PRRI Study – Unveiling the Exodus: Americans’ Reasons for Leaving Religious Traditions

30% on LGBTQ related discontent is non-trivial.

It means that even orthodox, faithful, doctrinally conservative Bible-believing churches need to think carefully about how we frame these issues. Things like tone, emphasis, etc.

I’m convinced that as much as possible we should distance ourselves from politically charged/politically freighted language. (That requires sifting out our political influences first, probably.)

• We can speak biblical truth and have no political intentions but still come off sounding really political.
• We can speak biblical truth in love, believing whole heartedly in the full humanity of those we’re disagreeing with (or who’s conduct we’re saying is wrong), and still come off sounding hateful.

I think that’s mostly avoidable and worth the trouble to avoid. How about if we make sure it’s truly Bible truth that is offending and not political identities/struggles/perceptions that are offending? And how about if we make sure Christian love genuinely shines through and isn’t drowned out by the language of battle and struggle, and caution, and rejection?

(Impacts what we say in doctrinal statements and other written formats but also pulpit language.)

I’m not claiming it’s easy, just worth doing.

Right now 7% of the overall population in the US identifies as LGBTQ. But when you look at GenZ, that increases to a whopping 21%. The younger generation that almost all churches crave for, is increasingly becoming more LGBTQ. I agree that the church needs to leave the political realm on this, it is way too toxic and not doctrinally based, but voter based. I think the church struggles with developing a clear and consistent message.

99.9% of the preaching I've ever heard from fundamental churches on this topic has been a preacher screaming at the top of their lungs that it's an abomination and disgusting to be LGBT. I've often thought that there's no chance a gay teenager growing up in one of those churches would ever talk to an adult about it.

Both major political parties in the United States believe that LGBTQ+ people should be treated with respect and should have the same rights as other people (I am confident that many of us could give examples of both Republican and Democrat individuals that we know personally who have made transphobic comments, but let us look at how the parties vote and the legislation that is passed). Both parties include such people in their administrations and even have representatives in their media. One of the parties however seems to believe that identifying as LGBTQ+ makes someone more qualified for a position and wants to give LGBTQ+ individuals special treatment. I do not believe that the church should be promoting preferential treatment to certain classes of people. I also do not believe that the church should be promoting hateful treatment toward individuals just because they are involved in sin. We can preach against lying, stealing, drunkenness, and homosexuality, without calling on our congregants to mistreat their neighbors who lie, steal, get drunk, or are homosexual. But we should also not encourage our congregants to place people who practice sinful behavior upon a special pedestal.

99.9% of the preaching I’ve ever heard from fundamental churches on this topic has been a preacher screaming at the top of their lungs that it’s an abomination and disgusting to be LGBT. I’ve often thought that there’s no chance a gay teenager growing up in one of those churches would ever talk to an adult about it.

What I’ve observed—mostly read—has been much more subtle. A good question to pause and ask ourselves is, “Would I be feeling this way or reacting this way if this person was a thief, or liar, or braggart, or conspicuously arrogant rather than openly sinning in a sexual way?” If we’re going to answer honestly, the answer is almost always going to be no. That’s not automatically a problem, but the follow-up question is, why?

I was dialoging with a young Christian about this not long ago, with myself in the role of the guy who isn’t reacting properly, though I was mostly playing advocate for my peers. In partial defense of the asymmetry, I pointed out that nobody is having a “pilfering lifestyle pride month,” or flying a malicious gossip flag. So we have a social trend complicating things.

But we should focus on actual people, and when we do, we’re talking about folks who are, like all of us, broken by sin in various ways, and like all of us, in need of compassion, and connection, forgiveness, and redemption. So, as real people, they are not Them, they are Us.

Read this one this morning: “MLB pitcher released amid backlash to tweet on homosexuality refuses to renounce Christian beliefs… ” https://www.christianpost.com/news/mlb-player-cut-for-tweet-on-homosexu…

With so many biblical truths available to tweet, why that? Why not “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” for example? … or why not select something else in that list from 1 Cor.?

Maybe there was more context to his tweets. But I wonder if he gave equal attention to anger, wrath, malice and disobedience to parents.

But many evangelicals trip over themselves trying to make heroes out of these selective sin targeters.

Maybe there was more context to his tweets. But I wonder if he gave equal attention to anger, wrath, malice and disobedience to parents.

How many sins does he have to condemn in order to condemn one? Is someone allowed to be 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 without being Romans 1:18-32? Even this response doesn’t mention drunkenness or theft or idolatry or envy or sorcery. Why not give equal time to those?

This is a common response but I don’t get it. It is the same thing as people responding to “pro-life” with “You are just pro-birth.” Or people responding to “Black lives matter” with “all lives matter.” Making a statement about a particular matter doesn’t require making a statement about every matter.

“How many sins…?”

Any number >1 would help.

My point is that the gospel is not “People guilty of the sin I hate the most are going to hell.” It’s “We’re all guilty and all going to hell, unless we turn to Christ.”

So why target any particular sin? There could be some reasons, like to protest a policy or express outrage at an act that is doing especially egregious harm to others. But these sin-targeting behaviors are certainly not the gospel. There are sins far more harmful than sexual ones, so if the point is to protest harm, why pick one of the sins listed in 1 Cor 6:9? … after all the point of 1 Cor 6:9 is in 1 Cor 6:9: “the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Who are the unrighteous? … it’s not those other people.

So why target any particular sin?

Because it’s the issue at hand, like 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 or numerous other passages in the Bible or in contemporary life. The idea that we are also sinners doesn’t seem to help the argument. The Bible gives many instances of calling out individual sins without also calling out others and without acknowledging our own sinfulness.

The issue in these particular cases was pro sports teams highlighting one particular sin and essentially requiring everyone on the team to appear as if they supported it. The other sins weren’t at issue.

There is no biblical requirement that I can think of that requires us to call out “>1” sin in order to call out a sin. Do you know of one?

But there’s a level of hypocrisy in calling out homosexuality while sexual sins like adultery and porn are rampant.

I don’t think that detracts from what Larry is saying, as I’m sure Larry agrees. I say it to say that a true homosexual person who repents will have to struggle against his/her urges throughout his whole life and I for one think we (hetero) should be more open about our own urges and temptations.

Dan Miller said: "I say it to say that a true homosexual person who repents will have to struggle against his/her urges throughout his whole life and I for one think we (hetero) should be more open about our own urges and temptations."

Are you conceding that these urges are an immutable characteristic?

That there is no deliverance?

I think any believer needs to cultivate goodness, truth, and love, etc, but true change is possible. 1 Cor 6.11

Don Johnson wrote: I think any believer needs to cultivate goodness, truth, and love, etc, but true change is possible. 1 Cor 6.11

I don't think 1 Cor 6:11 is teaching that people who are washed and sanctified and justified are going to be completely free of the temptations that afflicted them before they were saved. As they grow in their sanctification, they are going to be more and more able to ignore their urges, but I don't think there is a guarantee that the urges will change or go away. God CAN make them go away, but especially in the case of homosexuality, I don't think it often happens.

I know when my son was a teenager and was starting to realize he was attracted to the same sex, he was disgusted with himself. He didn't want those urges. He prayed and prayed and prayed that God would take those urges away but God didn't do so.

There are many homosexuals that say that God has taken away their urges. I don’t understand how it is necessarily worse than any other sin. God can deliver us from any sin and, while we need to be compassionate with all who battle sin, we should do it by preaching the gospel of full forgiveness and the power of that gospel to deliver from the power of sin.

Are you conceding that these urges are an immutable characteristic?

That there is no deliverance?

I think any believer needs to cultivate goodness, truth, and love, etc, but true change is possible. 1 Cor 6.11

1. I believe that change is possible. "Change" is sanctification and in this life, it will be partial. This we should also see as "formation" of the soul. How to accomplish this change is a long discussion.

2. Some sins/temptations are more difficult to change than others. Sexual sins might be the most difficult, though drug addictions are also lifelong temptations. I believe this is why Paul says that sexual sins are different - they are against one's own body. I believe this means that by feeding the old nature in those ways one forms his/her soul into a soul that more powerfully and permanently experiences those temptations.

3. Nature-vs-nurture. Kevin's comments above point to a "nature" aspect to SSA. I'm pointing to a nurture aspect. I believe both are true. So I'm not disagreeing with Kevin on the nature part he's indicating.

I find biblical evidence for both nature and nurture. I also find NO indication that "change" should be expected to be complete in this lifetime. And I believe that the pervasive expectation for complete change is what doomed Exodus. Watch Pray Away.

There are many homosexuals that say that God has taken away their urges.

In the case of women, yes. In the case of men, my experience and reading tells me that no, the urge, the orientation, if you will, never goes away completely.