The following is a production of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. For more information about the seminary, how you can support it, or applying to become a student, please visit www.gpts.edu. another edition of Confessing Our Hope, the podcast of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. My name is Zach Groff, and I'm the host of the podcast, also the Director of Advancement and Admissions here at the seminary, and I have with me on the line two gentlemen from The Truth Exchange, founder Dr. Peter Jones and executive assistant Joshua Gilo. Thank you so much for joining me, gentlemen. You're welcome. Thanks, Zach, for having us on the program. Truth Exchange equips and empowers churches to communicate the gospel effectively and lovingly to a culture that has lost the crucial distinction between worshiping creation and worshiping the triune Creator and Redeemer. To date, the Truth Exchange has eight senior fellows, an expansive network of researchers, hosts an annual conference, produces a monthly prayer partner email and regular podcast, hosts church seminars, and maintains a worldwide readership through its online blog. Dr. Jones is the director of Truth Exchange, as I mentioned, and he founded the Truth Exchange 15 years ago after teaching biblical studies for several decades in theological seminaries around the world. Joshua Gilos serves as executive assistant, as I mentioned, to Dr. Jones at Truth Exchange, and he has been with the organization for over seven years, and I have them on the line to speak about the recent Revoice conference that was held in late July in St. Louis, Missouri, at Memorial Presbyterian Church. Joshua recently attended that conference, and again, it was held July 26-28 in St. Louis, Missouri. The mission of the conference is to encourage, support, and empower gay, lesbian, and other same-sex-attracted Christians so that they can experience a life-giving character of the historic Christian sexual ethic. And in this interview, I have two goals. My first goal is to find out why Truth Exchange, an organization committed to countering neo-paganism with the saving message of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is so concerned about the Revoice Conference, its aims, its message, and its influence. And then my second goal is to find out what happened at the Revoice Conference, what was said, what went on there, on the ground, and what relationship the conference had with the Church as reflected in the weekend's activities. I think that Dr. Jones and Joshua are uniquely situated and equipped to help me get answers to these questions and enlighten all of us as to why this should be a concern for the Church, both the Reformed and Presbyterian Church here in the United States and around the world, but also the broader evangelical Church. that seeks to live in obedience to God's revealed will contained in His Holy Word. I'm going to start with Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones, why is the Revoice Conference of interest and concern to Truth Exchange? We sort of discovered the Revoice Conference without realizing the background to it, because Truth Exchange has been seeking to develop a biblical view of sexuality down the years. And as a matter of fact, just before ReVoice, I was asked to go and speak on sexuality at Grove City College to a public lecture on the subject of sexuality. And so at that lecture, I developed what we've been trying to lay out in terms of what we believe is the biblical view of sexuality. And The truth exchange to do this, I think, is useful because the Lord led us to try to develop what is both a fundamental but somewhat simple view of hermeneutics or of understanding existence by defining the two opposing worldviews of what we call one ism or two ism. And we find this in Romans 125. They worshipped and served the creation rather than the creator. And Paul is laying out there in just 25 Greek words the definition of the whole of human existence and the possibilities of the way people can think. They can only think in one of two ways, either worshipping creation or worshipping the creator. Worship in creation means that everything in creation is worthy of worship, in a certain sense, then is divine, but at least shares the same essence. And so that's what we mean by oneism. Everything is one. And when you go through history, you discover that so many religions come back to that theme, pagan religions, that all is one. So Paul is not inventing anything, really. He's saying very clearly what is true. The other way of looking at the world is that there is a creator distinct from the creation. He doesn't share with us our identity as such. We share his image, but not his identity as the creator. And so we call that twoism because there are two kinds of existence in the whole of reality. So the question is, what do you put under one ism and what do you put under two ism and one ism is pagan it's the worship of creation and so we were asking question really a revoice is it subtly buying into a pagan view of one effectuality and does it really defend and uh explain a tourist view of sexuality in its view of this sort of their own view of homosexuality as a third kind of being, really. When I consider the words of Nate Collins talking about the issues addressed by Revoice—and Nate Collins is the founder of the Revoice conference, for those listeners who aren't familiar with that name—he has said in an interview with Christianity Today that he wants to de-emphasize binary. either-or, yes-and-no dilemmas, in order to promote a more nuanced approach to theology, a healthier conversation, as it was, and ultimately a greater consensus in the Church on matters relating to human sexuality and identity. And Dr. Jones, are these proper aims, and does the Revoice Conference help us to achieve these aims? It's very interesting, as you study present-day expressions of paganism, they all reject the binary. They want non-binary thinking, non-binary sexuality, non-binary ethics, because they don't like the idea that there is such a thing as distinction, which comes, of course, from the distinction between the creator and the creature. That's why we have to believe that the binary is a fundamental way of looking at the world. And so in today's world, we see the emphasis de-emphasizing the binary, and now Nate Collins says he does it too. So I'm afraid he's on that track. In de-emphasizing the binary, does this do damage to our conception of the image of God as reflected in the created order, and what particularly is reflected in the creation of man, male and female. Is there, to put this in another way, is there a sense in which the image of God is heterosexual and totally excludes the possibility of it being homosexual in an unfallen state? If yes, how so? Well, I believe, as Genesis 127 just textually says, that God created man in his own image, male and female. We really have a biblical text that's very clear about that, and I believe the male-female distinction and unity is a reflection of God in His essence as Trinity, where you have both distinction and difference joined together in a valid way. And so the identity of the image of God in man in that sense, is reflected in the male-female distinction, and when that is consummated in marriage, it becomes even more powerfully a description of the love of the persons in the Trinity as different but one. So I think if we want to hold on to, in this more and more pagan world, of the image of God, That is going to depend more and more on the way we talk about sexuality. And in the marriage relationship, it's even a clearer picture of the distinction between Christ and His bride and coming together. And if you remove that distinction, then you remove really the beauty of the relationship That's right. So let me butt in. Then, you see, the notion that is important in terms of what we believe of God as Creator and as Redeemer. And you're right in adding that. Greg Coles, who I understood facilitated or led worship at the Revoice conference, asks this question in his book, Single, Gay, and Christian. He asks, What if God dreamed homosexuality for me, wove it into the fabric of my being as he knit me together? In this question, I hear the longing of a man to be accepted by God, in the words of the old Baptist hymn, just as I am. And I can empathize with that on a certain sense, but there's also something that troubles me. in this question, even how it's framed. Dr. Jones, how would you answer Greg and others like him who are conflicted in their conscience as they grapple with their desires and with God's revealed will in the Bible? Well, in order to resolve his conflicts, he has to approach Genesis as a mythological text. It's not really telling specifically anything to us. If he can imagine without any evidence in the biblical text that God also was thinking of him as a homosexual. So I just think there's no exegesis behind what he's saying. It's purely his imagination, and I think that that is extremely dangerous. We're going to come back to the bases and sources of the theology that's evident in the Revoice Conference and in the so-called gay Christian identity movement, but before I get there, what points of affinity does the Revoice Conference have with the broader homosexual culture or movement here in the West? Are there dangers for Christians who share such points of affinity? I find it rather ironic that a culture that is going more and more pagan, and essential to that move, is the denial of the male-female distinction, that there are Christians who call themselves Revoice Christians who are identifying closely with the larger homosexual culture. And apparently at the Revoice conference, Joshua will confirm this, people were wearing the gay colors, the rainbow colors with armbands and socks and so on. And actually, not Coles, Collins, talks about his sense of closeness to the larger homosexual culture and calls for the church to develop a non-discriminatory approach to homosexuality, which really gives a wide open field for the gay movement to establish itself as essential in the future culture. I find that both sad and fearful. The fact that this conference and this message of accepting homosexual inclinations and desires and even an identity in the Church—the fact that this was held in a PCA Church is of concern to us. Just even just the facility use For example, at this year's General Assembly, the Church as a whole took steps to provide greater legal safeguards to congregations in order to preserve their liberty and how they use their facilities in a biblical, God-honoring way, no matter what extra-ecclesiastical authorities might force them to do. Do you think that Memorial PCA may have endangered the PCA as a whole by even hosting this conference in their facility? Well, I wrote an article which your listeners might want to read, called Revoice Sliding Into Heresy. And I was taken to task by some PCA men for using the term heresy. Now, I did say sliding into, so I chose the title carefully. I'm not attacking specifically anybody as thoroughgoing heretics, but I am seeing the direction in which revoice is going as moving towards a heretical position on sexuality. And if that becomes accepted in the PCA church, I think we've got major problems. I should say that the sliding into heresy becomes evident through what Greg Coles says, but also in the new conference they're organizing called Devote, in which Coles and Collins are participating for youth leaders, obviously will include PCA youth leaders in October, I understand. And there they have homosexual Christians who are actually married to other homosexuals. So I see a movement there into a more affirming position while they say they are for the biblical teaching on sexual practice and marriage. In this conference, they're having married gay people speaking. And that's deeply troubling. If any segment of the Church needs greater clarity on these issues, from the Word of God, it's teenagers. Exactly. That's my fear. Absolutely. It's the next generation, and I think a conference that has side A and side B homosexual Christians participating side by side does nothing for clarity's sake, and certainly nothing for the sake of the truth. I urge any listener in the PCA who might consider going to this to please refrain. There's no need to go to that. I understand Zach, and we should ask Josh about this, that there was talk. at the Revoice Conference in accepting Side A as well as Side B. Maybe you could tell us, Joshua, if that's correct. Yeah, as far as the speakers are concerned, I didn't— Maybe we should tell the listeners what Side A and Side B are. Go ahead. Side A would be those who believe that their orientation is acceptable before God and should go ahead and fulfill those desires and be married. in a committed monogamous relationship. Side B would be those who say, I am gay and God made me this way, but I believe that scripture is clear that sodomy or same-sex sex is not to be received but to be rejected. Now, my question to you, Josh, was did you see or maybe imply that Both sides were being affirmed at the revoice conference. I did see that affirmation in the body of those who attended. I didn't hear any speakers say or endorse it. However, I would say that there was one lecture one of the plenary speakers who joked about holding to biblical sexual ethics and how difficult that is. And, of course, we have examples like David, so we could wink-wink at our promiscuity. So, for those in attendance, though, That was what alarmed me, was that nobody was really convinced yet that side B was something that should be enforced or be held to. Because if their orientation is a biblical thing, or it's a God-given reality, why would you withhold yourself? Why would you not want to give love to somebody that also has that same gifting? So my point, Zach, is that This revoice conference is going in the direction of an acceptance, as far as I can tell, an acceptance of gay marriage and gay sex. even though at the beginning they say they're opposed to this. Certainly the community that gathered there for this conference seems to be headed in that trajectory, even if the speakers and the organizers emphatically insist upon the fact that, no, we're holding the line here on Side B, gay Christian identity, or whatever. the fact that these things are joked about and made light of, and that there are people that gathered there and attended who don't seem convinced by it yet. It's only a matter of time. Is that right, Dr. Jones? Well, it seems to me that that's the case. I think it's dangerous to bring so many people who are tempted by gay sex all together in the same place, and so they give a positive explanation of it all, but I think Joshua will be able to tell us that in the actual practice of the relationships, it was much more going towards a sort of kind of flirting with members of the same sex. You know, I think we will get to that when I ask Joshua about the conference itself and how some of these theological issues we're discussing now played out over the course of that weekend. This brings me to a key question. We're talking about the house, how it's being built up, this house of side B gay Christian identity or whatever. What is the foundation of this house? What are the theological sources, bases, intentions of future activity, conferences and otherwise, envisioned by the organizers of Revoice, and what direction do they seem to be headed? Yes, but where are they coming from? What sources are they drawing from to build up their theology? Actually, I've been caught up short in having followed the past sources of this kind of theology. I was sort of struck by in surprise at the power of the revoice thinking. I thought it was just people coming together who didn't know what to think, and we needed to talk about it. But the more we heard the lectures and the discussion that followed, it seems that Revoice and especially in Nate Collins have been doing much thinking about the theory involved and we're seeing the development of a serious kind of thinking about the justification. First of all, of course, of non practicing homosexual existence, which they believe is perfectly valid. Sin occurs apparently only when you actually have sex or when you lust after someone. But you can think about a man of your same sex in a positive way and enjoy that kind of sexuality without committing any kind of a sin. And so we have here a very subtle notion of what it means to think about that or lust about that. And those positions are very finely defined or undefined. But I think that that's the kind of thinking behind the ReVoice conference. It's called spiritual friendship, that it's OK to have deep spiritual friendship with fellow gays. And that's the kind of thinking that they are seeking to develop in a more coherent manner. And my understanding of spiritual friendship from reading Wesley Hill's book on the subject is that he's calling for a committed relationship one on which a friendship that has the same level of intensity as a marriage, even though it may—the aspects of cohabitation and certainly sexual intercourse and conjugal enjoyments would be absent from it—is that a conflation of romantic attraction and friendship? Much a good question. I don't know, though, once you tried to conflate romanticism with friendship, how you maintain that. Very narrow distinction before it becomes so powerful that you give in. I I think it's frankly, I just think from a practical point of view, it's dangerous. To ask. people to hold that line all their lives with someone they feel romantically attached to. And as Joshua just said, surely if God gave you those feelings, then maybe you could consummate them. But then, of course, we can't do that because that's not biblical. So you must ask the question, Is the maintenance of those feelings then really biblical as well? I think that we have a clear answer in biblical ethics which reaches beyond mere acts, and even beyond words, but even into the deepest, most secret counsels of the human heart. We are accountable before God in our every, not merely thought, conscious, but also our every inclination and desire. We are responsible for the very desires of our heart. Even if we don't think that they are of our own making, we are yet, in fact, responsible for them. That's right. The complication, though, is simply what they mean by romantic. These are very subtle terms, and They try to give a positive view to that, but the negative side looks like it's hovering all around it. Dr. Jones, this is my last question directed to you, though I hope you'll engage with us as I speak with Joshua about the conference itself. Does our thrice-holy triune God make any place for homosexuality even if the outward deeds, the act of homosexual sexual intercourse is avoided? If not the thrice holy triune God of the Bible, then what God or what gods do make a place for homosexuality? That's an excellent question, Zach, because I've done quite a bit of study on that subject, and I can send your listeners to an article that I wrote in Jets in 2000 called Androgyny, the Pagan Sexual Ideal. And many scholars or some key scholars have done research into the place of homosexuality in the history of pagan religion. And you will find throughout time and space that pagan cults often have, as the shaman of the cult, a homosexual. And the reason is that the homosexual denies the fundamental distinction that paganism is always trying to eliminate between God and the creation, and from that, good and evil, right and wrong, and all the distinctions God places in His creation. And so in paganism, the goal is to eliminate all distinctions so that you don't even think about the distinction between God and the creation. And so throughout history you have that emphasis on the non binary way of thinking. You see it in Hinduism in its approach to spirituality and in sexuality throughout the history of the world. Homosexuality is the ideal sexuality to express then. A different kind of God. the God who is not distinct from us but is part of us, is one with us, is within us. And so the pagan God becomes perfectly expressed in the oneist homosexual act which denies sexual distinctions. So that's a long answer, but I would encourage people to read a rather long article that develops that. And I think it's very important that we come to understand that in this day and age, as we see. homosexuality moving into the PCA. And Dr. Jones, I want to mention here a source in one of your online blogs, a source that you cite. You write, is it any wonder that a leading modern theorist for homosexuality calls this sexuality, quote, the sacrament of monism, end quote? That's correct. And that was June Singer, and I suppose it's a book, yeah, a book published by Anchor Press in 1976. It's not a new idea. June Singer, Androgyny, Toward a New Theory of Sexuality. She was trying to give meaning to the sexual revolution that was taking place from the 60s on, and so we need a new sexuality, we need a new spirituality, namely Eastern spirituality, And so her proposal was what she called androgyny, which is a nice way of talking about homosexuality. So these two things go together. Many sexes, many gods. The god within making no distinction with us and himself or itself. homosexuality, no distinction between the people engaged in sexual intercourse. And I want to bring all of this back. We've kind of gone far afield away from Revoice. I want to bring this back to Revoice. Remember, dear listeners, that I was quoting the organizers and the leading participants of Revoice at the beginning of this conversation, and it very naturally led us to talking about June Singer and explicitly pagan ideations and ideas about sexuality and human sexuality. Remember, Nate Collins said that what he wants is to de-emphasize binary, either-or, yes-or-no dilemmas in this conversation in order to promote a more nuanced approach to theology, a healthier conversation, and ultimately consensus in the church. There's a persuasive agenda here. There's an endpoint in mind behind the Revoice conference and those who organized it to get us closer to what ultimately is, what Dr. Jones has identified to be, a pagan construal of human sexuality. Our guard must be up on this, because it's taking us away from the whole counsel of God, from that which is life-giving, and bringing us into what is necessarily, because it's opposed to God, death-bringing. And with that, I'm going to step off my soapbox so I can let Josh share with us how we see these theological issues play out at the Revoice Conference. Josh, we're going to get into some particulars, but starting at the 50,000-foot view from the top down, how do we see these big-picture ideas—oneism, twoism, opposition to the Creator-creature distinction—play out at the Revoice Conference? Well, they would argue that they are a twoist organization. They would see that they hold to the creation distinction. In fact, Nate Collins in his book, Gay Orientations, or excuse me, All But Invisible, in his chapter, Gay Orientations and Christian Identity, he asks the question, or he states, as we've already seen, it isn't sin merely to experience an internal pull to someone of the same gender. So it would be an overly simplistic response to say, no, I won't be gay in heaven because there is no sin in heaven. One of my main arguments in this book is that being gay, understood as an aesthetic orientation, is not sinful in itself. So it might seem that a correct response would be, yes, I will still be gay in heaven. But I don't think this is an adequate answer because the gay identity is a first creation identity. To be more precise, it's a first creation Western identity that emerged in English-speaking countries in the early 20th century. You said, Joshua, that he was for the creator-creature distinction, but then you left that immediately. So in what sense does he affirm that? His affirmation is saying that his orientation is that God made it, made it into him. wove it into him, or as Greg Coles would say, wove it into him. So they believe there's that distinction. Well, it's a very supple one, because you're saying that God actually created in a way that undermines the very notion of what He was doing in creation, namely making distinctions between various things, dry land and sea, animals and human beings, they're all identified as distinctions. So if he wants to affirm that God created him, let's know exactly what he means by that. Yeah, right, and that's where I would say they would consider themselves as to us, but I think it's a false to us. Yes, simply affirming God created me It is not exactly a thoroughgoing theological twoism, I would say. If we were to dip into ancient Greek philosophy, I think many of the pantheists of that era would be able to say with ease, yes, God created the world. That's right. The problem is with the ancients, like Plato and Aristotle, God is the creator, but we're an emanation from God. There is no ultimately distinct God. This is brand new in the Bible's declaration to the ancient world of a new gospel that God is distinct from the creation, and that we have to maintain. Sorry, Josh, I'm leaning in on your time, but it's not enough to simply say, like you rightly point out, Zach, that God is the Creator, if, like the ancients, we're simply an emanation from the same God, so not ultimately distinct from Him. Well, I appreciate you weighing into my time, because I think that a lot of folks would walk away and say, They see a distinction there, but you guys have rightly pointed out there is no distinction, ultimately, from their perspective. Or at least that it's possible that where they see the distinction, there actually isn't one. And they have to do a little bit more work to prove to us that they're drawing the proper distinctions. as they seek to promote a completely innovative and new teaching on biblical sexuality, at least new to Orthodox evangelical Christianity. Josh, online, Roman Catholic lesbian speaker, who was one of the speakers of the conference, Eve Tushnet, described this conference as a, quote, big gay Christian extravaganza, end quote, in the lead-up to the July 26th kickoff. This was a bit of a shock to those of us, especially in the PCA, who are looking at what's going on and hearing reassurances from Memorial PCA's leaders, including Pastor Greg Johnson, and then bam, Eve Tushnet puts this flagrantly offensive moniker on this conference, Big Gay Christian Extravaganza. What did you see when you were there? Was it in fact a Big Gay Christian Extravaganza? Well, it's true. It was a big extravaganza. I mean, there were all sorts of flavors of people. Women dressed as men. Men dressed very effeminate and revealing type clothing. You had families there who brought their high school children who just came out of the closet as gay and didn't know where to go. You had pastors who were pro the revoice perspective of Side B. You had pastors who just simply didn't know what to do and were looking for answers. Denominations. I met folks everywhere from Charismatic to Southern Baptist to PCA. and even to Roman Catholics. It was very diverse and it was quite a whirlwind. And as I had mentioned earlier, there were folks who were on the side A perspective of homosexuality. and sexual ethics. And so there were people that were living in open lifestyles, and then there were people that were trying to live a celibate lifestyle and stay within biblical sexual ethics. Thinking through not just the aesthetic of the conference and people's fashion choices and whatever, I'm looking through the list of workshops, and I've looked through this before, and something that sticks out to me is just the vocabulary that's used that clearly demonstrates that this was a big gay Christian extravaganza. You have words like intersectionality, sexual minorities, straight ally, LGBT+, whatever the plus represents, the word queer used over and over and over again. Here's one, LGBTQIA slash SSA. There's just so much here that is foreign to biblical Christianity. Yeah, it's true. And I attended three workshops, one by a man by the name of Preston Sprinkle, and he lectured on how to be a straight ally to the LGBTQ+, then I attended the Grant Hartley which his lecture was on Queer Theory in the New Heavens. And last was a seminar that I didn't see advertised, and I didn't hear anyone talk about it, but this seminar was called, Non-Traditional Families are Biblical Families. And all three speakers, again, came from different denominational backgrounds and different perspectives. Preston Sprinkle being a straight man, Grant Hartley, who identified as queer, and then the last lecture, which was by two lesbians who live in an LGBTQ community. When we're talking about this last one that you mentioned, the family one, how was the family construed at this conference? Particularly, it's my understanding that this workshop was designed to encourage non-traditional families in what they're doing, and what does that look like? Yeah, that's a great question, and this is something that I saw, this was kind of a scarlet thread that I saw woven throughout the whole conference, from the plenary talks, even down to the workshops in themselves, was that there is a de-emphasis of the biological family, and there is an emphasis of what they would call chosen family. or would be considered true family according to the scriptures. And they pulled that out of Mark 10, 29, which our listeners will remember when our Lord says, Verily I say unto you, there is no man that has left house, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake and the gospel's, but he will receive a hundredfold now in this life houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions, and in the world to come, eternal life." And what was surprising to me was they said, look, the LGBTQ community in the United States has been persecuted by straight evangelical America and that LGBTQ have pulled together and created a blurred, but yet a Biblical reality of Mark 10. So, now to go back to your question about non-traditional families or Biblical families, They, Becca Mason and Jill Renick, they talked about, well, the Bible is filled with non-traditional families. In fact, the Bible speaks more about non-traditional families than they would of what we would call a traditional family. A husband-wife, 2.5 kids, white picket fence. For them, the non-traditional family is really the biblical model, and we see that in Adam and Eve, Noah and his wife, Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, Jacob, Leah, and Rachel, Ruth, Killian, Naomi, and Boaz, Hosea and Gomer, Joseph and Mary, Timothy, David plus his many wives, Jonathan and David—those are nontraditional families, yet those are the biblical families that we should really aspire and hold on a pedestal, not the traditional 2.5-type family. When we consider the nontraditional family of David and his hundreds of concubines and wives, there is nothing desirable about that at all. And we generally see that as a compromise. and also a whole lot of social factors going into that from the time and being an ancient Near East monarch, not that any of those excuse David, but rather just show that's not really a model being set before us, and it shouldn't ever be a reference point for those who want to propose non-heterosexual couples having having kids and raising children. Also, when we consider Jacob and his four wives, or two wives and two concubines, That is nothing but trouble either. The Lord redeems it, surely. He builds his nation through those 12 sons that are born to Jacob through these four women. But again, this is not a model for us to follow, to claim as such, is to take yourself squarely out of the Christian tradition and to land yourself in Mormonism or some other polygamous pseudo-Christian cult. So I to hear that those were referred to is ridiculous. And then, of course, the old trope, bringing up David and Jonathan as a non-traditional family. The men had a friendship. They had a friendship. And if there's anything that men today need to learn how to do in this arena, it's to be able to cultivate friendships with other men. And it's a sad commentary on our culture that we look at David and Jonathan, and the first thought is that, oh, this is some kind of, you know, homosexual attraction they're experiencing. No! They're friends! They're like blood brothers, you know? So it's, you know, I wouldn't call that a non-traditional family either. It's interesting to see that hermeneutic working itself out, failing to make proper distinctions. It's interesting that Jesus says it wasn't like that at the beginning, it goes straight back to the male-female marriage of Adam and Eve. That's Jesus' model. Exactly. Exactly. In the beginning He made them male and female. When we identify areas in which the world and the world's standards—traditional, conventional, or otherwise—are out of accord with the Word of God, what we need to do is not invent our own non-traditional, unconventional ways of doing things, but rather reform ourselves according to the Word of God. And that is what will distinguish us from the rest of the world and its traditions and human conventions and customs. Josh, this is of deep concern to me, not just how the family was spoken of and represented, but how is the church depicted or spoken about at this conference? What role do the organizers of the conference see themselves and other so-called gay Christians playing in relationship to the broader church? Yeah, this was probably the most difficult thing to watch and observe. There was a lot of think-tank-type focused talks on how gays can be family for the Church. Essentially, it's that the Church has failed. And the second plenary talk, which was done by Nate Collins, He essentially said that the gay community, the Christian gay community, are the prophets, are the modern day prophets of Jeremiah. And that the church leaders have been like the bad shepherds. in the book of Jeremiah. And so it's time for the LGBTQ, the Christian LGBTQ community to be that prophetic voice, to pull, to ask the church to repentance. And then, all while that's taking place, that the gay community, the Christian gay community, can be a family for the church. That they could be ministers to the widows and orphans, they can do better ministry of loving the lonely. They could take up things like adopting children, and really just filling in all those areas where they feel that the church has failed at. This is astounding to me. First of all, it's heartbreaking. It's heartbreaking that that the Church really has failed to call same-sex attracted individuals to a life of holiness in a way that's persuasive, in a way that's saturated with grace, but also that is at root flowing forth from the holiness of God that the Church is supposed to reflect back to Him in its worship and in its practice and in its beliefs. So that's heartbreaking, because we see how how confused and confusing their proscriptions are for the Church in reaction to that supposed failure. On the flip side, it's incredibly arrogant to hoist yourself into the role of prophet. Nobody's ordained them as such. You know, when we read the Old Testament prophets, it is clear that these men were ordained. and there's accounts of their ordinations. They were set apart by God Himself to call back the people. And what I see here at Revoice, the way you've talked about it, is a self-congratulatory, triumphalistic setting apart of oneself, and then a declaration of an extra-biblical standard to be put forward to the Church. So not only are they false prophets, but they're also Pharisees hoisting upon the Church. At least that's how I'm reading it. Do you think that's accurate or uncharitable? You know, I think that's accurate. The thing that they surrounded that night with, the night that Nate Collins gave that talk, was around a time of lament. And it was lamenting with the Church for its brokenness, and also lamenting for their own suffering that they have gone through. I was able to sit with a table of men who were discussing reparative therapy, and there was a talk. I didn't attend it, unfortunately. A talk that was given on church or spiritual abuse. What do you do when your pastor or the spiritual leaders of your church abuse you? They don't agree with you. They might suggest that you go to reparative therapy. and the list can go on. So I was sitting at this table, post that talk, and listening to the speaker counsel one of the young men who says, my pastor wants me to go to repair therapy. I just don't think it's working, and things are getting really tense at the church. And this man says, you need to figure out a way to leave your church. And one of the reasons why he said repair therapy is like wearing a pair of shoes that just doesn't fit right. And you get warts, and you get calluses, and you get corns, and it's just an uncomfortable situation. So what you need to do is, once you have left that church, you need to go to masseuse. You need to go get naked and have your masseuse rub you deeply, and as you're listening to the Indian music and you're smelling the incense, you need to hear God's affirmation over you that He loves you and He made you this way. There was another time in Church history when Christians were instructed to burn incense before a god of human making, and that was in ancient Rome, and Christians who refused to do it to burn incense before an image of the emperor were killed and were punished severely and tortured. Surely we can refuse to take that advice today, and any of our listeners that see themselves as struggling with these questions and attracted to members of the same sex, I implore you to stand firm on the counsel of God and not to crumble before the counsel of wicked men, as we would put it. Joshua, speaking of gay identity, how did the conference frame so-called gay identity? Did speakers frame it as a pre-Fall reality, blessed by God as very good, or as a post-Fall reality, as a result of the curse? Well, based on what I read earlier with Nate Collins' quote, I would say it's a mixed bag. I think ultimately—mostly would say that it is a pre-Fall condition, yet has been tainted by the Fall. So you're going to hear different explanations of what and how that looks. We heard earlier about Greg Coles believing that God will imagine or dream that God wove him this way, but that he's not talking about pre-Fall, is he? I mean, he's talking about in the post-Fall. Yet we have Nate Collins who says that God made him with a gay orientation as first creation. No, Greg Cole speaks about that as a pre-Fall event, that God created gays pre-Fall. Okay, so yeah, and I've heard I've heard a number of pastors who have criticized Christians who have been against revoice, and said that they have been uncharitable, they have not represented revoice fairly. And it's true in the sense that Greg Coles, Nate Collins, Wesley Hill, they all have a different perspective of how it is, but I think any way you slice it, they believe that their orientation is God-given. They believe they're going to bring it into the new heavens and the new earth as treasure. This brings us to a related point. Was there any type of repentance encouraged through the course of the weekend? And if so, who was supposed to repent and what were they supposed to repent of? Yeah, the only kind of repentance, well, first of all, I would say, if you were to ask them, well, the question is, is what kind of repentance? For them, they have nothing to repent of because their orientation is God-given. The only kind of repentance I was hearing about was the talk of the church repenting for how it's treated the LGBT community for the past 70 years. You know, I was at that same table where I was sitting with these men who were talking about spiritual abuse. A young man walks up in very effeminate, revealing clothing. And all these men inquire about, where did you buy these short shorts? And as the man walks away, I look, and they're all looking at him with deep lustful looks in their eyes. And I'm thinking, where is the mortification of sin there? What exactly is flourishing in that scenario? Yeah, lust. This is from James 1, starting at verse 12. Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial. For once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God. For God cannot be tempted by evil, and he himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Isn't it the case that Christians are called to put to death even their concupiscence, their evil desires, those inclinations to sin that we feel like we can't even help but have? Concupiscence is debated between Roman Catholics and Protestants, and concupiscence is defended by the Catholics and has always been criticized by In other words, it is a form of lust. It is a form of the fall. So we cannot even justify those initial thoughts and think that they are good and we have to deny them and trust in Christ. The other side of things as you two have been talking. Especially in terms of reparative There are all kinds of videos I've been watching recently with hundreds of people who've been helped to leave the gay lifestyle. And the reparative therapy for many people does work. And so this rejection of reparative therapy, which has happened in California recently with the law 4329, which denies gay therapy and will be punished if any Christian tries to propose it, is a sign of the gaining in power of the homosexual movement that claims you cannot be changed. And I think that, you know, if you add lust to this, you will never change. You will constantly be affirmed in who you are. And I believe the church needs to call upon repentance in a loving way, because it's true some gays don't know why they think the way they do. But the idea is that it is part of the fall, and it can be used by God to bring us to repentance and to faithfulness in serving him. So I think that's the important thing to see. that gayness is not a good thing as such, it's part of the fall, and we can serve the Lord and mortify the flesh. Praise the Lord for that. I think that's as good a note as any to end our time together. And the only thing I want to add to that, we were talking about lament, and if you go to Book 3 of the Psalter, it starts at Psalm 73, you get a series of psalms put there, collected together in response to that destruction, even if they were composed beforehand. And in Psalm 73, there's a poignant message that's relevant to, I think, every actor in this scenario who sincerely desires to live out their union with Christ in holiness and in truth. And this is Psalm 73, starting at verse 21. When my heart was embittered and I was pierced within, then I was senseless and ignorant. I was like a beast before you. Nevertheless, I am continually with you. You have taken hold of my right hand with your counsel. You will guide me and afterward receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but you? And besides you, I desire nothing on earth. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. For behold, those who are far from you will perish. You have destroyed all those who are unfaithful to you. But as for me, the nearness of God is my good. I have made the Lord God my refuge, that I may tell of all your works. And I think that's the call to those of us who are looking at this ReVoice conference and the teachings surrounding it, and we are distraught and wondering what the future of the Reformed and Presbyterian Church here in the United States is. And the answer is to draw near to God in holiness and in truth. And I think our posture, therefore, to our neighbor, whether he agrees with us or not, is one of compassion. Surely we defend the truth and we guard it, but also our hearts ought to be broken for the false teaching that's going forth on this point, because we know how powerful that false teaching can be to the destruction even of souls. Gentlemen, do you have any closing thoughts that you would like to share with our listeners? Oh, I would just say that, you know, the people at Revoice, in much of what they were saying, seemed relatively harmless. But when you see where they're taking this stuff, and especially in the next conference, It's very concerning, and I'm not sure we can understand the movement simply by defining the ReVoice conference. I think it's a much bigger movement, and we should really be careful what we affirm about that in terms of where it's planning to go. Agreed. Well, thank you, gentlemen. I really appreciate this hour that you've spent with me, and I know that it will be a benefit to our listeners. May God bless you. May God continue to bless Truth Exchange as you all continue to produce high-quality content and materials for our listeners. I do want to encourage our listeners to go to Truth Exchange, to go to their website, and to look up these articles that Dr. Jones has written, particularly on the subject that we've been talking about today, but other issues dealing with worldview matters and biblical studies, it's www.truthxchange.com. That's www.truthxchange.com. change.com, and you'll see a wealth of resources. One particular DVD set I do want to be sure to recommend is a DVD set of a conference that the Truth Exchange did last year, I think, or was it—it was two years ago, it was 2016, is that right? Yeah, in 2016, on gay identity and the gospel. There was Rosaria Champagne Butterfield addressed the audience and delivered an excellent lecture that has now been, I think, made available for review online. Michael Brown gave two excellent lectures, first defending gay Christianity as such, but then picking apart, in the second lecture, picking apart that defense. And one of our graduates, Dr. Gabe Flohr, gave an excellent talk on pastoral considerations and concerns—how to pastor those who are trapped in that community and identifying as gay. And there were other—obviously, Dr. Jones spoke as well, and there were other resources there. I think that's a must-have for anyone that's concerned about this issue. You've been listening to a production of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. For more information about the seminary, please visit www.gpts.edu.