The following is an extended quote from Pastor Tom Buck, taken from Twitter.
“The rate at which evangelicalism is adopting worldly culture is astounding and it seems that few are paying close attention. Almost overnight, we have adopted the world’s language regarding homosexuality & Christians speak of “LGBT community” as if it’s biblical language.
The ways of liberal Protestantism have crept into the most conservative evangelical circles.
Take for example the “Revoice Conference” being held in July, which meets to “gather together with other gender & sexual minorities” to “experience a new kind of gospel community.”
This conference, which purposes to “support, encourage, and empower gay, lesbian, same-sex-attracted and other LGBT Christians,” will be meeting at Memorial Presbyterian Church. Not Presbyterian USA, but Presbyterian PCA.
But there’s more. One of the keynote speakers is Nate Collins who is apparently a part of the SBC. He received his Ph.D. from SBTS and taught New Testament Interpretation there. If his speaking at such an event were not disturbing enough, consider his personal bio found here:
Notice he describes himself as “a married, same-sex-attracted/gay man.” Now stop & consider how far we’ve come in evangelicalism. Just 10 years ago would anyone have imagined such a statement? Why would anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ describe himself that way?
Why wouldn’t Nate offer the hope that the Gospel offers in 1 Cor 6:11 to both himself and those to whom he ministers? After Paul lists those who wouldn’t inherit the kingdom of God – which included homosexuals – he says, “And such WERE some of you. But you were WASHED…”
In that same list, Paul speaks of thieves and drunkards that will not inherit the kingdom of God. Why don’t we hear anyone identify as a “thieving Christian” or a “drunkard Christian?” Why would anyone self-identify as a “gay Christian?”
But, there’s something deeper lurking behind Nate’s self-identification. Examine his statement and apply the logical conclusions of his claim to be a “married, same-sex-attracted/gay man.” What he seems to say is that he’s the “G” in the LGBT. But is that really the case?
There are only three possible conclusions to his statement:
1) He once was attracted to men, but he has renounced that sin, mortified it, and now finds his sexual attraction solely in his wife. But if this is the case, why identify yourself as a same-sex attracted gay man?
2) He’s same-sex-attracted & isn’t sexually attracted to his wife. He’s married to someone he isn’t sexually attracted to & refrains from his true attraction towards men. In this case, he would indeed be a same-sex-attracted/gay man who happens to be married to a woman.
3) He is actually sexually attracted to both men & women and is in fact bisexual. If this is the case, wouldn’t his bio more correctly be that he is a married, both sex-attracted/bisexual man?
If the final option is correct, evangelicalism has moved beyond the “G” in LGBT & has now normalized the “B.” When does this movement in the homosexual alphabet end? If we don’t wake up and pay attention, before we know it, evangelicalism will have fully embraced the “T.”
We aren’t far from an evangelical conference in a PCA church w/ a keynote speaker from an SBC school that’s a man who thinks he’s a woman that’s “married” to a woman who thinks she’s a man. If you say that’s crazy, you would’ve said the same thing about Nate’s bio 10 yrs ago.”