Is he clueless to our cultural context? Honestly, although it seems incomprehensible, Covenant Theological Seminary grad and PCA pastor Scott Sauls (channelling Wesley Hills) claims David and Jonathan as Biblical support for his project to bring gay men into the mainstream of the Church—as gay men. Speaking of the tender Biblical account of love between David and Jonathan, Pastor Sauls has the audacity to hold it up as a pattern of "covenantal" and "for the rest of life" friendships of "gays" within the Church of Jesus Christ:
"I think that message cannot be missed, it cannot be forgotten when we leave here, that friendship is the answer, true friendship, covenantal like David and Jonathan, 'I commit to you for the rest of my life.' Or like Julie Rodgers, another—you know, a woman with same-sex attraction, has said that—and who has fallen where you have on the ethics of it, and the vision for what that means for her."
[This post is fifth in a series (the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth) working through Pastor Scott Sauls and Christ Presbyterian Church's "Same-Sex Attraction Forum." More will follow.]
King David was light in the loafers. He liked men better than women. Yes, in that way.
Are you surprised? You shouldn't be. Jesus was like this, too...
This is the realm of the absurd, of course, and yet it is the claim of many who attack Christianity and God's prohibition against sodomy. This is not one of Satan's more brilliant lies. It's easy for anyone with a fifth grade reading comprehension to see that the Bible contradicts this claim. However, today our understanding of how men should interact with one another, physically and emotionally, is so damaged by our lack of fathers and the fad of sexualizing relationships between men that we have no grid to understand the loving friendship between David and Jonathan. John was reclining on Jesus' breast—"That sounds pretty gay" says the American man.
On the other hand, God says...
To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. (Titus 1:15)
This is not to say the man who thinks "that's gay" must be a repressed homosexual, but rather that our collective conscience has been defiled. As Tony Esolen explains,
Open homosexuality, loudly and defiantly celebrated, changes the language for everyone. If a man throws his arm around another man’s waist, it is now a sign.
In other words, when homosexuality is a real option in people's minds, it's no longer safe to have the type of friendship that Jesus and John—or David and Jonathan—had. You've got to worry about men with corrupted consciences misinterpreting your relationship. In Ethiopia, today, men walk hand in hand. But there in Africa, nobody would ever accuse these friends of being homosexuals.
But here in these United States? Uh. Well. Sadly. You gotta watch out; you could be misunderstood.
Is he clueless to our cultural context? Honestly, although it seems incomprehensible, Covenant Theological Seminary grad and PCA pastor Scott Sauls (channelling Wesley Hills) claims David and Jonathan as Biblical support for his project to bring gay men into the mainstream of the Church—as gay men. Speaking of the tender Biblical account of love between David and Jonathan, Pastor Sauls has the audacity to hold it up as a pattern of "covenantal" and "for the rest of life" friendships of "gays" within the Church of Jesus Christ:
I think that message cannot be missed, it cannot be forgotten when we leave here, that friendship is the answer, true friendship, covenantal like David and Jonathan, "I commit to you for the rest of my life." Or like Julie Rodgers, another—you know, a woman with same-sex attraction, has said that—and who has fallen where you have on the ethics of it, and the vision for what that means for her.
While the world is advocating lifelong, covenantal sexual unions between homosexuals, Stephen Moss and Scott Saul's brilliant response is that the world almost got it right. What they actually need is lifelong, covenantal (celibate) friendships—between gays, no less!
Of course, much can be said about friendship today in the church, and how it is lacking, how it should change. Moss and Sauls say much, and a good bit of what they say is excellent, but such an admixture of good and terribly bad.
For instance, monogamous, lifelong, covenantal, platonic gay friendship is not the answer for men and women tempted by same sex attraction.
The answer is either chastity or marriage. Friendship plays a part in each of those, but it cannot provide either one. In fact, until men are no longer willing to call themselves "gay" in our culture, we can never have the kind of friendship that David and Jonathan had.
The idea of friendship as "the answer" plays perfectly into the psyche of the church today. Feeling false guilt over her homophobia, and real guilt over her refusal to call homosexuals to repentance, she finds herself presented with an option that isn't at all painful. She can do what she's already trying to do—just be friends with everybody, no judgment.
Meanwhile, friendship also plays perfectly into the psyche of the Christian tempted by SSA. He wants a lifelong, covenantal friend who is, as Wesley Hill and Stephen Moss say, his "significant other." The context in which Moss, Sauls, and company are discussing friendship is as the solution to same-sex attraction. Yet, Stephen Moss says, “I think...we do a big detriment to male friendship...when we can only use language that somehow makes it seem like there’s some kind of romantic edge to it.”
That is precisely the problem with their suggestion of "covenantal" and "lifelong" friendship as a Christian way to mitigate same-sex attraction. Friendship is a relationship that is free from sexual attraction. Once any relationship becomes sexual those involved in it begin to describe each other as “you know, more than a friend.” So, whereas we say that the solution to deviant sexual attractions is chastity or marriage, both of which require repentance that leads to a putting to death of those attractions, they add this third option: friendship without any fight against same-sex attraction; living together, yet somehow avoiding sin. Essentially “friendship” is being used as a safe word for the relational dynamics of "non-sexually active" same-sex attracted men or women. That’s called spin.
Do friendships play a big role in Christians ministering to homosexuals and those tempted by homosexuality? Absolutely. Do gay and lesbian relationships? No. So which is Moss and Sauls advocating? Both. They make no distinction between them. Without a doubt, proper friendship with members of the same sex will be essential in the spiritual growth and joy of those tempted by homosexual sin. But those friendships must be true friendships, not a de facto dating relationship with a "significant other" who is also "gay."
Here is Ken Leggett describing Wesley Hill's dream and seeking Saul's feedback:
It would be his dream that the church would be able to accept, without suspicion, a gay or lesbian relationship not an erotic relationship, but one that would understand vacationing together, et cetera. I’d like to see close, committed, promise-sealed friendships become normalized in churches that continue to teach the historical, traditional, Christian sex ethic. What if we could, um, what if we treated it as important, honorable, and godly for a celibate gay Christian to commit to a close friend precisely as the way a growing Christian does in love? How would you respond to that?
Scott Sauls: Hear! Hear!
Sauls then goes on to describe something else entirely—him taking a same sex attracted man into his family "as an extended surrogate member of [his] family." Both types of friendship are described back to back, and both are promoted by Sauls.
What these men are proposing is the equivalent of a young man and woman who love each other and want to have sex with each other getting engaged and then moving in with each other. Supposedly, this is an excellent way forward in helping "gay" men deal with their temptation.
In reality, though, this tragic proposal is just another example of the church pushing the cultural agenda of twenty years ago, but calling it conservative Christianity. After all, in the mid-90's what did "gay" people call their significant other?
Their "friend."
Joseph and his wife, Heidi, have five children, Tate, Eliza Jane, Moses, Fiona and Annabel. He graduated from Vanderbilt University and Clearnote Pastors College. He is currently planting Christ Church in Cincinnati with several other families.
