Alistair Begg and Transgender Advice
So, has Alistair Begg ditched the faith? Denied the deity of Christ? Rethought the resurrection?
Hardly. But you might have gained that impression after the widespread – and sometimes extreme – condemnation he has received since his recent comments on the acceptability of attending a transgender wedding.
Alistair Begg is a highly regarded Reformed and Evangelical minister in Cleveland, Ohio with a wide reach through his Truth for Life Ministry. This saga began when he was asked by a desperate grandmother if he thought she should go to her grandson's trans wedding.
But before considering the theological aspects of his words it is worth stopping to think about the nature of his "offence", which was giving advice to a fellow believer. Note: Alistair Begg gave advice, not instruction. He gave loving, concerned counsel, not commands. In doing so he did not deviate from, or deny or alter any specific doctrine of Scripture, so, needless to say, this is not a doctrinal error as there is no single, right way to manage challenging relationships – despite what many people appear to have concluded. Yes, leading spokesmen in the church have decreed that Alistair Begg gave bad, or wrong or erroneous advice: some gently taking him to task, acknowledging his valuable ministry; others calling for him to walk back on his statement, or repent; and some advising against sitting under his ministry altogether.
It's worth repeating that the minister counselled a particular person in a particular situation that it was OK for her to go to this biblically illegitimate wedding. The marriage of an immoral person, or a murderer or a drug dealer or a Hindu or a Muslim is not in question: it is a gay or transgender marriage ceremony that must be shunned, and that because God ordained marriage as between a man and a woman exclusively. None of us would question that.
But why, I ask? Why not go? Why shun these people? Am I missing something here? Let's see:
I am not a direct participant here; that would be wrong.
I am not advocating this kind of marriage; that would be wrong.
I am preaching against this kind of union, as is well-known.
I am not condoning or supporting this kind of union and I have made that clear.
I am deciding to go along in support of my loved one in order to be a grandmother to my grandchild.
Is that wrong?
There are subtle layers to this disagreement, and there is context, and nuance within the wedding dilemma. In a time, as now, when many rush to join one team or the other – invariably just the two – the black or white, the right or wrong - there is an immediate suppression of broader thinking, of angles and nuance and particulars, and even of discussion and debate, in some circles. It is easy this way. There is no need to waste time in weighing and considering and reflecting. Plus it's comfortable being in a big team with those who identify as I do.
Certainly, clear-cut prohibitions from God's Word must be obeyed, but can we really, rightly condemn another believer for a very personal and agonised decision about how to walk in love and obedience to Christ in the midst of deep pain? About how to balance living out compassion and long-suffering and gentleness toward our lost and sinful loved ones with standing firmly against their rebellious behaviour?
Here, I believe, is where Begg's critics are mistaken: the presumption that attendance sends a message of affirmation, or approval. Tacit approval, they say. Really? I am going to suggest that this concept of tacit approval has been greatly over-stretched from a mere possibility to a rigid certainty without ever being examined.
Here is an alternative presumption: This young man's friends all know as well as he does, his grandmother's pain and difficulty in coping with the lifestyle he has chosen, and furthermore they are assuming she would not venture into their sullied world. Yes, they expect that upright preachy (they think) person to stay well away, and her presence is at once a shock and a challenge – and perhaps a sneaky delight. But they are watching her. Our God-hating loved ones are relentlessly watching our tongues and our body language for signs of the rejection and disapproval they know they warrant. Some may even give her the opportunity to greet them warmly but sadly, as she cannot fully hide her grief.
No. They are not so unaware as to think her presence equals her approval; deep down they register her unwavering and constant love for him, and very likely her discomfort, also. Maybe they even know she regards this as a sham wedding.
Furthermore, this act of silent suffering through a perverse ceremony would fit well into the life of a believer who has learnt that silence can be far harder than vocalising, chiding, reminding, condemning, and that demonstrating Christ-likeness is costlier than telling people what we think – and what we think of them. The reality is that if we live a godly and holy life those in our orbit already know our standards. They do not require our disfavour or disapproval, and what is more, we will never move them by it. This, after all, is the work of the Holy Spirit – who alone must awaken the conscience and convict the sinner.
We – believers in the West – are not at risk of losing our homes, our jobs, our lives, to violence and persecution, but we are at risk of living dangerously easy, anguish-free lives. The challenge faced by this grandmother, and all those with similar complex relationships to navigate, is about the real cost of loving God and seeking to glorify Him in a hostile and depraved environment. Surely they do not need to be further ostracised and vilified by fellow believers in the church.
The deeper challenge is probably for each of us to curb our presumptions about tacit approval. After all, we tolerate or endure silently the poor behaviour among colleagues and loved ones without condoning or approving. Look at the Samaritan woman at the well: could someone watching from afar have concluded that Jesus was tacitly approving her widely known immoral life? Sitting alone with a woman! A foreigner/enemy?
Or did Jesus give tacit approval to Judas all those years, when he well knew the son of perdition's heart?
A perverse and illegitimate marriage does indeed offend against a holy God, but Begg's critics risk making an idol of marriage by elevating it to a position in which a breach is the measure of all wickedness. Alistair Begg's compassionate remarks do not cross the line over which faithful ministers may be judged and destroyed.
Morag Zwartz
No comments:
Post a Comment