken your response to a recent event on the world stage that introduced the term “alternative facts”. This whole thing positively screams to be labeled a perversion of the truth from every angle.
Matthew Tringali says
Randy, It is a fair question and not one I can answer in this venue. My only point to make here is that we should be speaking in a way that encourages sich dialogue to actually take place. Instead we speak in ways that is meant to silence each other, which is not helpfuk. I point to the example of several of the responses to me on this very forum (yours not among them) that are meant to dismiss and silence me, rather than give thoughtful pause and open communication to our mutual edification. Or quite possibly I have merely espoused more existential, rubbish.
Hermonta M Godwin says
Matthew,
I think the question by Randy is insightful in understanding the pushback that you are receiving. People here are not scared or worried about having particular dialogues with anyone. The problem is that people don’t want to have a dialogue about whether Christianity is true or false as if the dialogue was an intramural discussion between two Christians. If a non-Christian wants to go at Christianity on the issue of homosexuality and say that Christians are wrong for X, Y and Z reason, no one here is going to be afraid of such. But if a non-Christian wants to have an intramural discussion on Christianity and homosexuality etc, then that is going to be a problem.
Dean says
It’s not that hard to find true negative examples within Christianity and churches (& ourselves if we are honest) & false prophets have been deceiving people & leading them away from God for thousands of years. Some of those OT accounts are simply amazing and humans are so often gullible and easily led into all kinds of sexual sin, even when they know better .
Some things in churches have been frustrating and painful for me over the years and we see injustice at times but that is never an excuse to start twisting Scripture. And who could count all the good & great stuff that is done on a daily basis.
“There are no absolutes” is a con & a contradiction & as always Satan’s agenda is always to undermine the Word of God and the church anyway he can.
In the modern world it’s less about tribes & nations and more about movements & shifts, but it’s the same old story. If it’s not the new atheists its the new prophets, enticing, clever & encouraging the church to trade in on our old unfashionable faith which is in perfectly good order.
JC Konecny says
Thank you for laying this out and exposing exactly what Hatmaker et al are up to.
I took this bend the word of God approach to justify my lack of truly accepting the word of God as just that for too much of my adult life. As such, I take great personal offense to these tactics because they are so so penatratingly Grey… Right on the wrong side of truth is a crafty-deceptive way. I fell for it.
It’s interesting to me… The more money these people make, the more popular they become the more they seem to “de-convert”…. It’s easier I get it.
What’s interesting as you point out is their drive to preach their truth. One has to wonder if they are still trying to believe it themselves.
There is always much behind the defensive spirit.
E. Aronsohn says
Can we expect to see Un-De Conversions in the future for those who need to find a new following or new identity when this one gets old? They could be called EDeUnDe social group. So Ms. Hatmaker’s soil from the beginning was not suitable for growth. It was always in His plan, but still troublesome for this of us who love the truth of His Word, and those we once called “Sister” or “Brother.”
Doug Donald says
I don’t think Jen has de-converted. That’s a strange characterization.
Here’s what I learned from reading this piece.
1) If you don’t like someone’s idea, dismiss it as nothing more than a post-modern “narrative” that’s over-simplified and obviously lacking in serious application of history and study.
2) Characterize someone’s sharing of a personal journey as the work of an attention-seeker who loves to play the victim. (Extra points for aligning the notion of “journey” with post-modernism.)
3) Play the, “If we can’t be certain that what the Bible teaches about X is true, then we can’t be certain anything it teaches is true” card. (Ironically, this sounds like a post-modern view … but no time for that now.)
4) Downgrade the new narrative as nothing more than acquiescence to current culture.
5) Relegate an individual’s personal experience and observations as part of a “playbook” designed solely to attack you and your group.
That said, I appreciate you sharing your view. It’s nice to see how the folks are working things out back in the old country.
Matthew Tringali says
Doug, this states much more eloquently what I wanted to say. Thank you.
David Palmer says
Matthew, in your original post you said, “In my opinion, (Michael Kruger’s) post is a missed opportunity to welcome and include disagreeing voices into the (hopefully) broader community of evangelicalism.
I’m not sure Michael Kruger is identifying or wants to identify with the broader evangelical community. The term evangelical has been stretched so far it has lost any real meaning, certainly for those of us who identify as reformed with confessional attachments.
So, if you are not within those same boundaries, why would you want to engage with, and why would you expect the other person, in this case Michael, to engage with “disagreeing voices” which in itself is a disagreeable activity and an unproductive use of time and emotional energy.
Sometimes it is better to admit real differences exist, to go separately and trust God to sort things out in His own good time.
Given the stance taken by Jen Hatmaker, and I am assuming Michael is fair in his description of her and her strategy, then there can be no walking together – end of story. Time to make that clear.
Ryan Davidson says
Then it would probably be best to use some term besides “deconverting,” unless, that is, you believe that the scope of the elect extends no further than Reformed evangelicals with a confessional bent.
Ryan Davidson says
Well said, Donald. It’s unclear to me who appointed the TGC/CBMW crowd as the gatekeepers of evangelicalism. I was part of several PCA churches over the course of 15 years. The obsessive efforts at identifying and rooting out alleged heretics had a certain creepy feel to it. I left because church life increasingly had a certain McCarthyite feel to it.
Power_Surge says
Did we read the same article?
JC Konecny says
I could at least respect your position until you devolved into insult. Not very tolerant.
Doug Donald says
I meant no insult, per se, but I apologize for causing offense. Though I disagree with the execution of this piece, I do respect Dr. Kruger’s intellect and significant contributions to theological discourse. No doubt he and I agree on much more than we disagree, and he is my brother in Christ. I appreciate him approving my response (which he is under no obligation to do) and look forward to what I may learn from him. Lord willing, I will be more charitable in my summary with any future comments. Thank you.
David Edwards says
Even the most liberal translation of the Bible I know, “The Message”, has no truck with this nonsense:
But God’s angry displeasure erupts as acts of human mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can’t see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse. What happened was this: People knew God perfectly well, but when they didn’t treat him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves into silliness and confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives. They pretended to know it all, but were illiterate regarding life. They traded the glory of God who holds the whole world in his hands for cheap figurines you can buy at any roadside stand. So God said, in effect, “If that’s what you want, that’s what you get.” It wasn’t long before they were living in a pigpen, smeared with filth, filthy inside and out. And all this because they traded the true God for a fake god, and worshiped the god they made instead of the God who made them—the God we bless, the God who blesses us . Oh, yes! Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn’t know how to be human either—women didn’t know how to be women, men didn’t know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men—all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches. Since they didn’t bother to acknowledge God, God quit bothering them and let them run loose. And then all hell broke loose: rampant evil, grabbing and grasping, vicious backstabbing. They made life hell on earth with their envy, wanton killing, bickering, and cheating. Look at them: mean-spirited, venomous, fork-tongued God-bashers. Bullies, swaggerers, insufferable windbags! They keep inventing new ways of wrecking lives. They ditch their parents when they get in the way. Stupid, slimy, cruel, cold-blooded. And it’s not as if they don’t know better. They know perfectly well they’re spitting in God’s face. And they don’t care—worse, they hand out prizes to those who do the worst things best!
Romans 1:18-32 MSG
https://bible.com/bible/97/rom.1.18-32.MSG
David Edwards says
Of course, if you prefer a more word-for-word translation:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1:18-32 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/rom.1.18-32.ESV
These are the words of Paul, delivered to us from nearly two centuries ago. Ignore them at your own peril.
Come Lord Jesus.
David Edwards says
Excuse me… two millennia ago, not two centuries.
Jules Tringali says
Ok, I’d like to respond in a similar fashion to Matts, though of course not as eloquent or learned. Hopefully with the same grace though. But if not, please forgive me. I’m trying to keep the discussion open, not close a door. reading through the post, I have some thoughts on certain passages.
“Crusty, backwards, outdated, naive beliefs”. No one I know who has deconstructed their faith would ever say any of these words. We would just call those beliefs “different”. We are not passing judgement on you so please don’t pass judgement on us and make statements like this that are incorrect. Jenn Hatmaker among others that I have listened to on this topic would absolutely not belittle other people’s faith and call it names.
“they just have to help the Christians realize they are mistaken and lead them to the truth”. This is just plain wrong. Those who have deconstructed their faith or are in the process have no desire to lead anyone anywhere. They just want to be allowed to ask honest questions without fear of judgement. BTW, I’ve been through this deconstruction process for the past 2 years unbeknownst to anyone but my closest friends. I’ve told no one other than people who I know care about me and ask me how I’m doing. I have no desire to lead anyone anywhere and the way this sentence is phrased is hurtful and offensive because it’s just not true.
“Hatmaker’s journey in this interview is not as original as it might first appear.” So? Her experience is original to her. Many human experiences are not original but that doesn’t mean they don’t matter. For example, the new convert to Christianity: they realize they are in need of a savior, they think Jesus is the the answer, they put their faith in him. That’s not original to humanity, but it is meaningful to each individual it happens to. Just because there is a “playbook” or a script in which something tends to usually happen should not discount the experience. Jenn never said it was original to her, so I’m not even sure why this a point in Mike’s article.
“I grow weary of claims that evangelicals give pat answers” Being someone who is currently deconstructing my faith and also being a mom who had a 4-5 year old with cancer, trust me when I say that the only people giving me pat answers are/were evangelical Christians. That doesn’t mean that all Evangelicals are/were giving pat answers, but the pat answers did happen to all be given by Evangelicals. I’m sorry if Mike is growing weary of that claim, but instead of shaming others for that perception, how about Evangelicals work to change the perception and stop giving pat answers.
“Liberal complaints against “pat answers” are typically just veiled complaints about answers in general.” I’ve yet to meet any of these people who want to complain about answers in general. And to assume this about people is hurtful and untruthful.
“there’s nothing illegitimate about people criticizing her newfound theology” I find this to be a sad statement because of the word “criticize”. Such a negative connotation. I think critique may be a better term. Criticize is synonymous with judge I think and has a negative connotation that also closes conversation. So, I do think there is something illegitimate about criticizing another person. Semantics? Yes. But they still matter.
“Hatmaker might do well to observe the outrageous level of vitriol displayed by the LGBTQ community…” This statement is misguided in that Jenn Hatmaker is not responsible for the LGBTQ community or what they do any more than Mike is responsible for those who bomb abortion clinics.
“lambastes evangelicals with language that would make any good Pharisee proud” To call Jenn Hatmaker a Pharisee or put her in the same camp is so sad to me. I don’t think she would ever presume to know who are modern day Pharisees and I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t want the job of judging that. Nor should anyone else. This statement is not helpful in having an open and honest discussion but is more akin to name calling. Which topics by the way are okay to disagree on and not be called a Pharisee? Who gets to decide those topics?
“In other words, Hatmaker has now figured out how religion is really supposed to work. All of us who have a deep conviction about the truth of our beliefs just need to realize how wrong we are.” This is a very condescending sentence. I don’t know Jenn, but I’m pretty sure she and also anyone who has deconstructed anything in their faith would never presume to know how religion is really supposed to work. We would all probably just say that we would like those with a deep conviction to allow discussion and grace and space for differences in interpretation without fear of being cast out.
“she’s rejected one of the plainest teachings in all of scripture” Wow. So, I’m fighting hard to not be snarky in my response to this. If it’s one of the plainest teachings in all of scripture then why do so many faithful, Jesus loving, Bible loving Christians disagree about what the bible actually has to say on this topic? I’m not sure it’s so helpful or kind or gracious to judge another person’s commitment to the bible. Especially without actually having a conversation with that person about it.
“but perhaps most troubling is Hatmaker laying the blame for suicides, loneliness, depression, and more all at the feet of those believe in traditional marriage…” This is an unfair statement. The response of those people, not the belief itself is what’s harmful. When a parent kicks their gay kid out of their house because they are gay, that is what’s to be blamed. Many many people who are non-gay affirming still respond to their kids in love, support, and kindness. It’s those who respond in judgement and meanness who are to be blamed. Take for example the teen who commits suicide because they are bullied. No one would blame the whole school for that loss of life, but would you not put some blame on the bully? I think that’s what Hatmaker is saying.
My conclusion: Let’s stop assuming the worst in people. Like in the book Wonder: “When given the choice between being right or being kind choose kind” because as a Jesus follower, that’s what I think he’s want us to do.
Terry says
>>“When given the choice between being right or being kind choose kind” because as a Jesus follower, that’s what I think he’s (sic) want us to do.
Frankly, this is rather naive… and completely wrong!
You profess to be a “Jesus follower”… (quoted only because it’s a direct quote… not as “scare” quotes). I have no reason to doubt your claim, but you must realize that following Christ is completely incompatible with choosing kindness over correctness. If you believe that Jesus ever chose anything other than what was right, then you are following a different Jesus than the God-Man worshiped in Christianity! We are commanded to be *loving*… which may or may not be perceived as being “kind”. But the opposite… refusing to confront error for the sake of “kindness”, is actually hatred of the highest magnitude! Rather than honestly telling someone of the danger their choices place them in and risk being called hateful and judgemental, we should simply be kind rather than right? Lord, keep me from this sort of kindness!
Was Jesus unkind when he rebuked Peter by calling him “Satan”, or was he right? Was it unkind of Him to chase the moneychangers out of the temple, or was it right? Was He unkind to call the Pharisees “whitewashed sepulchers” or a “generation of vipers”, or when he called them the children of “your father the Devil”?
Few would call these actions “kind”. But were they loving? Absolutely! Jesus (the Truth) spoke Truth, hoping to shake people out of their blindness. There are times that we too, as His followers, must speak the truth in love, and that truth will likely seem very unkind, or even harsh. But if we fail our duty as watchmen to sound the alarm, we will find their blood dripping from our own hands.
Be faithful! Be sober! Be vigilant! Proclaim the gospel of peace! Speak the truth in love! THIS is what He wants us to do.
Jules Tringali says
I understand what you mean and agree with some of it. Sometimes love is hard to hear, but if we want to compare what Jesus did to what we do, then it’s the religious leaders that need to be called out on some things…because that’s what Jesus did. He had compassion and care on the outcast and “chose truth” to those in power. What bothers me is that for centuries, people spoke “biblical truth” and they turned out to be wrong. So, who gets to decide what truth to proclaim? Why do you/PCA/evangelical/progressives/liberals/etc get to determine what “truths” are the ones necessary to call out? Even Israel got these “truths” wrong…so very wrong. The 10 commandments…Israel certainly thought they were clear. However, Jesus came and told them they got it wrong. So even when you think there is clarity in the bible, it doesn’t mean it’s clear to everyone and it’s not your place or others place to tell them they are wrong.
FB says
God declares what is truth and what is deceit. He has revealed His truth to humanity through the Bible. We can determine whether someone is proclaiming truth about God by scrutinizing the message against the words of the Bible. If the message is consistent with what the Bible says, then the message is “the truth.”
Many of the Israelites did gravely misunderstand the truth that God revealed to them before Christs coming; however, the Pharisees’ twisting of scriptural truth does not mean that Christians are incapable of properly interpreting the bible. During the time of the Old Testament, God was gradually revealing more and more of the truth to His people. Israelites did not have the full extent of God’s word. Today, we do. For example, we have the benefit of knowing Christ’s teaching that the commandment not to murder includes hating another. Additionally, the Pharisees (and I’m guessing your comment was referring to the Pharisees/Sadducees) were twisting the scriptures for their own ends. They were not sincerely misunderstanding God’s word. Just as the Pharisees twisted scripture for their own ends, there are people today who do the same. The Bible even predicts this: see 2 Peter 2:1-4. It does not follow, however, that everyone today is twisting scripture. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the New Testament church now has the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit to guide us. See John 14:26.
We can learn the truth from the Bible, and when we do, we have a duty to proclaim that truth. We also have a duty to “mark” false teaching. See Romans 16:17. If a biblical truth is unclear to someone who professes Christianity, the Bible commands that we explain the truth to that person. James 5:19-20. Jen Hatmaker is a religious leader in a sense (she has quite a following), and so that is all the more reason to critique her message against the words of the Bible.
Finally, some parts of the Bible are hard for us to interpret. Ezekiel or the book of Revelation are prime examples. Other parts of the Bible are crystal clear. The Bible’s teaching on sexuality and marriage is crystal clear. Over and over, the Bible explicitly condemns sexual immorality, including sex outside of marriage and homosexuality. Although this can be a hard teaching to acknowledge, anyone who accepts the inerrancy of the Bible – the historic, orthodox view – and who honestly deals with the plain text must admit that homosexuality is sin.
Johanna in New Zealand says
Jesus’ words to the woman caught in adultery: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”
There we have Jesus’ perfect kindness and love and holiness expressed. He will not condemn us, but he will not leave us in our muck either.
Amy Cole says
The greatest problem I have with all of this; the blog post, the replies and comments, is that the undertone is so unkind. One of our great commands is to love one another AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH. Yes, we are to hold each other accountable and call out sin, but in a loving and kind manner. The level of judgment and unkindness in all of this saddens me a great deal. I ignorantly believed that Christians would be the example of loving kindness. But they (we) are just as or more judgmental, mean and snarky as any unbelievers I know.
David Palmer says
Yes, it is partly the anonymity that the internet provides, which combined with natural aggressiveness in pushing a position in debate, that can lead to unkindness.
I think most posts I’ve read don’t infringe on unkindness.
The problem is a topic has been raised in the original post that clearly indicates a parting of the ways. That can be painful. Personally, I think Michael Kruger is saying things that need to be said. If you believe someone is influential and potentially leading others astray, then in is appropriate to call them out in the restrained way that Michael has.
If this happened in a Presbyterian Church, it would be a matter for the church courts, certainly in the church body to which I belong.
Don Bryant says
Thanks for this post and a direct analysis. Unfortunately there is no oter way to dwal with the abandonment of not only the Bilbe but the easy dismissal of the great moral wisdom of the Church over 2,000 years.
JC Konecny says
Dough ^
Tim Ellison says
Doug and Matthew- you guys rock!!
Jon Paul says
Thank you for this post. The reason why people like this don’t fade into the woodwork anymore is there is now a ton of money to be made in heresy. If you aren’t growing in a love for God’s law here on earth, what makes you think you suddenly will after you die?
Tim Singletary says
if, in fact, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, but yet rather affirms it: what should we think of the bridegroom/bride symbolism? Christ is repeatedly described as the groom, and the church as the bride. If homosexuality is approved in scripture then this would not be a good analogy. Yet, as all scripture is inspired by God, this is how He chose to compare. Jesus will never divorce his bride (church) nor turn His back on her for another groom.
While we must love, pray, and minister to people; we can do this only by knowing that the word is true.
Paul writes repeatedly in his letters about being deceived. He is writing to the believers; therefore, we must guard our hearts from deception. By definition the deceived do not know their condition.
Thanks for a fine article
Garrett O'Hara says
A great article. I would simply add that this reminds us to be diligent about false teaching prior to more obvious signs such as affirming homosexual acts. Hatmaker and Bell were quite popular and “mainstream” prior to their more apparent falls.
Glandu says
My deconversion story :
I didn’t even notice I did deconvert. I just didn’t go to the church anymore, but still considered myself as a christian.
Then, after years, I was brought to the church, and noticed I didn’t believe any word of all that. All the songs of my childhood suddenly sounded horribly false.
Period.
C.M. Granger says
Doesn’t seem to be a conversion in there in the first place, so that’s hardly a deconversion story.
Candy Webb says
Hegelian dialectic in action. Thesis – antithesis=synthesis.
Justus says
I wish someone would address the Hatmakers own church in Texas.
Their own online sermons indicate that after the great gay-marriage-is-holy debacle, their flock dramatically dwindled. Apparently church members and friends who had sat under their previous teaching did not align with their pastors’ new found revelations.
So is the church that they themselves founded only a few years ago now part of the bigoted oppressive evangelical culture that rejected them?
Or are those who know them best wiser than the anonymous teeming internet masses?
Joan says
“They are trying to provide a community for people who are already questioning and need a safe place to do so.” Not all questioning is well received by or honored by God. There is a big difference between a Satanic challenge question, “Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say….????” and asking genuine, sincere questions in search of what is true, “And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
There is nothing safe or loving about providing a place to challenge the ways of God in His design and clearly stated purposes of man. “While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.” Scripture is full of these types of warnings and it confounds me how this Book can be read and the wrath of God toward the rebellious not be understood. The scriptural fences are truth and are meant for safety and protection from lies and deceit.
Matthew Tringali says
I am discouraged by the replies as they, largely, only reaffirm the purpose of my original comment. I would be curious to hear if any from my own Uptown Church and RTS community (if you are not offended by me still identifying with those communities) would share the language used against me here.
Please also note, that I did not comment to make any kind of statement on the rightness or wrongness of LGBTQ issues, but merely was asking for more encouraging and open dialogue between those that disagree with each other. I still hold out hope that disagreeing Christians can worship together.
In any case, thankfully for me, Jesus liked to hang out with tax collectors and sinners.
p.s. Amy Cole: Amen and amen!
Lisa M says
You can be a “Christian” and disagree. You just can’t be a follower of Jesus Christ and disagree with the teachings of the Word of God.
It’s a confusing position to have. Why would a person want to be part of a community which they have extreme fundamental differences with?
FB says
Matthew: Christians can disagree and still worship together, but this depends upon nature of the disagreement. Disagreements about minor/side issues do not preclude fellowship. For example, I am a credobaptist (i.e. I believe in believer’s baptism only and believe that infant baptism is not biblical), but I can happily worship with someone who adheres to infant baptism. In contrast, disagreements over issues that penetrate to the heart of what Christianity is preclude fellowship. Jesus Christ’s divinity and His atoning death and resurrection are examples of this type of doctrine: clear truth from the Bible, unanimously proclaimed by the church for 2000 years, and central to Christianity. I cannot worship with someone who denies these truths because someone who denies these truths does not know God.
Affirmance of homosexuality is not the same as denying the truth about Christ, but I believe it is a major disagreement. This is because the Bible expressly condemns homosexuality as a sin numerous times, both in the Old and New Testaments. Moreover, the Bible implicitly condemns homosexuality. The Genesis account of Adam and Eve shows that God created marriage as a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman; scripture also compares Christ and the Church to a bridegroom and his bride. Combining both the explicit and implicit biblical teaching about sexuality creates a clear picture: God created sexuality to be enjoyed only by one man and one woman in a marriage. Because the Bible and 2000 years of church history are so clear about sexuality, to deny the sinfulness of homosexuality is to deny the veracity of the Bible. Or, it may be a deliberate twisting of scripture to create a more palatable teaching.* Both denying the truth of the Bible and twisting scripture are serious errors of the magnitude that I would feel uncomfortable having fellowship with someone doing so. I will venture to guess that many other Christians follow the same thought process.
My position is not based on hatred. Instead, it is based on love for God and His truth. It is also based on a love for my fellow man: allowing others to continue in error is not loving, but pointing out the error is.
*Another option is that someone has not had his/her eyes opened to the truth. In that case, hopefully sharing the Bible’s teaching on the topic would help him/her see the error.
Dean says
“In any case, thankfully for me, Jesus liked to hang out with tax collectors and sinners.”
I have heard this statement often & yes He/Jesus did do that & the reason was to call them out of darkness & into the light…Not to affirm sin or the sinner as if they deserve some type of comfortable affirmation. (the life of Zacchaeus with genuine repentance, conversion & thankfulness was the end game for Jesus)
The same Jesus who hung out with sinners & hung on a cross & rose again also had severe warnings for the churches who thought they could mix their faith in Christ with things that lead to hell instead of heaven. Rev 2:1-29. Rev 3:1-22.
By all means, ask what others may think, cherish it even, but be sure to do your double checking with the words of the risen Christ, after all, Satan Himself comes with the appearance of an angel of light.
Jesus came to lead us into truth, not a maze of cultural complexity devoid of the consistent message of Scripture. Jesus is about restoring godliness & holiness in these last days.
As if the Apostles got it wrong on sexual relations and calling people to repentance & faith in Christ. If you don’t know your Bible well & use it like solid food you shall easily be tossed about by the hatmakers of this world.
Jono Brooks says
Some interesting and perhaps revealing backstory concerning some if the Jen Hatmaker “marriage openness” issue. Some of this information is easily corroborated with a quick google search. Other bits are a bit more difficult (but less important) to confirm online.
https://johnpavlovitz.com/2017/04/28/the-misogyny-and-heresy-of-church-authority/#comment-242216
++++++COPY OF THE TEXT FROM THE LINKED COMMENT ABOVE++++++++
BY: JD
APRIL 29, 2017 AT 8:35 PM
And then there’s the rest of the story:
It may be useful to look at the timeline of events that have led up to this.
Helpful terms:
ANC: Austin New Church, Hatmakers’ church in Austin
FMCUSA: the Free Methodist Church- USA, which ANC was affiliated with and financially sustained by since its inception
JH: Jen Hatmaker, member of Austin New Church (ANC), occasional preacher, no official leadership position stated
BH: Brandon Hatmaker, founding pastor and elder at ANC
TP: Tray Pruitt, founding pastor and elder at ANC
JM: Jason Morriss, primary teaching pastor and elder at ANC, employed by the Free Methodist Church to serve at ANC since 2013, previously of Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church in Houston
Timeline:
Prior to October of 2016 traditional Christian marriage was the Hatmaker’s official position. It was also the official position of ANC.
October 25: JH interviewed by Jonathan Merritt which affirms her belief that gay marriage can be holy. Some elders were not aware of this change in stance prior to the interview publication.
November 1: BH affirms his JH’s position on FB. States “Being informed invites the Spirit to lead, reduces our defensiveness, and gives us the confidence to love better.” However, most respectful Facebook comments arguing for traditional viewpoints are deleted.
Winter 2016-2017: Elders who hold to the traditional view of marriage resign their position at ANC. Free Methodist Church disengages from ANC. JM updates facebook “Left Job at Free Methodist Church – USA”
March 22: TP announces a discussion regarding “full LGBT inclusion”, a series of events where only pro-gay marriage experts and thought leaders like Dr. J. Brownson and Matthew Vines. No opposing historical views included.
March 26: Remaining elders – both men and women – including BH, re-affirm the affirming position first announced to ANC via the internet interview. State desire to “remain in a tension” on the issue, however, no opposing historical views are presented, and most if not all elders – including women – holding to traditional views have left ANC since the interview.
JM reports that membership at ANC has decreased by approximately 40% in four months. Including women.
JM states he was ‘silently’ pro gay marriage when he was hired but kept this position hidden and claims his ability to not be “cornered” regarding his doctrinal views: “I can do the presidential pivot”.
JM has stated from the pulpit that JH is his “boss”.
JM changes his Facebook information to relay that he is no longer employed by the Free Methodist Church.
April 14: JH publishes blog describing her personal emotional results of interview, maligning the “Christian Machine” for criticizing her. Most respectful comments disagreeing with her stance are deleted.
April 28: In response to a Christianity Today article questioning her accountability to a Church, JH tweets “Men have “ministries.” Women have “blogs.” I’ve pastored 20 years. Jesus is in charge of me.”
Questions:
Is she officially on staff at ANC in any paid or unpaid position? Is a JH an elder? Is she a pastor?
BH’s Facebook profile describes himself as “Author. Biker. Humanitarian. Huge fan of the underdog.” Is BH on staff at ANC in any paid or unpaid position?
Was the FMCUSA informed of the Hatmakers’ doctrinal change before it was publically announced on the internet?
Did FMCUSA “fire” ANC because of their stance on gay marriage?
Did ANC follow typical ecclesiastical procedures regarding their change in position regarding an important, divisive, and controversial doctrine?
Were elders allowed to fulfill their roles as decision makers for ANC as outlined in Acts 15:1-2, or were those who disagreed with the change in position asked or encouraged to leave?
Does JH submit to the elders of ANC, or do the elders of ANC submit to JH?
One might postulate that a concerted, tactical, and very well-planned effort has been made within ANC since late Oct ’16 to conform the church and its (male AND female) elders and teachers and official doctrinal positions to with JH’s public positions, not the other way around.
+++++++++++END COMMENT COMPYJD
APRIL 29, 2017 AT 8:35 PM
And then there’s the rest of the story:
It may be useful to look at the timeline of events that have led up to this.
Helpful terms:
ANC: Austin New Church, Hatmakers’ church in Austin
FMCUSA: the Free Methodist Church- USA, which ANC was affiliated with and financially sustained by since its inception
JH: Jen Hatmaker, member of Austin New Church (ANC), occasional preacher, no official leadership position stated
BH: Brandon Hatmaker, founding pastor and elder at ANC
TP: Tray Pruitt, founding pastor and elder at ANC
JM: Jason Morriss, primary teaching pastor and elder at ANC, employed by the Free Methodist Church to serve at ANC since 2013, previously of Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church in Houston
Timeline:
Prior to October of 2016 traditional Christian marriage was the Hatmaker’s official position. It was also the official position of ANC.
October 25: JH interviewed by Jonathan Merritt which affirms her belief that gay marriage can be holy. Some elders were not aware of this change in stance prior to the interview publication.
November 1: BH affirms his JH’s position on FB. States “Being informed invites the Spirit to lead, reduces our defensiveness, and gives us the confidence to love better.” However, most respectful Facebook comments arguing for traditional viewpoints are deleted.
Winter 2016-2017: Elders who hold to the traditional view of marriage resign their position at ANC. Free Methodist Church disengages from ANC. JM updates facebook “Left Job at Free Methodist Church – USA”
March 22: TP announces a discussion regarding “full LGBT inclusion”, a series of events where only pro-gay marriage experts and thought leaders like Dr. J. Brownson and Matthew Vines. No opposing historical views included.
March 26: Remaining elders – both men and women – including BH, re-affirm the affirming position first announced to ANC via the internet interview. State desire to “remain in a tension” on the issue, however, no opposing historical views are presented, and most if not all elders – including women – holding to traditional views have left ANC since the interview.
JM reports that membership at ANC has decreased by approximately 40% in four months. Including women.
JM states he was ‘silently’ pro gay marriage when he was hired but kept this position hidden and claims his ability to not be “cornered” regarding his doctrinal views: “I can do the presidential pivot”.
JM has stated from the pulpit that JH is his “boss”.
JM changes his Facebook information to relay that he is no longer employed by the Free Methodist Church.
April 14: JH publishes blog describing her personal emotional results of interview, maligning the “Christian Machine” for criticizing her. Most respectful comments disagreeing with her stance are deleted.
April 28: In response to a Christianity Today article questioning her accountability to a Church, JH tweets “Men have “ministries.” Women have “blogs.” I’ve pastored 20 years. Jesus is in charge of me.”
Questions:
Is she officially on staff at ANC in any paid or unpaid position? Is a JH an elder? Is she a pastor?
BH’s Facebook profile describes himself as “Author. Biker. Humanitarian. Huge fan of the underdog.” Is BH on staff at ANC in any paid or unpaid position?
Was the FMCUSA informed of the Hatmakers’ doctrinal change before it was publically announced on the internet?
Did FMCUSA “fire” ANC because of their stance on gay marriage?
Did ANC follow typical ecclesiastical procedures regarding their change in position regarding an important, divisive, and controversial doctrine?
Were elders allowed to fulfill their roles as decision makers for ANC as outlined in Acts 15:1-2, or were those who disagreed with the change in position asked or encouraged to leave?
Does JH submit to the elders of ANC, or do the elders of ANC submit to JH?
One might postulate that a concerted, tactical, and very well-planned effort has been made within ANC since late Oct ’16 to conform the church and its (male AND female) elders and teachers and official doctrinal positions to with JH’s public positions, not the other way around.
+++++++++++END COMMENT COPY+++++++++++++
Supporting reference on Jason Morriss re: Lakewood/Olsteen assotiation – http://fmcusa.org/blog/2013/10/11/leadership-expert-joins-fmcusa/
Caroline says
Wow.
Sue says
Deonversion story.
I was a christian for decades. I enjoyed being a christian and the people I knew.
I gradually realized that Christians were exactjy the same as everyone else. No better, no worse. Charitable / stingy, kind / unkind, honest /dishonest. There were no noticeable “new creations.”
I started thinking about the other claims of the bible. I realized the bible, especially the OT was nasty. Then I realized the entire story of the bible rested on blood sacrifice. Ugh. I was amazed I believed something so silly for so long.
I don’t care in the least who believes what. If someone finds community in their church, I’m happy for them and would not like to see them lose it.
I do care about actions that harm others. I care about blocking simple controls over homeschooling that would make sure ALL homeschooled kids are occasionally seen by outsiders and obtain the knowledge needed to function as adults. I care about religious people interfering in the life decisions of people they don’t even know. I care about attempts to teach religious myths as science.
But I care not at all what religion others practice in their own life.
Sorry if this doesn’t align with your stereotype.
Cheers.
Epistle of Dude says
Sue
Of course, that’s a hasty generalization. It’s based on your experiences generalized to Christians as a whole. However, there are plenty of testimonials in the past and present of authentically changed lives. Just read biographies about Christians from Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis to Nicky Cruz to John Frame’s latest Theology of My Life.
Or to put it another way, it’s possible most all you saw was professing Christians who weren’t bona fide Christians.
If you think the Bible is “nasty”, you should read and learn about human history and culture in general! Quite arguably many if not most human cultures have been marked with “nastiness”. A plethora of ancient Near Eastern societies and cultures. Native Americans. The Aztecs and Mayans. The Huns and the Mongols. The Nazis. The Imperial Japanese and Unit 731. Many parts of modern Africa and Asia. Modern Mideast cultures. And even our own societies in the developed world have had “nasty” pasts which we’ve had to overcome. In any case, it’s possibly more difficult to find a nation in history that isn’t “nasty” to some degree than to find one that is.
You happen to live in a nation and society that isn’t so horrible in comparison to all those behind and around us. You happen to live in a nation that prizes literacy and learning. You happen to live with the benefits of modern science, medicine, and technology. You happen to live in a nation that is mostly safe and secure thanks to people who believe in being good citizens and who are grateful for those who serve communities in capacities like firefighting, policing, parademics, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, volunteering, and so on. You happen to live in nation that’s been influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs and values about the value of human life simply because one is a human being made in the image of God. If you lived in another society, you could be discriminated against, enslaved, or even killed based on a host of reasons.
This cuts both ways. Religious people care about irreligious people interfering in their life decisions. Religious people care about irreligious people forcing them to do what irreligious people want them to do and not what they want to do. Religious people care about irreligious people discriminating against them. Religious people care about irreligious people suing them and destroying their businesses simply because they want to remain true to their religious convictions.
Epistle of Dude says
I’ve expanded on my comment here.
Johanna in New Zealand says
My conversion story:
I was a Christian for decades, or at least I thought I was. Brought up by missionary parents, I went to church, read the Bible, prayed, was pretty self-righteous. I thought I was better than most people, except that I wasn’t. I had an addiction to masturbation. I had violent rages. I was often suicidally depressed.
I started questioning my belief system, and really looking for answers. I read the Bible like a starving person would devour bread, and asked God to show me the truth. I was desperate to change, because I knew it wasn’t the way it was supposed to be.
After a 10-month obsessive search, Jesus showed me that He is the Truth I was looking for. He became the centre of my world, and still is. I still get depressed, but am learning what the triggers are and it doesn’t seem to last as long, and most of the time I’m ok. I was set free from my decades-long addiction to masturbation. I am patient, and hardly ever get angry, which I still find very weird. I still have problems with pride and occasionally gossiping and back-biting. God’s working on me. However, I am pretty sure that if you saw me 10 years ago and compared that person to me today, you would agree that my life has had a miraculous transformation.
Byron Sherman says
Thanks for this article. Any truly expositional preacher taking his flock through the books of the Bible, pulls together the integrity of God’s truth for their sake…both lost & saved. God’s truth regularly invites & stirs the ire of many a ‘Christian’ on the church membership roll.
trent says
Great article. Thank you for addressing this issue.
RB says
I’m a pretty simple, sinful guy… but as I see it, if the word of God is changing and evolving… as some seem to say it is… then it stands to reason that such an evolution will continue. Honest question… I just wonder where the line between right and wrong will be drawn twenty years from now? It also stands to reason that it’s just a book of malleable suggestions to make me feel more comfortable in my own skin. Because at the end of the day… my satisfaction and happiness is what’s most important to the Lord… right? I mean…isn’t that the chief end of man…to be happy and content in all things? And all this time I thought it was to glorify God and enjoy him forever. My bad, Lord… I’m left often feeling broken, lonely, uncomfortable and seemingly unfulfilled with your tenets and statutes… so not so sure I can keep my end of the bargain unless I tweak them a bit. You okay with that?
Oh…wait… I forgot. You have promised me an eternal, glorious, unimaginable, heavenly life and that all of this earthly, finite pain and suffering will pass away. I only have to trust that your rules and tenets are for my eternal well being and not meant as some earthly punishment. Seems so easy…and yet I so quickly forget…daily.
Brittany Nichols Shook says
Excellent article. Thank you for writing this.
Leah says
“the divinity of Jesus, his resurrection from the dead, the forgiveness of our sins.”
***Indeed, yes, they do all have some degree of uncertainty. That’s okay” –Matthew Tringali
All I needed to know.
Matthew Tringali says
These have 100% certainty? I mean, I am not trying to call into question the fundamental doctrine and do agree that ultimately for one to maintain the Christian label they must have assent to these fundamentals. But, does that mean they have to be 100% certain of them at all times? Can one struggle with doubt on these matters and yet still choose to believe despite their doubt?
We don’t all have the gift of faith. Some must simply choose to believe, despite their uncertainty. Indeed, I would actually argue that those who doubt and yet still choose to believe actually have a stronger faith.
Consider this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64
C.M. Granger says
And how would you argue that? Those with doubt have more faith than those who believe with certainty.
Ruth says
The church is full of sheep and, unfortunately, goats, but God is Sovereign and in control. Thank you, Michael Kruger, for takibg a stand where one is needed! This is why Reformed Theology is so important. God choses His sheep and they hear His voice. We need to pray that God would give us more bold proclaimers against heresy! We all need courage to proclaim God’s Word no matter the cost.
Lani B says
At the recommendation of Michael Easley, I have read your article and most of the comments. Just for discussion and not to further any sense of division, I will refer to the “sides” of this subject, and suggest there is a profound need for grace and truth to be the healing force between both.
When someone I deeply love and respect as one of the most authentic and committed Christians I know came to me with a need to talk about her search for truth in regard to same sex attraction, I knew this would be hard, messy, and very important. My understanding of scripture had me firmly planted on the “side” of homosexuality being sin, but certainly did not give me licence to condemn. I saw it, and still do, as an area of very understandable vulnerability, especially for women who have been abused or betrayed by men they trusted. Or the outcome of a trusted, intimate friendship that is pushing emotions to a different level.
I sought counsel from a trusted friend who has been in ministry his whole life and for over 20 years has ministered to believers struggling with same sex attraction. I trust his heart and his theology as being deeply rooted in truth. He listened, answered hard questions honestly, and referred me to an invaluable book entitled “People to Love: Why Homosexuality is more than an Issue” , written by Preston Sprinkle. Honestly, this book should be required reading in churches. As a rule, we (the church) don’t handle sensitive subjects like this with grace and truth in an atmosphere that is safe and open to hard conversations. At least not in the churches I have been a part of. This book clearly addresses why I jumped into these comments.
We do NOT need to reject strong, truthful, scriptural study that leads to understanding in order to love and minister in an authentic way to people who identify with this struggle or desire. This is a subject that is very much a part of our friends and family’s lives, and by ignoring it or avoiding it or writing off those who are dealing with it as people who are “less than” is not what Jesus would do. He would never speak anything but truth, but he would see into hearts, and recognize hurts and wounds, and offer grace and love. We could learn to do that a lot better than we are doing and not be de-converters at all. I do see the subtle erosion of truth in some of the de-conversion writings, and we all need to pray for discernment…if even the very elect can be deceived, that means any of us.
My concern lies more with the polarization that can take place, quietly or quite obviously, in our churches that stands in the way of lots of messy conversations that can and will lead to healing and truth and freedom. If we reject pride and fear, trust Christ and His redemptive truth, we’ll break down the barriers, have truer community and fewer believers looking for another “side”. We can even live in community if we disagree. We are His body….we need each other.
J. Gary Ellison says
“There are plenty of liberal seminaries and universities that never have their students read a single conservative book. And it’s supposedly evangelicals that are in the intellectual echo chamber?”
Back in the 70s, I did my M.Div. at TCU. In one of my term papers, I quoted F. F. Bruce only to have the New Testament professor write in the margin, “Is this a scholarly source?”
RJ Gurson says
thanks for the chuckle 🙂
Andy Giessman says
I have a ministry to college students. My “in” is teaching philosophy and theology at two Catholic universities. My students fit what all the data says about them. That being said, I have read many de-conversion stories. Your outline is spot on. I wonder how many of your detractors have actually read some.
I recently finished “Preacher Boy”. It is the autobiographical story of a young man who attends Liberty University and ends up throwing away his faith. It fits the model as do Dan Barker and John Loftus to name a few.
When I am out speaking at churches, I encourage small groups to read one of these books for discussion.
JS says
Read this article and perused its comments with great interest. Please note that I use LGBT and gay preceeding Christian, merely as a means to identify Christians who struggle in this area. I could just as easily use name your alternative vice.
I am one who explored the JH and all position over the course of two years as Istruggle with SSA. In the end, I decided no, I cannot accept it. In fact, it was the rather negative and bigoted treatment of anyone, including those who may be LGBT, yet affirm orthodox, biblical teachings on sexuality and gender issues that pushed me away from that cam
Yes, it is true that LGBT people can deal with harsh rejection and pain. I’ve had many a discussion with some. And for some, it seems that anger in response to that treatment is all they have left. As the lady posted above, ministering to people dealing with SSA and gender dysphoria requires its own set of skills in gentleness, love, and respect much like we would with another area of sexual brokenness – a victims of sexual abuse of any type. And the simple, “Well, the Bible says homosexuality and transgenderism is wrong” is not enough. While the gospel is transformative, we often fail to forget that the stain of sin runs deep.
Just like most who have a physical ailments do not receive healing and deliverance in this life from said ailments, so too is the LGBT person. Many orthodox LGBT Christians struggle to one varying degree or another with SSA or gender dysphoria (for the T), just as people who struggle with anger control, alcoholism, pornography, and other sins. Therefore, something new and novel is very attractive.
However, LGBT people, who reject post-modern society and its position, and embrace orthodox, biblical doctrine (even if you disagree with say Rosario Butterfield at certain points), are generally NOT welcome by many in the liberalizing church at the table, even within organizations that purport to be a safe space to all. It has been my experience through interaction with these people that even when disagreement on positions is acknowledged up front and even the slightest commonality on say just changing the tone of the discussion is raised, vehement rejection ensues by people purporting to be Christian in at least a cultural Christian safe space.
Many of the public faces may be kind and compassionate in discussions, yet in the trenches rejection of those who reject the so-called affirming positions can be very nasty. And if that is the fruit of their Christianity, then I will take the traditional church in all its warts.
James Lundstrom says
I don’t think it is fair to say that individuals like Jen Hatmaker, Pete Enns, and Rob Bell have “de-converted” (though perhaps this is true of Ehrman). Sure, one could argue that they have moved outside historic orthodoxy on several issues but “de-converted?” As near as I can tell (I have read several of Pete’s books), they have each worked hard at formulations that will allow them to both confront hard questions authentically and yet stay on the path of following Jesus (as opposed to abandoning the faith).
Neither did I think the interview referenced was some carefully “designed” presentation created to lead the faithful astray. It was simply a person sharing their experience and what beliefs led them to change their mind. Disagreement with their position is fair, but let’s not mischaracterize their motives.
Those who have deep questions and honest difficulties with the Christian faith are watching how we treat people like this. Perhaps the idea that evangelicalism welcomes skeptics and questioners with all if the love and tenderness of an apologetics war machine is more than just a caricature.