Joel, I’ve appreciated your perspective and thought-provoking posts which have been helpful. I’ve been on the fence with many of them but would strongly diverge with you here.
While I agree we should use tact (or strategy) in our dealings with people to better shine the light of Christ, I think we can draw a distinction between appropriate engagement (i.e. welcoming a gay relative into your house and treating them with love) and celebrating - that’s essentially what a wedding is - a deliberate act of rebellion against God. I would challenge the apparent hypothesis you make in your fabricated study that gay children will more likely repent from their abnormal sexual sin with parents who attend the pinnacle of their sinful deviation than parents who don’t.
As an illustration, let’s say your son comes out as gay. You express that you still love him, but caution against acting on his homosexual desires, as it violates God’s sovereign law. Things are awkward at first, but you strive to maintain fellowship with him, even when he introduces his boyfriend to you. Good so far. The time comes however when he has invited you to his gay wedding…
Scenario 1: you say yes and attend. What then goes through your son’s mind? I would speculate, “Gee, dad is finally coming around and warming up to this. I’m glad he’s getting with the times. Perhaps, that old Bible and its ruthless condemnations of homosexuality really isn’t that important after all…”
Scenario 2: you say, “No. I still love you, but I serve the Lord and cannot reconcile this. I hope and pray you will eventually turn from this. Just to reiterate, I do still love you and will always be here for you.” Again, I can only speculate, but I would imagine the son’s thinking would be more along the lines of, “How can my dad be this loyal to the Bible and who is this God he fears?” [And Lord willing, perhaps later] “What if this God does exist and the Bible is actually his word?”
With the second scenario, have you alienated yourself from your son and the LGBTQ community? Quite possibly. Have you developed some sort of selfish pride from the subsequent back patting by your "conservative" friends? Perhaps. But the important question is are you aligned with God? And knowing God said, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”, how can you reconcile this statement with attending a ceremony that celebrates this act?
The world is corrupt and will continue to increasingly celebrate LGBTQ and other forms of sin. But God says in Roman 12:2, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” He also says, “You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters…” which I would argue is at the crux of this matter – are you more concerned with your gay relative’s feelings or God’s?
I was considering subscribing after reading your piece on OCD (which I have), but this essay really disconcerted me. It is well argued, but the argument strikes me as deeply dangerous. You seem to be saying that we should do evil that good may come. Outcomes are not the principal thing to be considered when judging the morality of actions. They may not be quite irrelevant, but they are never primary. To attend an impossible ceremony like a gay "wedding" is to participate in evil by acknowledging its legitimacy. This we cannot do and this Jesus never did, since eating with sinners is not the same as attending a ceremony in which their sins are proclaimed good. That attending may make it more likely that someone will be saved is not particularly relevant, since evangelizing through evil actions, no matter how effective, is wrong. Strategy is irrelevant to the Christian. Victory is not his to obtain, and thus in religious matters he does not take likelihood of victory into account.
Matthew, thanks for your cautions. I understand the particular concerns about attending a gay wedding - however, I would challenge the claim that "Strategy is irrelevant to the Christian."
Jesus says that his followers should imitate the dishonest manager, who used "unrighteous wealth" shrewdly to buy friends and an eternal dwelling. "For the sons of this world are more shrewd than the sons of light."
Or I think of the midwives in Egypt who lied about the Hebrew babies - and God blessed them.
We have to be careful not to have more moral scruples than God does. ;) Incidentally, that's what I was arguing in the OCD piece as well - they're deeply connected. Thanks for reading and considering!
"In ethics, realism is the view that ethical action does not consist in rule-following but in appropriate response to the needs of the situation."
I think that you have problem with definitions. Or, perhaps, everybody has to go Kantian with their own set of definitions. What you are describing sounds more like Fletcher's Situation Ethics (1966). There may be a few ethical principles involved in navigating any given situation. However, no ethical principle may be disregard or diluted without invariably resulting in deleterious ontological consequences, even if those consequences are neither apparent nor immediate (metaethical consequentialism).
I would not have said that Alastair Begg departed slightly from orthodoxy. I would’ve said that he departed massively from orthodoxy.
I wonder in your hypothetical about Jesus attending a so-called lesbian wedding. If you believe he would have concluded it with the words, go and sin no more.
Yes, Jesus would have! Certainly - Jesus' way is not to cast a stone, but also to call people to holiness. I very much agree.
I disagree with your judgment on the first point, of course. The fact is, Alastair Begg hasn't departed from orthodoxy in any way - he agrees with the traditional definition of marriage. What we have is a question of orthopraxy at hand. And Begg offered counsel that I have yet to see anyone consider on its merits! Why would a wise, elder statesmen of evangelicalism offer this counsel, given his well-known orthodoxy? He may be wrong, but "departed massively from orthodoxy" is not accurate.
Joel, I’ve appreciated your perspective and thought-provoking posts which have been helpful. I’ve been on the fence with many of them but would strongly diverge with you here.
While I agree we should use tact (or strategy) in our dealings with people to better shine the light of Christ, I think we can draw a distinction between appropriate engagement (i.e. welcoming a gay relative into your house and treating them with love) and celebrating - that’s essentially what a wedding is - a deliberate act of rebellion against God. I would challenge the apparent hypothesis you make in your fabricated study that gay children will more likely repent from their abnormal sexual sin with parents who attend the pinnacle of their sinful deviation than parents who don’t.
As an illustration, let’s say your son comes out as gay. You express that you still love him, but caution against acting on his homosexual desires, as it violates God’s sovereign law. Things are awkward at first, but you strive to maintain fellowship with him, even when he introduces his boyfriend to you. Good so far. The time comes however when he has invited you to his gay wedding…
Scenario 1: you say yes and attend. What then goes through your son’s mind? I would speculate, “Gee, dad is finally coming around and warming up to this. I’m glad he’s getting with the times. Perhaps, that old Bible and its ruthless condemnations of homosexuality really isn’t that important after all…”
Scenario 2: you say, “No. I still love you, but I serve the Lord and cannot reconcile this. I hope and pray you will eventually turn from this. Just to reiterate, I do still love you and will always be here for you.” Again, I can only speculate, but I would imagine the son’s thinking would be more along the lines of, “How can my dad be this loyal to the Bible and who is this God he fears?” [And Lord willing, perhaps later] “What if this God does exist and the Bible is actually his word?”
With the second scenario, have you alienated yourself from your son and the LGBTQ community? Quite possibly. Have you developed some sort of selfish pride from the subsequent back patting by your "conservative" friends? Perhaps. But the important question is are you aligned with God? And knowing God said, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”, how can you reconcile this statement with attending a ceremony that celebrates this act?
The world is corrupt and will continue to increasingly celebrate LGBTQ and other forms of sin. But God says in Roman 12:2, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” He also says, “You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters…” which I would argue is at the crux of this matter – are you more concerned with your gay relative’s feelings or God’s?
I've written a response. It will be out tomorrow morning, but if you'ld like to comment before it goes live:
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/c56f5685-f37d-4a1e-a1b2-262d8a2084bc
Thanks, Von! I appreciate the interaction. I'll wait till you publish, but thanks again.
And… It’s up!
https://open.substack.com/pub/vonwriting/p/i-begg-to-differ?r=6csnm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I will look forward to your comments. Maybe we can make it a series :)
I was considering subscribing after reading your piece on OCD (which I have), but this essay really disconcerted me. It is well argued, but the argument strikes me as deeply dangerous. You seem to be saying that we should do evil that good may come. Outcomes are not the principal thing to be considered when judging the morality of actions. They may not be quite irrelevant, but they are never primary. To attend an impossible ceremony like a gay "wedding" is to participate in evil by acknowledging its legitimacy. This we cannot do and this Jesus never did, since eating with sinners is not the same as attending a ceremony in which their sins are proclaimed good. That attending may make it more likely that someone will be saved is not particularly relevant, since evangelizing through evil actions, no matter how effective, is wrong. Strategy is irrelevant to the Christian. Victory is not his to obtain, and thus in religious matters he does not take likelihood of victory into account.
Matthew, thanks for your cautions. I understand the particular concerns about attending a gay wedding - however, I would challenge the claim that "Strategy is irrelevant to the Christian."
Jesus says that his followers should imitate the dishonest manager, who used "unrighteous wealth" shrewdly to buy friends and an eternal dwelling. "For the sons of this world are more shrewd than the sons of light."
Or I think of the midwives in Egypt who lied about the Hebrew babies - and God blessed them.
We have to be careful not to have more moral scruples than God does. ;) Incidentally, that's what I was arguing in the OCD piece as well - they're deeply connected. Thanks for reading and considering!
Thank you for answering!
"In ethics, realism is the view that ethical action does not consist in rule-following but in appropriate response to the needs of the situation."
I think that you have problem with definitions. Or, perhaps, everybody has to go Kantian with their own set of definitions. What you are describing sounds more like Fletcher's Situation Ethics (1966). There may be a few ethical principles involved in navigating any given situation. However, no ethical principle may be disregard or diluted without invariably resulting in deleterious ontological consequences, even if those consequences are neither apparent nor immediate (metaethical consequentialism).
I would not have said that Alastair Begg departed slightly from orthodoxy. I would’ve said that he departed massively from orthodoxy.
I wonder in your hypothetical about Jesus attending a so-called lesbian wedding. If you believe he would have concluded it with the words, go and sin no more.
Yes, Jesus would have! Certainly - Jesus' way is not to cast a stone, but also to call people to holiness. I very much agree.
I disagree with your judgment on the first point, of course. The fact is, Alastair Begg hasn't departed from orthodoxy in any way - he agrees with the traditional definition of marriage. What we have is a question of orthopraxy at hand. And Begg offered counsel that I have yet to see anyone consider on its merits! Why would a wise, elder statesmen of evangelicalism offer this counsel, given his well-known orthodoxy? He may be wrong, but "departed massively from orthodoxy" is not accurate.
Have you seen this analysis by Doug Wilson?
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/alistair-beggs-off.html
Well, we certainly do disagree. I would be willing to go much longer form on this one.