Alistair Begg: You should go to a transsexual wedding

[temporal1]

“Go and sin no more,” was a huge and welcome surprise. Accepted with gratitude.

[Valerie]

OK, there is another example of Jesus weeping that isn't the common one cited from John. I stand corrected.

In the verse you cite he seemed mostly concerned about the general state of Jerusalem. When he entered the city gates he went straight to the temple and chased out the money lenders. Does that mean Jesus would weep if he attended a wedding involving a money-lender? Maybe you can leap to that conclusion but it isn't supported by the text.

I'm simply taking issue with the notion upstream that Jesus would have wept at a gay marriage. There is nothing in the Bible to support this notion. I think we are on very shaky ground to suggest Jesus would have done this or that thing in circumstances not described in the Gospels. If there is one constant in the Gospels, it is that Jesus constantly surprises, especially when he communicates to those who believe that they are the most righteous. But he did spend a lot of time hanging out with those who were on the outside of "polite" society.

Well, he certainly would not have endorsed it. He may have saved the participants from the penalty they justly deserved under the law, but he surely, just as the woman taken in adultery, would have told them to go forth and sin no more.

There is a difference between a money changer who could have carried out his business without sinning.

It is impossible for a wedding of this nature to have not had as its source sin.

Even creating a transexual is forbidden, the result is exclusion from Israel's religious life:

Deut 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

I won't bore you with the verses on transvestitism. Suffice to say, he could minister to them, but not endorse their sin.

Usury is a sin too. But without charging interest, no one would ever loan any money. And there would certainly be no "money lenders"

None of us actually know how Jesus would have reacted to a gay wedding. To claim otherwise is to put words into Jesus' mouth that are simply not there. One thing we do know. He tended to surprise people with his responses. And he especially annoyed religious authorities. He seemed to save his harshest criticisms for the self-righteous and religious authorities.

You are free to your interpretations as am I. But to claim that Jesus would have wept is a stretch.

Do you see all sin as "equal"? All sin is sin, all sin needs repentance, but Scripture does not teach it all as equal. Sometimes the word "abomination," is what God uses.

Here's where I turn to a footnote in my Orthodox study Bible: (From Romans 1)

Homosexual behavior, men with men, is a vile rejection of God's order for creation. These passions are against nature and therefore spiritually devastating Error (vs 27) means "delusion."
1:29-32: while sexual immorality is not the only way man is given over to unrighteousness, it is often more destructive than other sins and thus received specific attention here (see 1 Cor 6:12-20).

Again all sin is sin. But not all equal

Romans 1 ends with: who knowing the righteous judgement of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also "approve" of those who practice them.

I think that leads me to believe a good reason to grieve in heart and to convey by attending and giving a gift shows "approval".

The word "practice" is significant to- when one commits to a sinful lifestyle that is "practicing" sin. Giving over to it.

[Ken]

Do you see all sin as "equal"? All sin is sin, all sin needs repentance, but Scripture does not teach it all as equal. Sometimes the word "abomination," is what God uses.

Here's where I turn to a footnote in my Orthodox study Bible: (From Romans 1)

Homosexual behavior, men with men, is a vile rejection of God's order for creation. These passions are against nature and therefore spiritually devastating Error (vs 27) means "delusion."
1:29-32: while sexual immorality is not the only way man is given over to unrighteousness, it is often more destructive than other sins and thus received specific attention here (see 1 Cor 6:12-20).

Again all sin is sin. But not all equal

Romans 1 ends with: who knowing the righteous judgement of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also "approve" of those who practice them.

I think that leads me to believe a good reason to grieve in heart and to convey by attending and giving a gift shows "approval".

The word "practice" is significant to- when one commits to a sinful lifestyle that is "practicing" sin. Giving over to it.

Look, I'll give you the best answer that I can. I'm not gay. I'm a married straight guy with very ordinary and conventional sexuality. I actually find the idea of gay sex rather distasteful. It isn't anything I'm curious about personally or have ever been even slightly tempted or curious about. I've been around enough men in a long serious of male-centric jobs to know I don't have the slightest interest in them.

But I also find the conservative Christian obsession about homosexuality to be on pretty shaky ground. There is actually very little in the scriptures about it and the passages normally cited are a stretch. For example, right above you cite Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6.

Romans 1 when you read the entire passage is a specific criticism of the Isis cult that was prominent in Paul's time. And it lists a long laundry list of sins: envy, strife, malice, gossip, etc.

And 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 no mention of homosexuality. Its discussion of sexual immorality is about men sleeping with prostitutes, not homosexuality. If you step back and read the entire chapter he does mention men sleeping with men but as part of a long laundry list of other sins including lawsuits, idolatry, adultery, thievery, greed, drunkenness, slander, and swindling. In Paul's time we were probably talking about child sex slaves captured as war booty or sold into slavery by their parents.

And in both cases I think Paul is really speaking about unfaithfulness. Men who go out and philander and cheat on their wives, whether with male prostitutes, female prostitutes, gambling of family resources, drunkenness, etc. In other words, sinning against OTHERS that you should be faithful towards.

To answer your question. No, I don't think all sin is equal. I believe sins that harm others are the worst kinds of sins. Much of Jesus' teachings are focused on how we are to treat others. And so I would categorize the worst sins as those that harm others, physically, emotionally, psychologically, and so forth:

Theft and swindling (including businesses that engage in wage theft and other exploitative practices)
Physical abuse, especially of minors
Sexual assault, especially of minors
Sexual manipulation, especially of minors and other vulnerable people
Gossip and slander that destroys the reputations of others and harms them
All forms of exploitation including exploitative usury and taking advantage of others
Violence of all kinds towards others (including and especially towards children)
And yes, being unfaithful or neglectful to your spouse and family whether it is sleeping with men, women, prostitutes, gambling the family money, drunkenness, sloth when you should be providing, etc. etc.

I would consider all of those sins to be far more destructive and serious than two adult men or two adult women who choose to be in a loving, committed, and equal relationship. And frankly, far better for them to be married and inside society than on the outside in anonymous philandering encounters as was the case when society was much more disapproving.

I also see the damage that driving people into the closet has done. All the broken marriages by gay people who tried to be straight. As a father of three daughters I'm happier that they are living in a society where different sexualities are accepted so that when they do find guys, they are more likely to actually be straight guys who are honest about their feelings rather than closeted gay guys who are pretending to be straight to make society (or their church) happy. I know too many people who's marriages have fallen apart because one partner was gay and eventually decided to become open about it. Although that was more common back in the Baptist heartland of central Texas than here in the Pacific Northwest.

So if two gay people want to get married I'm fine with it and happy for them. That does not mean, however, that I want to see all kinds of sexual affirmational nonsense in my church or workplace or anywhere else. So I'm not particularly interested in seeing gay flags or straight flags in church. Or Palestinian flags or Jewish flags or even American flags. I find the pronoun business rather annoying, especially how it has manifested in the usage of Latinx which is a linguistic abomination according to my very proper Latino father-in-law.

So as to the actual subject of this thread? I honestly go to very few weddings and most that occur within the extended family I politely defer unless they are next door and close to us. My wife and I have pretty much aged out of the wedding years except for the children of various cousins these days. But if someone in my very close circle was gay and invited us to a wedding that we would otherwise attend if they were straight then we would probably attend. And if we disapproved for any reason we certainly wouldn't make a scene about it which strikes me as similar to the sort public display of morality and virtue that Jesus actually spoke against. If I know one thing for certain about attending the weddings of others, it is that they aren't about me. And if I don't have anything good to say, better I just keep my peace.

Transgender weddings are even a further stretch as I do know gay people and there are some gay people in my extended family and work circle. But there isn't anyone even in my outermost circle of acquaintances who is transgender. The closest I can think of is an old college acquaintance who I haven't seen in 20 years who I noticed on Facebook has a transgender son in college who I have never met and not likely to. So the notion of a me getting invited to a transgender wedding is entirely hypothetical and somewhat far-fetched. But if there was someone in my close circle who was close enough that I'd attend their wedding if it was just an ordinary straight wedding then I'd also probably attend if they were gay or transgender. And then probably watch my watch the whole time waiting for the first moment we can politely escape which is my normal behavior at all weddings.

[Valerie]

The reason gay people were in the closet to begin with is it's always been known as sin. Since creation God's intentions were clear. Many do not accept the modern day explanation/interpretations that you give and of course we understand that there will be false teachings increasing as prophesied characteristic of the last of the Last Days.

You said you would be "happy" for them. This is grievous. Anyways, I have yet to meet a happy gay person, and in fact I've known numerous with relationship issues. My niece who divorced her husband and years later married a gay woman is now going through a divorce with her. This is not the answer for their soul. I think you're understanding of heaven & hell leaves me to believe either you don't believe in hell or your not particularly grieved in your heart about people spending eternity there. Jesus words to the woman caught in adultery were "Go and sin no more".

Perhaps it would behoove you to read "Out of a Far Country" by Christopher Yuan ,(and his mother), an amazing testimony of a man who came out of the gay lifestyle. We have been to his seminar to feel better equipped to deal with this culture. If nothing else, it will hopefully help you gain more understanding and build your faith up to believe that people can be set free to live a life outside their gay passions and be at peace. Christopher's life is devoted to helping people do so- read about him Ken, we took the time to learn and be better equipped. None of us want to be accused of enjoying casting stones nor do we want to be accused of helping others into eternal damnation.

I will add this- I have listened to the testimonies of others who came out of the gay lifestyle & became Christians and NONE of them advocate showing support or approval of it in any way- yet the Church at large needs to learn how to live without supporting - yes- we are not perfect at this because it is HARD

[Ken]

The reason gay people were in the closet to begin with is it's always been known as sin. Since creation God's intentions were clear. Many do not accept the modern day explanation/interpretations that you give and of course we understand that there will be false teachings increasing as prophesied characteristic of the last of the Last Days.

You said you would be "happy" for them. This is grievous. Anyways, I have yet to meet a happy gay person, and in fact I've known numerous with relationship issues. My niece who divorced her husband and years later married a gay woman is now going through a divorce with her. This is not the answer for their soul. I think you're understanding of heaven & hell leaves me to believe either you don't believe in hell or your not particularly grieved in your heart about people spending eternity there. Jesus words to the woman caught in adultery were "Go and sin no more".

Perhaps it would behoove you to read "Out of a Far Country" by Christopher Yuan ,(and his mother), an amazing testimony of a man who came out of the gay lifestyle. We have been to his seminar to feel better equipped to deal with this culture. If nothing else, it will hopefully help you gain more understanding and build your faith up to believe that people can be set free to live a life outside their gay passions and be at peace. Christopher's life is devoted to helping people do so- read about him Ken, we took the time to learn and be better equipped. None of us want to be accused of enjoying casting stones nor do we want to be accused of helping others into eternal damnation.

The only thing we know for absolute certainty is that there is no one without sin. NO ONE. So I tend not to focus so much on the sins of others and focus more on my own. And I think it would be a much better world if we all did the same. What did Jesus say? He who is without sin cast the first stone. That is a metaphor as much as a story.

I don't know many gay people as in really KNOW as friends. In fact there are only two that I have known going back to my 20s who I didn't really know were gay back then but found out later. They are both in long-term relationships and both seem as happy as anyone else. The both have kids and their lives are all the normal things of school family vacations, swim meets, etc. Very very ordinary and boring. I have other assorted gay acquaintances from work and family who I don't really know personally and have no idea what their personal lives are like in the slightest.

On the other hand I do know plenty of straight people whose social and family lives are complete messes with divorces, betrayals, infidelities, addictions, and so forth. In fact, everyone one I have ever known who as made an absolute wreck of their lives was straight as far as I know. So I guess our experiences are divergent.

[Valerie]

The reason gay people were in the closet to begin with is it's always been known as sin. Since creation God's intentions were clear. Many do not accept the modern day explanation/interpretations that you give and of course we understand that there will be false teachings increasing as prophesied characteristic of the last of the Last Days.

You said you would be "happy" for them. This is grievous. Anyways, I have yet to meet a happy gay person, and in fact I've known numerous with relationship issues. My niece who divorced her husband and years later married a gay woman is now going through a divorce with her. This is not the answer for their soul. I think you're understanding of heaven & hell leaves me to believe either you don't believe in hell or your not particularly grieved in your heart about people spending eternity there. Jesus words to the woman caught in adultery were "Go and sin no more".

Perhaps it would behoove you to read "Out of a Far Country" by Christopher Yuan ,(and his mother), an amazing testimony of a man who came out of the gay lifestyle. We have been to his seminar to feel better equipped to deal with this culture. If nothing else, it will hopefully help you gain more understanding and build your faith up to believe that people can be set free to live a life outside their gay passions and be at peace. Christopher's life is devoted to helping people do so- read about him Ken, we took the time to learn and be better equipped. None of us want to be accused of enjoying casting stones nor do we want to be accused of helping others into eternal damnation.

The only thing we know for absolute certainty is that there is no one without sin. NO ONE. So I tend not to focus so much on the sins of others and focus more on my own. And I think it would be a much better world if we all did the same. What did Jesus say? He who is without sin cast the first stone. That is a metaphor as much as a story.

I don't know many gay people as in really KNOW as friends. In fact there are only two that I have known going back to my 20s who I didn't really know were gay back then but found out later. They are both in long-term relationships and both seem as happy as anyone else. The both have kids and their lives are all the normal things of school family vacations, swim meets, etc. Very very ordinary and boring. I have other assorted gay acquaintances from work and family who I don't really know personally and have no idea what their personal lives are like in the slightest.

On the other hand I do know plenty of straight people whose social and family lives are complete messes with divorces, betrayals, infidelities, addictions, and so forth. In fact, everyone one I have ever known who as made an absolute wreck of their lives was straight as far as I know. So I guess our experiences are divergent.

This is the problem. Satan has conveniently influenced minds in such a way that people are accusing Christians of focusing on sins. Who here is suggesting that's what we are doing? The OP is about (my,) Pastor encouraging a grandmother to go to her grandsons wedding when she sought his counsel. Of course this alarmed many the way he counseled her. NO ONE is not suggesting self righteousness here- in fact I would think most on this forum if caught in sin would welcome a Christian being used of God to lead them out of it. We are not saying no one ever sins. We are talking about whether to celebrate the "practice of sin, vile sin" that has led a couple into depravity. Should we try to help them see the Light and help lead them out by speaking Truth? I can assure you, the testimonies I've heard from former gays were THANKFUL for those speaking the Truth in love, not remaining quiet. Or "supporting" by joining in to celebrate the sin. In fact they are more disappointed that professing Christians would do so.

Granted the Christian community has done harm in their approach and because some have, we all become labeled as self righteous judgemental etc. Not fair. Not true.

[Judas Maccabeus]

OK, there is another example of Jesus weeping that isn't the common one cited from John. I stand corrected.

In the verse you cite he seemed mostly concerned about the general state of Jerusalem. When he entered the city gates he went straight to the temple and chased out the money lenders. Does that mean Jesus would weep if he attended a wedding involving a money-lender? Maybe you can leap to that conclusion but it isn't supported by the text.

I'm simply taking issue with the notion upstream that Jesus would have wept at a gay marriage. There is nothing in the Bible to support this notion. I think we are on very shaky ground to suggest Jesus would have done this or that thing in circumstances not described in the Gospels. If there is one constant in the Gospels, it is that Jesus constantly surprises, especially when he communicates to those who believe that they are the most righteous. But he did spend a lot of time hanging out with those who were on the outside of "polite" society.

Well, he certainly would not have endorsed it. He may have saved the participants from the penalty they justly deserved under the law, but he surely, just as the woman taken in adultery, would have told them to go forth and sin no more.

There is a difference between a money changer who could have carried out his business without sinning.

It is impossible for a wedding of this nature to have not had as its source sin.

Even creating a transexual is forbidden, the result is exclusion from Israel's religious life:

Deut 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

I won't bore you with the verses on transvestitism. Suffice to say, he could minister to them, but not endorse their sin.

Usury is a sin too. But without charging interest, no one would ever loan any money. And there would certainly be no "money lenders"

None of us actually know how Jesus would have reacted to a gay wedding. To claim otherwise is to put words into Jesus' mouth that are simply not there. One thing we do know. He tended to surprise people with his responses. And he especially annoyed religious authorities. He seemed to save his harshest criticisms for the self-righteous and religious authorities.

You are free to your interpretations as am I. But to claim that Jesus would have wept is a stretch.

I think it would be more accurate to describe the people doing business in the temple as "Money Changers" rather than "Money Lenders." It was forbidden to put a coin with the image of a pagan emperor on it in the temple treasury. Hence the need to change Roman coins for Jewish coins lacking that lacked such images. It would have been perfectly possible to conduct business honestly and without users, if they were so inclined. They were not so inclined.

That he said that not one jot and tittle of the law would not pass away would give you an indication of how he would have treated such a gross violation. He certainly would have tried to minister to them, but I cannot conceive of a scenario where he would have given endorsement to it.

[Sudsy]

Valerie, I think you were going to go to an evening service where Alistair was going to share more on his recommendation to this lady. Did I understand this correctly ? If so, did you go and what did he say that we don't already know ?

[Valerie]

Valerie, I think you were going to go to an evening service where Alistair was going to share more on his recommendation to this lady. Did I understand this correctly ? If so, did you go and what did he say that we don't already know ?

https://www.parksidechurch.com/learn/re ... /archives/

There you go Sudsy, I wasn't sure if the evening service would be available but it is for you to hear.

I had a customer this morning who knows I go to Parkside & her daughter works for Truth For Life. She said she agreed with Alistair's counsel because he advised the grandmother to make sure the couple knew her belief about it and to be clear by her attending didn't mean she was affirming it. I just replied that we (husband & I) disagreed because a wedding is a celebration where you are joining to celebrate and be a witness. I do not equate being absent as being like as pharisee

[Sudsy]

Valerie, I think you were going to go to an evening service where Alistair was going to share more on his recommendation to this lady. Did I understand this correctly ? If so, did you go and what did he say that we don't already know ?

https://www.parksidechurch.com/learn/re ... /archives/

There you go Sudsy, I wasn't sure if the evening service would be available but it is for you to hear.

I had a customer this morning who knows I go to Parkside & her daughter works for Truth For Life. She said she agreed with Alistair's counsel because he advised the grandmother to make sure the couple knew her belief about it and to be clear by her attending didn't mean she was affirming it. I just replied that we (husband & I) disagreed because a wedding is a celebration where you are joining to celebrate and be a witness. I do not equate being absent as being like as pharisee

Thanks Valerie. I really enjoyed hearing his explanation and it gives me lots to think about on where we draw the line in attempts to win the lost.

So, how would you respond to someone you know to be a believer but was marrying an unbeliever ? Would you stay away from that type of wedding also so it doesn't appear that you are celebrating ? Or perhaps a Catholic marrying a Mennonite in a Catholic church ? Or a second or third marriage situation ? Where does one draw the line on being 'unequally yoked together' and the celebrations of these ?

I think comparing the Pharisees in Jesus day and what they would or would not do regarding who they would not be seen with is interesting. They obviously had a heart condition that lacked compassion. Jesus really didn't concern Himself with the opinions of others, especially the Pharisees, as He mingled and reached out to others. Jesus attended a marriage in Cana and after they ran out of wine, He made more wine than they could ever drink at this wedding. And some have tried to convince us that the wine He made had no alcohol content. But this is their speculation only.

I just find it interesting how Jesus often operated outside of the religious beliefs in His day for His greater purposes and we know that religion often gets in the way of the salvation of others.

Anyway, thanks for that link and I do believe in living by our own convictions and that is what we will give an account for.