Archive | Theology/Bible

An 88-year-old dad is reunited with his 53-year-old Down Syndrome son

This really is wonderful. As Jayber Crow would say, “Good-good-good-good-good!”

Why get rid of priests who experience same-sex attraction?

I read the news with horror two days ago after I saw the headline from The New York Times: “Catholic Priests Abused 1,000 Children in Pennsylvania, Report Says.” If you haven’t been following this story, you need to. It is simply horrific. And all this in the wake of the disturbing revelations about Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s sexual abuse of young boys and seminarians.

The scope of the problem in the Pennsylvania is staggering. What struck me when I read the Times article, however, was that the words “gay” and “homosexual” appear nowhere in The New York Times’ coverage. I understand why it wasn’t mentioned. This is a kind of third rail for the reporting class. They don’t want to cover the networks of sexually active gay priests within the Catholic Church as if their presence were a problem. The coverage (or lack thereof) actually reflects the worldviews of those reporting the news. To them, abuse may be a problem, but homosexuality isn’t. Moreover, homosexuality per se has nothing to do with scandals uncovered in recent weeks. Continue Reading →

The Trinity Debate Two Years On

It’s been about two years since the great online conflagration known as “the Trinity debate” began to wind down. I still think a lot about what happened during those months during the summer of 2016. Two years hence, I can say that my dominant feelings about it are thankfulness. And I say that in spite of the fact that it was one of the most bitter and unsparing debates I’ve ever been a party to.

Why am I mainly thankful? I stand by what I wrote two years ago in the immediate aftermath. I learned from both faithful and unfaithful critics. And it was good for me.

Before the debate started, I would have identified myself as a standard fourth century Nicene Trinitarian. I haven’t moved from that identification but own it all the more fervently (and with greater clarity) as a result of what unfolded over those two months in the summer of 2016. I have done more reading on the trinity because of that debate than I ever had previously. Which means that I know God better than I did before. Praise God. Continue Reading →

Revoice is over. Now what?

I could not have predicted the Revoice conference would become the catalyst for controversy that it has now indeed become. Debate about the celibate gay identity movement has been going on for years. Both in print and online, the controversy was joined years ago about sin, temptation, desire, concupiscence, etc. And yet, it has been a controversy largely ignored by many evangelicals.

That’s why I couldn’t have predicted that a conference featuring speakers whose views have been widely known for years would somehow change evangelical indifference about problems within the celibate gay identity movement. Even last Fall when celibate gay identity proponents were some of the most strident critics of The Nashville Statement, evangelicals didn’t seem to notice. In fact, Christianity Today had an editorial objecting to The Nashville Statement almost entirely on the grounds that it excludes the likes of those who are now involved in Revoice.

Nevertheless, somehow, the Revoice conference has gotten everyone’s attention (finally!). And this is a good thing. Evangelicals have been long overdue in considering these questions carefully in the light of scripture. Continue Reading →

The Moral Status of Desire Is the Issue

Ron Belgau has a rejoinder posted at The Public Discourse responding the essay that Rosaria Butterfield and I wrote. I’m not going to give it a point-by-point rebuttal, but I do want to offer some pushback on one central claim of his article. Belgau claims the following:

Denny Burk and Rosaria Butterfield argued that our disagreements stem from the difference between the Protestant and Catholic views of sin… They asserted that I only denied that same-sex temptation is itself sinful because I am Catholic. This is a puzzling assertion, because Butterfield herself has denied that all temptations associated with same-sex attraction are sinful. In Openness Unhindered: Further Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert on Sexual Identity and Union with Christ, she wrote: “Although temptation is not sin itself, it is also not good.” She also wrote of needing to repent “when feelings cross from temptation to sin.” [underline mine]

From here, Belgau goes on to list other examples of Protestants who deny that temptation equals sin (e.g., John Piper, Sam Allberry). And this is where Belgau’s argument goes askew. Continue Reading →

What does the tenth commandment teach about desire?

This is the last post I will write in response to readers who have asked questions about a piece that I co-wrote with Rosaria Butterfield for The Public Discourse titled “Learning to Hate our Sin without Hating Ourselves.” You can read my answers to the first two questions here and here.

The third question is about the tenth commandment in Exodus 20:17. Here is the reader’s question in his own words:

In your reference to the desire of the 10th commandment (different than the action of the 7th), isn’t the sin desiring something that another person has?  I could desire a piece of cake, and that would be fine, gluttony aside… But if I want your piece of cake, that’s sin.  Or, to change the object, if I desire my wife – no problem.  If I desire your wife, that’s the 10th commandment.  The real question is what if I desire an unmarried woman.  Either way, that’s not breaking the 10th commandment, which is about desiring something another person has.  It seems that Exodus 20 doesn’t contribute to the argument of whether or not desire itself is sinful.

I think this is a great question. After all, weren’t we all taught that coveting is basically a synonym for envying? On that understanding, coveting seems to be more concerned with wanting other people’s stuff than with desiring evil in general. If that were so it may not tell us much about the ethics of desire, much less same-sex desire. Continue Reading →

Theologian wants to take the Bible out of the hands of Christians

I just read a jaw-dropping section from Stanley Hauerwas’ book Unleashing Scripture. Keep in mind that even though Hauerwas is not an evangelical, many evangelicals hang on his every word. He writes:

Most North American Christians assume that they have a right, if not an obligation, to read the Bible. I challenge that assumption. No task is more important than for the Church to take the Bible out of the hands of individual Christians in North America. Let us no longer give the Bible to all children when they enter the third grade or whenever their assumed rise to Christian maturity is marked, such as eighth-grade commencements. Let us rather tell them and their parents that they are possessed by habits far too corrupt for them to be encouraged to read the Bible on their own… Continue Reading →

What is “desire” in James 1:15? Sin or temptation?

As I mentioned yesterday, I’ve been getting a number of questions from readers about a piece that I co-wrote with Rosaria Butterfield for The Public Discourse titled “Learning to Hate our Sin without Hating Ourselves.” Rather than trying to answer each reader individually, I am addressing these questions individually in a series of blog posts. I answered the first question yesterday.

The second question is about the interpretation of James 1:14-15. Here is the reader’s question in his own words:

I had a question about James 1:14-15. You referenced this verse in one of the essays and commented, “If we do not drive a fresh nail daily into this aspect of original sin, sinful desire will eventually give birth to sinful deed.” I tend to agree with your conclusion, but in pointing this out to others they have objected by saying James 1:14-15 says that desire gives birth to sin. That is, desire exists prior to sins conception and birth and therefore isn’t to be considered sin itself… My question then is how would you respond to the person who raises the objection that James 1:14-15 separates desire from sin, such that the former is not itself sin but a temptation to sin? Continue Reading →

Is temptation sinful?

I’ve been getting a lot of questions from readers about a piece that I co-wrote with Rosaria Butterfield for The Public Discourse titled “Learning to Hate our Sin without Hating Ourselves.” Rather than trying to answer each reader individually, I am going to try and address these questions individually in a series of blog posts.

The first question is this: Is temptation sinful? Some readers wonder how temptation fits into a paradigm in which desire for sin is itself sin. They object that such a framework makes temptation into a sin. Since we know that not all temptation equals sin (e.g., Heb. 4:15), the thesis of our article fails because we effectively make temptation into a sin.

Before answering the question, let me begin with some caveats. One, the thesis of our Public Discourse piece doesn’t rely at all on an answer to this question about temptation. Two, I can only speak for myself in answering this question. Other people who share my view that same-sex sexual desire is sinful may express themselves differently than I will below. And that’s okay. I expect some give and take on these matters as we all think our way through to biblical clarity. Three, nothing that you read below is new. In fact, it is an adaptation of what already appears in my book Transforming Homosexuality. For the full argument, I encourage you to get the book. Continue Reading →

The Difference between Protestants and Catholics concerning “Concupiscence”

Rosaria Butterfield and I have published an essay dealing with controversy surrounding the Revoice conference and the Spiritual Friendship project. Among other things, we try to show that a great deal of this controversy is due to conflicting theological commitments between Protestants and Catholics. To that end, we write:

The current debate about gay Christianity traces back to a centuries-old dispute between Protestants and Catholics about the doctrine of man and the doctrine of sin. Roman Catholics do not regard involuntary desire for sin (i.e., “concupiscence”) to be sinful. Reformed Protestants do.

We go on to state that the differences between Protestants and Catholics on these points go back for half a millennium. Today, a friend wrote to me and pointed out a stark example of this from The Council of Trent (1563). The Council of Trent was a Roman Catholic ecumenical council that sought to counteract the Protestant Reformation. In section 5 of the fifth session, the Council says this:

This holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, can not injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin. And if any one is of a contrary sentiment, let him be anathema.1

Notice the underlined portion. This Roman Catholic council acknowledges that the Apostle Paul calls concupiscence sin, and yet the Council ends up disagreeing with the apostle! It is really astonishing, but it does illustrate why Protestants have disagreed with Roman Catholics on this for so long. No one has the right or authority to gainsay the words of holy scripture, and yet that is what we think is happening on this important issue.

For the rest of the argument that Rosaria and I make, please read the article at The Public Discourse: “Learning To Hate Sin without Hating Ourselves.” Many thanks to Ryan Anderson for hosting this important debate at The Public Discourse.


1 Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes: The Greek and Latin Creeds, with Translations, vol. 2 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1890), 88.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes