The ‘Gospel of Pride’ Is Not the Gospel of Christ

Written by Dr. Everett Piper

It’s June, and it’s that wonderful time of year when liberal pastors and priests across the country take to their pulpits to declare that conservative Christians, whether they be Catholic or charismatic, are bigots if we still believe that men engaging in sodomy are depraved or that women having sex with women are wrong. Yes, for the entire month, we will be harangued with messages from the church itself extolling the wonders of “same-sex love” and the virtues of 57 genders.

Preachers will march in pride parades, and prelates will administer sacraments while donning rainbow stoles. Regardless of their ecclesiastical brand or denominational stripe, their message will be the same. It will go something like this:

“Jesus never addressed the issue of homosexuality. His core message centered on compassion (John 8). The Gospel calls for inclusion, not exclusion. Christ emphasized love and care for the marginalized, not judgment (e.g., Matthew 25:40; Luke 4:18-19).”

They will continue. “Many scholars,” they’ll say, “contend that the biblical condemnation of sexual immorality (porneia) refers to exploitative or nonconsensual acts rather than consensual loving relationships. We must engage with the historical and cultural contexts of the Bible rather than rely on hyperbolic judgments that risk misrepresenting the lived reality of our LGBTQ neighbors and friends. Christians should not insist on narrow, exclusionary standards that force people to conform to their human prejudices. We dare not elevate legal standards over the transformative, inclusive message of Jesus.”

How should the faithful respond?

First, we should start with the obvious and tell those who fancy themselves to be our pastoral betters that it is simply not true that Jesus never addressed the issue of sexual morality. In fact, he couldn’t have been clearer. In Chapter 22 of the Book of Revelation, for example, Christ is unequivocal.

“Look, I am coming soon, and my reward is with me to repay each person according to his work. … Outside are the dogs … those who practice ‘porneia’ (an umbrella term for all illicit sexuality) … and deception.”

Surely, we can agree that Jesus is speaking here in his final admonition to the church, just as much as he did in the Gospels. Why would any pastor ignore this, and on what basis does any church leader make the Lord’s clear and final words in Revelation subservient to his teaching in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Second, there is absolutely nothing — as in zero — in Luke 4:18-19 or Matthew 25:40 that liberals so love to cite that remotely suggests that Jesus’ call to care “for the least of these” legitimizes sexual sin, homosexual, heterosexual or otherwise. These passages don’t even address such matters. Any preacher’s or priest’s suggestion to the contrary is terrible hermeneutics and textbook examples of overt and wanton eisegesis rather than faithful exegesis of the text.

Third, the left’s ongoing use of John 8 to emphasize “compassion” over confession and judgment is disingenuous and incomplete, and those who do this know it. They are cleverly leaving out the part where Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to stop doing what she was doing: “Go and sin no more!”

Fourth, let’s address the liberal claim that the Gospel of Christ calls for inclusion, not exclusion. How so? Didn’t Jesus himself say he was the EXCLUSIVE way and that no one comes to the Father but by him? Didn’t he also make it clear that his path to eternal life was narrow and that few (an exclusionary statement if ever there was one) would find it?

Fifth, as to the now-oh-so-predictable claim that “many scholars contend that ‘porneia’ refers to exploitative or nonconsensual acts rather than consensual loving relationships,” we should simply ask, “What scholars?” Then, ask why anyone would elevate such opinions above the clear teachings of the apostles and Jesus and what gives them the credentials to do so.

Sidebar: Remember that the statement “many scholars” is a Socratic fallacy of ad populum as well as an argumentum ad verecundiam (an appeal to authority), and there’s nothing wrong with pointing out to your pastor or priest they have committed this error.

The bottom line is that the liberal argument for “affirmation, inclusion and tolerance” coming from today’s clerics is one that elevates their opinion over the entire counsel of Scripture. I’ll say it again: Such eisegesis shows a stunning disregard for the clear teachings and intent of the biblical authors as well as the 2,000-year traditions of the church. The “gospel of pride” is not the Gospel of Christ. In the words of St. Paul:

“If anyone teaches a different doctrine [that] does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. … I am astonished that you are so quickly turning to a different gospel and want to distort the Gospel of Christ.”

This article was originally published by The Washington Times.