Lgbt wedding Response
Here Is Why Alistair Begg Should Repent of Encouraging Attendance at a “Gay” or “Transgender” Wedding
By Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., Professor of Bible, Houston Christian University
Alistair Begg, a 71-year-old evangelical Scottish pastor of Cleveland's Parkside Church, who has an influential radio ministry called “Truth For Life,” should repent of the very bad advice that he gave on his program.
In response to a question from a grandmother as to whether she should attend her grandson’s wedding to “a transgender person,” Begg said that, so long as the grandson knows that she “can’t countenance in any affirming way the choices that he has made in life,” she should “go to the ceremony” and even “buy them a gift.” (Go here to the 28m 50s mark for the audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=rXDYYPLwgYE.)
I. Not an Agree-to-Disagree Issue
This is outrageous piece of advice by a seasoned evangelical pastor who should know better. From the perspective of Scripture, attendance at a “gay” or “transgender” wedding is no more an agree-to-disagree point of practice than is a Christian attending the marriage between a man and his mother, or a Christian going to an idol’s temple as a non-worshipper to maintain contacts. There is no faithful early-Christian leader who would have advocated such attendance. It is not even a close call.
Begg’s scandalous advice illustrates how horribly ill-informed many in the evangelical world are about the clear scriptural guidance concerning attendance of a “gay” or “transgender” sham wedding. It also shows an astounding incapacity for analogical reasoning, namely, the ability to make appropriate comparisons to similarly severe offenses. Finally, it demonstrates the massive culturally induced dilution of the scriptural witness concerning the severity of homosexual practice and transgenderism, even on the part of those who acknowledge these behaviors to be immoral.
II. The Misguided Justification of Future Evangelism
Rev. Begg justified his response, as so many evangelicals nowadays do, by appealing to an alleged evangelistic hope:
“Your love for them may catch them off guard, but your absence will simply reinforce the fact that they said, ‘These people are what I always thought: judgmental, critical, unprepared to countenance anything.’ And it is a fine line, isn’t it? … We’re going to have to take that risk a lot more if we want to build bridges into the hearts and lives of those who don’t understand Jesus and don’t understand that he is a King.”
This is not “a fine line.” Nor is it a “Romans 14 issue,” as some have claimed, where Christians can agree to disagree. In Romans 14, Paul tells the “weak” with false scruples not to judge the “strong” for exercising their freedom to eat meat and treat all days alike, and the “strong” not to look down on the weak whose conscience binds them. The principle enunciated therein by Paul applies only to matters of spiritual indifference, matters that do not involve committing actual sin or participating in a ritualized celebration of sin, which Paul would never countenance.
If Christians want to convey love to those ritualizing a permanent commitment to continue in gross immorality, there are other ways of doing so than attending, and bringing a gift to, a sham wedding that God abhors. Contact can be continued after the event in shared meals and expressions of concern for well-being that do not entangle the Christian in the formal celebration of, and commitment to, gross immorality.
Even apart from the first and foremost concern for offending God, attendance at a “gay” or “trans” wedding is far more likely to have a negative effect on the Christian attending than to have a salutary effect on persons getting married to accept a true gospel.
In the example that Begg offers, although the grandson “knows” that his grandmother doesn’t agree with the marriage, her attendance at the wedding ceremony and reception (to say nothing of bringing a gift) clearly conveys to the grandson that his grandmother can’t be that opposed to what is happening. Else, she wouldn’t be attending, and certainly not bringing a congratulatory gift. And if she did attend, she would have been weeping at the ceremony, and not making merry.
This then becomes the basis for the grandson to extort from the grandmother acceptance of the relationship in the future: Unless you treat us as a validly married couple, grandma, we are going to cut off all future contact. Knowing that the grandmother has already caved on her “principles” to the point of attending a ritual celebrating their union, the grandson can presume on further concessions being extorted in the future by using her desire for continuing relationship as a form of blackmail.
By going to such a wedding, you would not be witnessing to the couple of Christ’s love, but rather of Christ’s tacit acceptance of the homosexual practice or transgenderism.
Moreover, the grandmother is more likely to be influenced to accept the validity of the union that she has just participated in celebrating than is the grandson likely to be influenced to renounce his immoral ways. Through her attendance, she has become “accustomed” to the idea of a homosexual or transgender union. Her scruples against such a union have been eroded already by her attendance. Her conscience, whether or not she realizes it, has already been seared to some extent.
Finally, the grandmother would be stumbling other believers, especially the young, for they can see that attendance of such a wedding implies limited acceptance, whatever the grandmother might say.
Those peddling such an evangelistic or missionary justification, knowingly or not have become partners (koinonoi, 2 Cor 6:14) to evil, compromised Christian morality, offended God, and stumbled the weak.
III. The Best Analogy: Attending an Incestuous Wedding
Can anyone with historical (not to mention theological) sense imagine Paul giving Begg’s advice to the situation described in 1 Corinthians 5, where a self-professed “Christian” man is in an incestuous relationship with his stepmother (not even a biological mother)?
To claim that Paul gives us no advice in 1 Cor 5 about attending an incestuous wedding, just because such an issue is not explicitly discussed, would be absurd. Remember that in an incestuous wedding, the parties would be declaring their intent to sin egregiously as long as they live, and celebrating that commitment.
I can hear it now: The Corinthian Christians respond to Paul’s letter by asking: “Paul, we hear you saying that we can at least attend their upcoming wedding as a means to building an evangelistic bridge into the hearts of these two persons who don’t understand God’s will. Is that right?”
One can picture Paul as tearing out what hair he had on his head in anguish at the near-total incomprehension of the Corinthians. “Did you not hear what I said? Do you not see how abhorrent this behavior is to God, and how offensive your attendance at such a blasphemous ritual celebrating this gross immorality would be to God?
“Did you not hear what I said about such behavior incurring God’s wrath on the community and on the self-professed Christian offender engaged in the incest? Did you not hear me say that you are to remove him from your midst, pending repentance, and not even to eat with such a one? Did I not tell you to mourn because of the fate of the offender rather than attend a celebration of the offense?”
When Paul tells the Corinthians to “flee sexual immorality (porneia)” (1 Cor 6:18), he did not have in mind that they attend the ritual celebration of a grossly immoral sexual union.
IV. What If the Participants in an Incestuous Wedding Were Both Unbelievers?
Granted, Paul is dealing with a self-professed Christian engaged in the behavior. But Begg doesn’t even inquire whether the grandson is a self-professed Christian. Not that the Christian profession of the offender would make any difference in Paul strenuously denouncing attendance at such a ritual ceremony so utterly repulsive to God.
Leviticus 18 talks about God causing the land of Canaan to vomit out the Canaanites for committing various “abominations” (vv. 24-30). Do you think that the very same God would encourage the people of Israel to attend wedding ceremonies celebrating these abhorrent sexual acts as a means to winning those committing these acts over to the God of Israel? How manifestly ridiculous.
Moreover, homosexual practice is not just one among many sexual abominations. While all the sexual offenses in Lev 18 are called “abominations” in the summary statement at the end, only the prohibition of homosexual practice is specifically tagged with the singular “abomination,” as if to say, “abomination par excellence.” The particular severity of homosexual practice is underscored by the fact that it factors prominently in a story of catastrophic destruction (Sodom, Gen 19) and in a parallel story that led to civil war within Israel (the Levite at Gibeah, Judg 19).
In the creation narratives, both Genesis 1:27 and 2:21-24 enunciate as the very first and greatest sexual standard the requirement of sexual counterparts or complements, “male and female” or “man” and “woman.” Genesis 2:21-24 emphasizes that woman is the missing part extracted from the “human” or “man,” so that the union of the two back into “one flesh” is really a re-union. Homosexual unions by definition are excluded, for a male is not the missing sexual complement to another male, nor a female to another female.
V. Is an Incestuous Wedding or a “Gay/Transgender” Wedding Worse? Light from Jesus
Perhaps Begg might counter, in spite of the particularly severe attitude toward homosexual practice in the OT: “An incestuous wedding can’t be compared to a ‘gay’ or ‘trans’ wedding!”
(I really do not think that Begg would countenance attendance at an incestuous wedding, which makes him inconsistent in his stance toward attending a "gay" or "trans" wedding; at least I hope he wouldn’t countenance attending an incestuous wedding.)
To this I would respond: You are right, but not in the direction you presume. They aren’t comparable, for homosexual practice and transgenderism are worse than (adult-consensual) incest. “Why worse?” They are worse because the foundation of all sexual ethics according to Jesus is “male and female [God] made them” (Gen 1:27) and “For this reason a man … will become joined to his woman, and they [later: the two] shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).
According to Jesus, the male-female prerequisite for marriage (and thus for all sexual relations) is the foundation upon which all other sexual-ethics standards are predicated, including the prohibitions of incest (a violation of the rejection of excessive structural sameness implied by the requirement of complementary sexes) and polygamy (a violation of the twoness of the sexual bond implied by a sexual-binary requirement). Homosexual practice and transgenderism are assaults on the very foundation of marriage, in a way that even incest and polyamory are not. That makes them worse.
Yes, Jesus ate with sexual sinners and economic exploiters (tax collectors) who were interested in his message. That’s a world of difference from attending a ritual celebration of economic exploitation and bringing a gift; or going to a ritual celebration of a sexually immoral and grossly unnatural union where the participants are committing themselves to engage in this immorality life-long. There is no way that Jesus would have attended, or encouraged his followers to attend (with gifts no less!), such rituals, whether or not those to whom the ritual was directed knew of Christian attendees’ disapproval of the festivities.
VI. The Next-Best Analogy: Attending a Ritual Celebration at an Idol’s Temple
Paul gives other instruction in 1 Corinthians that makes clear that he would not have counseled followers to attend an immoral wedding ceremony even if both participants were self-acknowledged unbelievers. In 1 Corinthians, Paul frequently pairs idolatry and sexual immorality as comparable severity (e.g., having two “flee” statements: “flee sexual immorality” [6:18] and “flee idolatry” [10:14]). Why is this important?
In 1 Cor 10 Paul makes clear that attendance at an idol’s temple was absolutely forbidden, whatever the reason for the attendance and however much one rejected the real existence of idols. Paul absolutely forbade such attendance on the grounds that it amounted to flirting with idolatry (even if one rejected the idols), which in turn would provoke God to judgment. It would have made no difference if Christians engaged in the sophistry of justifying attendance as a way of showing love to unbelievers who were celebrating at the idol’s temple a job promotion, a wedding, the birth of a child, a business success, or anything else.
None of this even mentions Paul’s concern for “stumbling” (i.e., precipitating the spiritual downfall of) others with a weak conscience by sending the message that idol worship wasn’t such a big deal (chap. 8 ).
VII. Wedding Attendance as Intrinsic Affirmation
Begg in his poor advice appears to give no thought to what is involved in a wedding ceremony, which is surprising from a pastor.
If there is a command to “speak now or forever hold your peace,” your failure to speak would count against you on Judgment Day. Yet even without such a command, those attending the ritual celebration serve as witnesses of the vows. They are being summoned to assist in holding the parties accountable to the vow of matrimony. “I’m happy for you. I’m here to celebrate with you this sexual union, and to work for its longevity.”
A faithful Christian cannot offer expressions of celebration at a ritual that expresses commitment to the offense of homosexual practice or transgenderism. Attendees are often expected to applaud, and certainly to smile, at the ritual, not to cry tears of anguish. Nor can a Christian congratulate those entering the union (e.g., in a receiving line at the end of the service). At the reception, the Christian would be expected to engage in regular toasting of the couple, share in a festive meal, and likely dance. The whole atmosphere is celebratory, which presence and participation acknowledges tacitly, if not directly, as a good.
VIII. Conclusion
Evangelical leaders who seek to persuade fellow believers that it is permissible to attend a “gay wedding” or “transgender wedding” should be ashamed of themselves. They are influenced more by their culture than by Jesus and God's word.
Rev. Begg should be ashamed all the more, given his elderly age and presumably acquired wisdom, exerting influence on a broad swath of Christianity. His ministry should not be supported until he repents of this well-intentioned but sinful advice.
He also wrote a shorter version of the above post at the Federalist about the issue, and on fb stated "Alistair Begg's recent remarks are the catalyst for the article, but it applies equally to Preston Sprinkle, Jackie Perry, and many others".
