SBC Leaders, Revoice, and the Homosexual Compromise: Dangerously Accommodating the Homosexual Community, Part 1

This is the first article in this series on the Homosexual Compromise.

Some of our leaders and well-known Bible teachers in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) display an excessive, and I believe, unbiblical willingness to accommodate the homosexual agenda. This unwise adjustment in their language and position furthers the quest of homosexuals, which is ultimately to be accepted into conservative Christianity. Their significant inroads into cultural normalcy and notable acceptance within Christianity have been gained by sheer tenacity, as they press toward their goals incrementally. I think some of our leaders are either wittingly or unwittingly facilitating the full acceptance of homosexuality. I do need to say, at the time I am writing this article, those I mention do in various places either emphatically proclaim homosexuality as a sin or maintain that sexual relations are only permissible in a heterosexual marriage.

Homosexuals journey to full acceptance by conservative Christianity can be seen in the work of Revoice. Revoice’s vision says, “Revoice exists because we want to see gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other same-sex-attracted people who adhere to historic, Christian teaching about marriage and sexual expression flourish in their local faith communities. We envision a unified Church where these individuals can be transparent with their faith communities about their orientation and experience; where local churches utilize and celebrate the unique opportunities that lifelong celibate people have to serve others; where Christian leaders boast about the faith of people who are living a sacrificial obedience for the sake of the Kingdom; and where all people regardless of their orientation or experience are welcomed into the lives of families so that all can experience the joys, benefits, and responsibilities of kinship.”[1]

I am grateful that Revoice’s website recognizes marriage is between a man and a woman for life, sex is only right between a husband and wife, and those who are not in such a relationship are to live celibate lives. Nevertheless, we cannot let those affirmations mask the dangers posed by Revoice. What is (among other things) particularly troubling and unacceptable is Revoice’s frequent use of sexual orientation to characterize the desire for same-sex relationships, and their constant emphasis on those with such desires (orientation) finding their identity in their sin and Christ.

For example, on Revoice’s website, under the section,Statement on Sexual Ethics and Christian Obedience,they say, “While discussions about terminology can be fruitful, we believe they can also cause unnecessary division within the family of God and needless pain for many non-straight Christians. Whether individuals choose gay or same-sex-attracted to describe their orientation and experience is a matter of wisdom and liberty and should not divide believers who otherwise share a commitment to historic Christian teaching about marriage and sexuality. (2 Tim. 2:14)”[2]But the reality is that their chosen descriptors have significant differences in meaning and connotation than the biblical terms. The evidence that they know this too is obvious in their choice of terms such as “gay” or “same-sex-attracted” and “orientation.” If they were not seeking to distance their desires and behaviors from Scripture, why not use biblical designations like homosexual, sin, enslavement, or early-onset sin rather than orientation?

In contrast to “gay” or “same-sex-attracted,” the biblical word homosexuality captures the constellation of sinful desires and actions. It immediately exposes the sinfulness of seeking toidentify with ones sexual sin rather than with the Savior alone. Any attempt to identify as a Christian as well as with ones sin conflicts with Scripture.[3]It seems that terms such as “gay,” “same-sex-attracted,” and “sexual orientation” are so far from the message of Scripture (Gen 19:1-29; Lev 18:2-3; 18:24; 20:23; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10), that adopting such terms to replace biblical terms immediately raises the question, Why? I can think of no sound biblical reasons. Regarding what seems to be obvious, Nathaniel Sullivan warns, “Revoice is a movement to merge a gay identity with a Christian identity and to urge the church to accept and appreciate same-sex attracted or ‘gay’ Christians and the contributions they can make as ‘gay Christians’ to the body of Christ.”[4]

I accept the claims of each of the people in this series of articles regarding their belief in the sinfulness of homosexuality, transgenderism, or their stated biblical views of marriage. I am not disputing the truthfulness of their direct claims. I take them at their word as Christian brothers and sisters. I am, however, challenging the wisdom of their adoption of the positions and language homosexuals use to advance a homosexual agenda. Particularly since the biblical message speaks clearly about the sinfulness of homosexuality rather than masking it with terms like “gay,” “same-sex-attracted,” and “orientation.”

I also challenge the legitimacy and helpfulness to the cause of Christ when some give indirect answers to precise questions regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality. I contend these leaders have made biblically unwarranted concessions to the homosexual community. These accommodations encourage homosexuals and facilitate their quest for full acceptance within evangelicalism generally and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in particular while also spiritually harming them by a lack of biblical clarity.

I will include the following people in these articles: Beth Moore, a well-known Bible teacher, Dr. Russell Moore, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC, Dr. J.D. Greear, President of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

[1]Revoice 2020 conference under “About”https://revoice.usaccessed 2-23-20; PCA Presbytery rejects Revoice Conference, 2-23-20.
[2] 3-20-20.
[3]See Article 10, 12, and 13 of the Nashville Statement,, accessed 3-21-20.
[4]A Course Change that Always Will Lead to Disaster, Part 3,accessed2/20/20.

Posted in

Ronnie W. Rogers