Comment on Alan Chambers' Interview on the Janet Mefferd Radio Show
by
Prof. Robert Gagnon, Ph.D.
Here is
the most critical part of the interview. It comes right at the beginning
(around the 10 minute mark of the audio at
http://www.janetmefferdpremium.com/2012/09/05/janet-mefferd-radio-show-20120905-hr-2/).
Janet: “You and I have talked on a number of
occasions and I’ve always liked you and I have been troubled to hear
some of the things that you have said as well and I’ll just be open
about that since you know that. I want to start with doctrine because
that seems to be ......the bottom line on some of these remarks that you
have made. There are a number of people who say that you are an
antinomian; that is, that you believe that once you are saved that you
can go ahead and sin and that it is not going to do anything to
jeopardize your salvation. So I’d like to ask you first of all if that
is true and if it is not true explain what your doctrine of sin and your
doctrine of salvation is, if you would.”
Alan: “Well, I think Janet that it’s fair for
us to say that after salvation we all sin to some degree. We all are
still tempted, we all are still struggling with those things on a daily
basis. And to say that simply sinning or being tempted causes one to
lose their salvation I think is mischaracterizing what the Bible states
and makes salvation seem far more insecure than I believe that it is.
The miracle of salvation is just that: a miracle. It does save us and I
believe that it saves us completely. So that is what I believe. I
believe that we all far short, we continue to fall short and thankfully
we have a Savior. I do believe that behavior matters and I’ve always
said that. So I think that it is important for us to continually be
conformed to the image of Christ, that we are on a daily pursuit of his
holiness and becoming more like him and I believe that that is a mark of
a mature believer, that we are daily becoming more and more like him and
pursuing his holiness.”
Comment:
Alan’s
mantra is that we all continue to sin as believers so that we can’t make
ongoing unrepentant sin a factor in warning a believer that people who
do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But in making this
argument Alan shows that he rejects the common New Testament distinction
between self-professed believers who continue to walk primarily in the
flesh and self-professed believers who are led primarily by the Spirit.
For Jesus and the NT writers the former do not inherit the kingdom of
God, whatever their claim to belief in Christ may be. Rather than
warning self-professed believers who live unrepentant homosexually
active lives that conduct of this sort is congruent with those who don’t
inherit the kingdom, Alan assures them that if they made a genuine
profession of faith they will go to heaven irrespective of whether they
repent.
Note how
Alan words things: “to say that simply sinning or being tempted causes
one to lose their salvation I think is mischaracterizing what the Bible
states.” No one ever says that “simply sinning or being tempted causes
one to lose their salvation.” The issue is whether a fundamental
reorientation has taken place in the self-professed believer’s life such
that he or she is now living in the main for God rather than for his or
her own self. But for Alan it is all one thing whether one is in the
habit of eating big meals on the one hand or engaged regularly and
unrepentantly in homosexual practice, incest, adultery, sex with
prostitutes, murder, rape, armed robbery, or extortion on the other
hand. Each person for Alan is in the same state of both being in Christ
and yet continuing to sin.
Some will
be misled into thinking that Alan’s views are orthodox when he goes on
to say that “daily pursuit of his holiness and becoming more like him …
is a mark of a mature believer.” But there is a key adjective in Alan’s
sentence: “mature.” Pursuit of holiness for Alan is a mark of a mature
believer, not a believer per se. A genuine believer for Alan can live in
any degree of unholiness for any length of time without any repentance
whatsoever and still use his or her “get out of jail free card” and go
to heaven. It is precisely this view that Jesus and the apostolic
witness to him vigorously reject. If only Alan could repeat these words:
“From
their fruits you will know them. Grapes are not gathered from thorns
or figs from thistles, are they? In this way every good tree makes
good fruit but the poor quality tree makes bad fruit. A good tree is
not able to make bad fruit, nor a poor quality tree good fruit.
Every tree that does not make good fruit is being cut down and
thrown into the fire. So then, from their fruits you will know them.
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the
kingdom of heaven but (rather) the one who does the will of my
Father in heaven…. I will declare to them publicly, ‘I never knew
you. Depart from me you who do the work of lawlessness.’ So ....
everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be
compared to a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the
rain came down and the rivers came and the winds blew and struck at
that house, and it fell and its fall was great!” (Jesus in Matt
7:16-27).
“If
you are being led by the Spirit you are not under (the jurisdiction
of) the law. Now the works of the flesh are apparent, which are (of
the following sort): sexual immorality (porneia), sexual impurity (akatharsia),
licentiousness (aselgeia), idolatry … and the things like these,
about which I am telling you beforehand [i.e., before God’s day of
judgment], just as I told you beforehand [i.e., when I was
personally with you] that those who do such things will not inherit
the kingdom of God…. Do not be deceiving yourselves: God is not to
be mocked, for whatever a person sows, this also he (or she) will
reap, because the one who sows to his (or her) own flesh will, from
the flesh, reap (a harvest of) destruction; but the one who sows to
the Spirit will, from the Spirit, reap (a harvest of) eternal life.
And let us not be bad in doing what is good for in due time we will
reap (our harvest), if we do not slack off” (Gal 5:18-21; 6:7-9).
“So
then, brothers (and sisters), we are debtors not to the flesh, (that
is,) to live in conformity to the flesh. For, if you continue to
live in conformity to the flesh, you are going to die. But if by
(means of) the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the
body, you will live. For as many as are being led by the Spirit of
God, these (very ones) are sons (and daughters) of God” (Rom
8:12-14).
“If we
say that we have partnership with him and are walking in darkness,
we lie and do not have the truth; but if we are walking in the light
as he himself is in the light we have partnership with one another
and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin…. The one
who says, ‘I have come to know him,’ and is not keeping his
commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him.... By this we
know that we are in him: The one who says that he remains in him
ought—just as that one (Jesus) walked—also himself to walk like
this…. No one who remains in him keeps on sinning [i.e. as a pattern
of life]; no one who keeps on sinning has seen him or has known him.
Little children, let no one deceive you: The one who does what is
right is righteous, just as that one (Jesus) is righteous. The one
who keeps committing sin is from the devil, for from the beginning
the devil is sinning.... Everyone who has been born from God does
not keep on committing sin [as a pattern of life] ... because he has
been born from God. By this the children of God and the children of
the devil are evident: everyone who does not do what is right is not
from God, also the one who does not love his brother” (1 John 1:6-7;
2:3-6; 3:6-10).
“For
if we keep on sinning willfully [or: deliberately, intentionally]
after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no longer left
a sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect [or: expectation] of
judgment and a raging fire that is about to consume the adversaries.
Anyone who set aside the law of Moses “dies” without mercy “on (the
testimony of) two or three witnesses” [Deut 17:6]. How much worse
punishment do you think will be deserved by the one who trampled
under foot the Son of God and regarded as unholy the blood of the
covenant by which he was made holy [or: sanctified] and insulted the
Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:26-27, 29).
Sadly,
Alan Chambers cannot repeat these words because he does not believe
them. He believes that believers can live lives primarily under the
control of sin rather than the Spirit, never repent, and still inherit
God’s kingdom. Thus, in his Atlantic interview, in response to a
question about how he regards “gay Christians … in a same-sex marriage,”
Alan declared: “Some of us choose very different lives than others. But
whatever we choose, it doesn’t remove our relationship with God.”
When asked whether that meant that “a person living a gay lifestyle
won’t go to hell, as long as he or she accepts Jesus Christ as personal
savior,” Alan responded that “my personal belief is that … while
behavior matters, those things don’t interrupt someone’s relationship
with Christ.”
In his
first Lisa Ling interview he stated: “There are people out there who
are living an active gay Christian life. God is the one who called them
and has their heart and they are in fellowship with Him, and I do
believe they will be in heaven with me, I do—if they have a relationship
with Jesus Christ, they will.”
At the Gay
Christian Network conference he stated: “The thing that brought me
here [to the GCN conference] first and foremost is: We’re
Christians, all of us. We may have diverging viewpoints … but the thing
that brings us together, the thing that causes us to even want to have
this dialogue, or need to have this dialogue, is the fact that we all
love Jesus. We all serve him. We serve the very same God and believe
very different things.” For Alan this translates into assuring them
that they will “go to heaven” since he is convinced that a genuine
believer can never lose salvation.
Much time
was spent in the interview debating whether Justin Lee, founder and head
of the Gay Christian Network was a genuine Christian. Alan defended him
by saying that he is celibate. What he conveniently neglected to mention
is that Justin is celibate because it is imposed on him by external
circumstances. He just hasn’t met “Mr. Right” yet. But he has declared
his desire to be in a committed monogamous marital relationship with the
right man since he doesn’t regard such relationships as sin. Whether
Justin’s faith was ever genuine is beside the point since Jesus and the
NT writers would (as Paul did with the incestuous man) simply say that,
regardless, he won’t inherit the kingdom of God if he decides to take on
such a life. But even more to the point, in stating at the GCN
conference that “I honestly believe that [Justin] loves Jesus and that
we are brothers in Christ and that we will spend eternity together,”
Alan went even further and declared that all those present at the GCN
Conference (consisting overwhelmingly of persons who either want to be
in a committed homosexual union or currently are) were true believers
and thus persons with whom Alan will likewise “spend eternity.” Later
Alan posted on Exodus a “clarification” that there might have been some
non-genuine believers present just as (he added by analogy) there are
some non-genuine believers at any church that one addresses. But there
is a world of difference in comparing the number of people who might not
be genuine believers at a gathering where people are actively and
unrepentantly engaged in a sexually immoral life with the number at a
church where people are not doing so. It is like going to a pro-incest
or pro-polyamory convention of self-professed believers (or a convention
for unrepentant Christian robbers, extortionists, and murderers) and
saying, “Well, one will find non-genuine believers at any Christian
gathering.”
For Alan
genuine saving faith doesn’t necessarily produce a transformed
life; it should, but it doesn’t have to. As such, he can assure
self-professed Christians who engage in gross unrepentant sinful
behavior of any magnitude or duration that such things will not
interrupt their relationship with Christ. That is what is most
problematic here.
Other
comments:
Is
same-sex attraction sin?
At one
point Janet stated to Alan: "You don't believe same-sex attraction is a
sin; there are all kinds of verses about sin coming from the heart.
Christ himself outlines that in the Gospels, that it is the evil desires
within you that make you unclean." Alan responded: "Same-sex attraction
is not sin. Same-sex attraction is something that we have an opportunity
to bring to the lordship of Christ and he has the ability to help us
overcome that on a daily basis."
They are
both a little right, both a little talking past the other, and neither
completely accurate, in my view. To say same-sex attractions are or are
not “sin” is to obscure a critical distinction. As I wrote on p. 17 of
my
“Time
for a Change of Leadership at Exodus?”:
No one is
at fault merely for experiencing urges that one does not ask to
experience and does not seek to cultivate. For example, the fact that
someone experiences same-sex attractions at all is not something for
which one is morally culpable and does not in any way justify a
designation of the person as morally depraved. Same-sex erotic desires,
like any desires to do what God expressly forbids, are sinful desires
(i.e., they are desires to sin), which is why the one experiencing the
desires should not yield to them either in one’s conscious thought-life
or in one’s behavior. Alan strikes me as a little confused on this
point. In his 'Letter for June 2012' entitled 'Defining Exodus' Alan
states: 'Exodus does not believe SSA [same-sex attraction] is sinful.
However, sexual expression resulting from SSA is. Making such clear
distinctions has been a failure of the Church…. At Exodus International
one of our primary missions is to communicate that we all have
propensities that if indulged can lead us into sin, but those
attractions or inclinations are not sinful.' As it is, Alan has not made
entirely clear distinctions. The statement that same-sex attraction is
not sinful is true if Alan means only that one is not held culpable for
the mere experience of the attraction; but false if he also means that
the desire is not a sinful desire. Feelings of jealousy, covetousness,
greed, pride, or sexual arousal for an illicit union are all sinful
desires; but one isn’t culpable for them unless one willingly entertains
them in one’s mind or acts on them in one’s behavior.
Did
Janet Mefferds say that following Christ and loving the homosexual
neighbor are incompatible principles?
Janet toward the end of the interview took exception with a June 19 blog
post by Alan in which he said,
"There
is nothing more aggressive, more life changing and more culturally
impactful than boldly loving your neighbor as you love yourself. That is
the Gospel and it remains really, really Good News." Janet continued:
"My response to that, Alan, is that loving your neighbor as you love
yourself is not the gospel. That's straight law. The gospel is the ...
dying of Jesus Christ to put away our sins ....
Do you believe that loving your
neighbor is the gospel?" Alan responded by calling it the greatest
commandment but agreed that Jesus is the gospel, that him dying on the
cross for our sins is the gospel "but so is loving our neighbor.... That
is the greatest of the commandments." Janet responded: "But that is not
the gospel. That is what condemns us because we cannot love God and love
our neighbor as ourselves; that's exactly why Jesus had to fulfill the
law in our place."
After the interview was over, Alan posted on his Facebook page the
following ungracious charge that Janet said "that
following Jesus and loving our neighbor couldn't both be done--if it's a
gay neighbor especially." Alan then called on his followers to post on
the Janet Mefferds Show Facebook page and express their outrage. Janet
responded on her FB page: "I absolutely believe we should love our
neighbors as ourselves, including our gay neighbors! What I took issue
with was Alan's claim, in his June 19 blog post, which said: 'There is
nothing more aggressive, more life changing and more culturally
impactful than boldly loving your neighbor as you love yourself. That is
the Gospel and it remains really, really Good News.' ... The gospel is
what Christ did for us (I Cor. 15). YES, of course we are to love our
neighbors! But if Alan is calling a command 'the gospel,' then he has
confused the law with the gospel."
I do
believe that Alan Chambers misconstrued Janet's words. To some extent
both were like two ships passing in the night. Janet was responding to
the fact that Alan had identified the command to "love your neighbor" as
the core message of the gospel as opposed to the proclamation of Christ
as Savior and Lord. Her comment "we cannot love God and love our
neighbors" was certainly not saying (as Alan misconstrued it) that
"following Jesus and loving our neighbor couldn't both be done," as
though following Jesus and loving one's neighbor, especially one's "gay"
neighbor, were incompatible principles. She was rather saying that the
gospel proclaims the saving work of God that no human being can merit;
that one can't become saved by loving one's neighbor because no one can
love one's neighbor adequately to the point of meriting salvation. On
Alan's side is the fact that he was perhaps not claiming that but rather
seeing loving one's neighbor as a central moral imperative for those who
receive the love of God. Yet it is absurd to infer from what Janet said
that she thinks that it is incompatible to love those who live out of
same-sex attractions and still follow Jesus. Alan should know better
than that and not be distorting what she said to disciples of his. As an
aside, Alan identified the command to love your neighbor as yourself as
the greatest commandment. That place belongs to the Shema in Deut 6 to
love Yahweh your God with all your heart, etc.
What
is wrong about Alan's view of sexual orientation change?
Perhaps a
little differently than Janet, I don't fault Alan for believing that
many Christians don't or won't experience significant sexual orientation
change. As I noted on p. 11 of my
“Time
for a Change of Leadership at Exodus?”:
Knowing
Jesus and obedience to God’s will are naturally the main goals and not
change of orientation. Moreover, I myself have often written and said
that the greatest manifestation of change, and one over which the angels
especially rejoice, is when one continues in obedience to the Lord in
spite of persistent urges to do otherwise. (My plenary address at an
Exodus Conference a few years ago focused on that very point.) It is no
great feat to be obedient to Jesus when one experiences no strong
desires to violate God’s will. The theme of the power of God operating
in the midst of ongoing deprivation and human weakness is a powerful
message of 2 Corinthians (e.g., the thorn-in-the-flesh passage in 2 Cor
12:7-10; also 1:9; 2:14-17; 4:7-12). Moreover, I have never thought that
radical transformation from exclusively homosexual or near so (Kinsey’s
categories 5 and 6) to exclusively heterosexual or near so (categories 0
and 1) to be common or easy, particularly for men (see my The Bible
and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics [Nashville:
Abingdon, 2001] 420-29). If anything, I am a bit more cautious than I
was when I first wrote about these matters over a decade ago—though I
still don’t think that the evidence shows that people are “born
homosexual” in the same way that they are born with a given gender or
eye color.
That being said, I feel that Alan has gone too far in
trying to disassociate Exodus from reparative therapy.
Alan stated categorically in “Defining
Exodus – Letter from Alan Chambers for June 2012“ (June 19): “We are
no longer an organization that associates with or promotes therapeutic
practices that focus on changing one’s attraction.”
This is an
overreaction on Alan's part. It is not necessary that sexual orientation
change efforts (SOCE) achieve complete transformation from “gay” to
straight in order to be helpful. One or two shifts along the Kinsey
spectrum or a change in intensity of homosexual impulses can be
beneficial. Alan’s anecdotal comment that “99.9 percent” of the people
that he has come across in Exodus have not been able to eliminate every
vestige of same-sex attraction is great press for homosexualist advocacy
groups but otherwise meaningless. It would be a different story if Alan
claimed that not even incremental changes in orientation occur but that
appears not to be the case.
Not
everyone will have experienced same-sex attractions as a result of a
perceived distance with a same-sex parent or peers. But apparently some
do and experience significant help from such a therapeutic model. I can
understand that some believers who have not experienced the shift in
orientation that they hoped for from reparative therapy would not be
high on its use. Yet since the narrative “reparative therapy didn’t help
me (or help me enough)” is not true for everyone in the “ex-gay”
movement, why be so all-or-nothing and close off opportunities for
others? In shutting off Exodus completely from NARTH and any
orientation-change approach, Alan Chambers is making the issue of
reparative therapy all one thing or all the other.