lgbt wedding response 2

Begg Digs a Deeper Hole: His Misplaced Slander of Critics, Refusal to Consider Their Scriptural Arguments, and Lack of Nuance in Describing Jesus' Outreach to Sinners

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., Professor of Bible at Houston Christian University 

Rev. Alistair Begg has doubled down on his recommendation to a grandmother that she attend her grandchild's "gay" or "trans" wedding (so long as the grandchild getting "married" knows of her disagreement).* “They want me to repent? ... I’m not ready to repent of this. I don’t have to.” 

*Note that in the Sept. broadcast he referred to a grandmother's "grandson"; here he refers to a grandmother's "granddaughter." Which is it?

I. Begg's Ad Hominem Attack of Critics

While completely (and I mean completely) ignoring the array of scriptural arguments against his position, Begg compares all his critics to Pharisaic "separatists" who refuse to eat with sinners or have any association with them at all. He likens them to the self-righteous older brother who doesn't understand grace in the parable of the prodigal (lost) son, and to the priest and Levite who pass by the man lying half-dead by the side of the road in the parable of the good Samaritan. 

Yet none of his chief critics from the academy are advocating complete separation from those engaged in serial, unrepentant egregious sin. In my chapter on Jesus in *The Bible and Homosexual Practice* I talk at length about Jesus' positive example of an aggressive outreach to the lost. But there is no line (straight or crooked) from that example provided by Jesus to what Begg is recommending.

He attacks all those who criticize him as the "product of American fundamentalism," which he distinguishes proudly from his own pedigree as a "product of British evangelicalism." Unlike them, “I come from a world in which it is possible for people to grasp the fact that there are actually nuances in things.” He does all this in a fatherly voice, but the ad hominem content is quite offensive, and it is designed to distract from the fact that it is ironically Begg himself who cannot see the nuances of Jesus' ministry. 

II. Begg's Ironic Lack of Nuance in Describing Jesus' Outreach to Sinners

What kind of nuance am I talking about? The failure to recognize that there is a world of difference between Jesus fraternizing with sexual sinners and exploitative tax collectors who expressed interest in his message, on the one hand, and Jesus attending a ritual celebration either of a tax collectors’ economic exploitation or of a sexual sinner's grossly immoral and unnatural sexual union, who express no interest in his message, on the other hand.

There is no way that Jesus would have attended such ritualized celebrations of abominations to God, or encouraged his followers to do so, irrespective of whether his disciples alerted those to whom the ritual was directed of their disapproval. That Begg is incapable of such a nuanced scriptural understanding is certainly concerning.

III. Begg's Misapplication of the Parable of the Prodigal Son

Begg's proof text in his radio talk today for justifying his advice to go to a "gay" or "trans" wedding was Luke 15, with a focus on the parable of the prodigal (lost) son. Begg appears confused in his application of this text. The older son refused to attend a celebration of the younger brother's penitent return from a dissolute and immoral life. That was the problem with the older brother, not that refused to a attend a ritual celebration of a permanent commitment to a dissolute and immoral life. 

There is a huge difference between the two types of celebration (here again, nuance). Moreover, while the father ran out to greet his returning penitent son (return in Jewish and Christian thought is a metaphor for repentance), he certainly wouldn't have attended a ritual celebration memorializing his son's commitment to continue to live lifelong in wastefulness and immorality.

A better text that Begg might have chosen than the lost son parable is the Aqedah ("Binding") of Isaac in Genesis 22, where God taught Abraham not to make an idol even of his "only son," the son of the promise. We can't make holding on to a family member who is memorializing what the writers of Scripture (and Jesus) deem to be egregious immorality the most important thing, even if we couch it in terms of staying in evangelistic contact.

IV. Begg's Narrow, Myopic Perspective

Begg says about the advice that he gave the grandmother: “All I was thinking about was, How can I help this grandmother not lose her granddaughter?” 

He should have been thinking other things, like: 

How can I help this grandmother not to offend God by being present at such a ritual celebration of an evil that God finds particularly detestable? How can I prevent her from violating the united witness and counsel of Scripture? 

How can I persuade her, by her actions, not to speak affirmation to behavior that can get her grandchild excluded from God's kingdom? Am I recommending that she do something that will stumble others by her actions, leading them to affirm such immorality? 

Am I having her set up a relationship with her grandchild that will lead to further extortion by the grandchild and further compromise of the grandmother's Christian convictions? By my recommendation am I desensitizing the grandmother to sin, as she gets sucked into the celebration? 

Any one of these considerations should have led Begg to give any different advice.

V. Begg's Failure to Use Good Analogical Reasoning

There are so many other analogies that should make Begg realize, if he would only stop to consider them, that Christians don't have carte blanche from God to go everywhere and anywhere under the guise of maintaining a relationship. 

One would think, based on Paul's remarks in 1 Corinthians 5, that Begg would see that going to a wedding that celebrates a long-term commitment to an incestuous union would be off-limits for faithful Christians (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here). Paul insisted on disassociation with the self-professed incestuous man; and he certainly wouldn't have recommended attending an incestuous wedding if both parties had been unbelievers. Or was Paul here acting like a separatist Pharisee all over again, as the Corinthian "strong" might have responded?

If he does think that, then he has a problem with the fact that Jesus and the biblical writers viewed homosexual practice and transgenderism as even graver offenses, because they challenge the very male-female foundation for sexual ethics on which a rejection of incest is predicated.

Would Begg recommend that Christians attend a Ku Klux Klan banquet honoring a family member for his or her outstanding acts of racism, or a Planned Parenthood banquet honoring a family member's achievement as the most productive abortionist (so long as one first communicates to the awardee one's disagreement with his or her actions)?

Begg appears unwilling to admit that there are some venues and events that Christians cannot attend, however evangelistic their original intent might be. In 1 Cor 10, Paul absolutely rejected attendance at an idol's temple, no matter what salutary social reason might be given (like continuing contact with unbelieving family members or friends in the hope of some day winning them over to Christ). 

VI. Begg's Throwaway Claim That His Advice Was Not a Blanket Recommendation

Begg did claim on three occasions in his message (22m, 35m, and 43m marks) that he did not intend the advice that he gave to the grandmother to be universal advice with regard to attending a "gay" or "trans" wedding:

"In that conversation with the grandmother I was concerned about the well being of their relationship more than anything else, hence my counsel.... If I was on the receiving end of another question about another situation from another person in another time I may answer absolutely different. But in that case I answered in that way, and I would not answer in any other way." 

"On another occasion with a different person and a different context the advice may be very different." 

"My response to one grandmother ... was not in any way a blanket recommendation to all Christians to attend LGBTQ weddings.... It was my personal opinion as I sensed what was best."

The problem with these statements is threefold: 

(1) There is still no situation that justifies going to a "gay" or "trans" wedding in God's eyes, unless the person attending is somehow going to express publicly at the event that this wedding should not take place, and then walks out. 

(2) Begg spent virtually his entire message justifying this bad advice through bad exegesis and slandering his critics as graceless, self-righteous, separatist Pharisees and fundamentalists who can't nuance anything. 

(3) His denials are throwaway lines that don't help his listeners to understand what conditions would lead to a change of advice (advice that was wrong from the get-go for any situation involving attendance at a "gay" or "trans" wedding). The parameters of the case that elicited his bad advise are the usual circumstances faced by a Christian who doesn't agree with the family member's "gay" or "trans" wedding, which is known to the family member, but who doesn't want to be shut out from the family member's life in the future. 

In short, what he presents as an isolated specific situation is in fact the general situation.

VII. More on the Matter of Stumbling Others

Begg ignores the scriptural counsel regarding stumbling others, in addition to ignoring scriptural counsel against being present at an event at which God forbids attendance. The Christian attending the "gay" or "trans" so-called wedding would need to notify publicly all present at the gathering, not just the family member getting married, that he or she regards the wedding as an unholy alliance abhorrent to God. 

This fits Paul's description at the end of 1 Cor 10 of what to do when a believer is at the home of an unbeliever and the host announces that the meat being served is "sacred sacrificial meat" coming from the temple. One must stop eating, for the sake both of Gentile unbelievers who might construe from your eating that you honor the god, and for the sake of any "weak" Christians or non-Christian Jews at the table whose conscience indicates that the eating of idol meat constitutes idol worship.

"If any of the unbelievers invites you (to dine) and you want to go, eat everything that is set before you​.... But if anyone should say to you, “This is [meat] sacrificed in a temple,” do not eat because of that one who disclosed (it) and the conscience; but by conscience I mean not that of oneself but that of the other.... Become non-stumblers both to Jews and Greeks, and to the church of God" (1 Cor 10:27-29, 32; my trans.).

And this injunction is raised merely in a situation that Paul does not regard as intrinsically evil (the eating of idol meat), unless it is consumed at an idol's temple (which involves ritual that honors the god, and then Paul forbids all attendance). The case of attending a "gay" or "trans" wedding is worse than eating idol meat at an unbeliever's home, because the former (unlike the latter) entails an an intrinsic evil.

Begg's advice also throws under the bus faithful family members who have rightly not attended a "gay" or "trans" wedding because it would dishonor God and ultimately be unloving to the participants. Now others who do (wrongly) attend a such a so-called wedding can chastise the faithful Christian for being a fundamentalist, Pharisaical "separatist" and cite Begg in support.

Conclusion

I am not claiming that Begg now supports homosexual practice and transgenderism. He certainly doesn't. Begg repeatedly states that his rejection of the "gay" and "trans" life should give him a pass from critics for his advice to this grandmother. It shouldn't. Prior faithfulness does not justify subsequent drift. He has diluted the severity of these offenses to a point where they are closer to remarriage after divorce than to incest. 

Moreover, his advice is offensive to God, and ultimately unloving both to the people engaged in the immorality and to the many faithful believers that it will stumble. It shows a lack of appropriate nuance and crosses lines that Jesus never intended to be crossed in the pursuit of sinners. 

Begg should at least deal with the substantive critiques that I and others have raised from Scripture, analogical reasoning, the essential features of any wedding and reception that preclude attendance, and the negative practical problems with his advice for all concerned (those getting "married," the Christian attending, and other unbelievers and Christians), rather than just call us all fundamentalists, Pharisees, and self-righteous separatists.

(1) from Mr. Gagnon's fb updated post 1/30/24 . Reposted here in case fb takes it down.