Scottish pastor Alistair Begg, who ministers at Parkside Church in Ohio, has courted controversy over advice he gave to a woman who was invited to her grandchild’s wedding, which was a marriage to a transgender person.
For me, I hold a traditional view on marriage but have a trans-child. I will not officiate a same-sex service but, if or when my child gets married, I’ll be there. I applaud Pastor Begg.
Begg is embodying courageous fidelity to orthodoxy in an age of ethical compromise—and the compromise is coming at him like a double tsunami from both sides: from the religious Left as progressive deconstruction and from the religious Right as Pharisaical condemnation.
My family has a same sex wedding coming up soon, one of whom considers themselves a Jesus person. My wife and I have taken the posture with them of "Clear is kind, unclear is unkind." As long as we are clear with them on both our Christian convictions and our love for them, we are happy to be with them on what they consider the most important day of their lives. Plus, I'd rather give up being right for a day than give up a lifetime of trust and relationship, especially since they are clear that my presence at their wedding does not mean approval of same sex marriage but full embrace of them as incredible individuals! I have no idea why so many American Christians I know are incapable of envisioning the kind of emotionally healthy communication required for loving clarity despite disagreement.
Of course, I cannot officiate the ceremony as a pastor who holds to historic orthodoxy. Aside from that, my goal is to stay as relationally close to them as they will possibly have me!
I rejoice at Alistair Begg’s position. It represents Jesus, embodying the gospel. Love requires such nuance. Lord, please conform us all to the image of your son.
It seems that Beggs' critics are making the claim that attendance at a wedding ceremony universally signals agreement with the union — in all situations. I would challenge that presumption as it ignores the variety of family traditions and nuance of individual relationships. At the same time, I'd recognize there are likely some relational dynamics wherein attending the ceremony sends the wrong signal. I don't know everyone's family.
Even if we stipulate universality in these social implications, would it be a stronger signal than that in Jesus' time of dining in private homes? Was Jesus not aware of the assumptions his critics would make? Certainly he knew the social implications of dining with sinners. He knew what people would say, and he choose love over fear.
While I grew up in the states, I have been blessed by reading many wonderful writers from the British Evangelical tradition (starting with John Stott & JI Packer, as a student in InterVarsity in college).
I think that early adulthood grounding has kept me from completing "writing off" the church the past 8-10 years, as far too many American Evangelical "Christians" flip Paul's teaching (I Cor 5) completely on it's head. Rather than loving those around us who sin apart from the Lord and calling believers to repentance/keeping the church set apart as holy, they "overlook" (and hide and even excuse/promote) gross immorality in the church because of "tribal loyalty," while labeling those whom Jesus calls us to call to Him our "enemies."
(Excuse me, but tell me again, what is that Jesus told us to do to/for our enemies...?)
Many American fundamentalists are more like the Pharisees in the New Testament than they are like Jesus -- I think that Begg and Bird know the difference and act accordingly. Bravo to them!
We have a couple of transgender people in our family, and this is the basic position I’ve taken. I can love them where they are, which is what God has done for me. Goodness knows I’ve screwed up a lot, and yet God never left me or abandoned me or withdrew His love because I was sinning. I don’t have to agree with someone’s choices to love them well.
Begg is advising grace in action. Good ol’ American fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are angry evangelicals. What are they angry about? …everything! Shame on MacArthur!
I knew this 20 years ago when asked to attend a gay "commitment ceremony" (since it wasn't legal for them to marry). I didn't know the difference between British and America evangelicalism, but I knew that love would be a far more effective witness to the love of Christ than disapproval (which they'd gotten from every other Christianesque practitioner in their lives) .
Alistair’s ministry has played a vital role in my discipleship. I’ve always admired his sensitivity to nuance; this situation simply manifests that trait.
I spent most of my formative years in American fundamentalism, so the backlash he’s facing doesn’t surprise me. I suspect that there may be an element of the political tail wagging the religious dog here.
MacArthur’s reaction shouldn’t come as a shock either, given his recent behavior. Somewhere along the line, I’m afraid that JMac has gone from flawed but mostly effective servant to a net negative influence on the church. May we all beware of overstaying our usefulness.
There also seem to be some lessons here about celebrity in the Church that someone should write about.
Well said Dr. Mike. From where I come from (the Philippines), family is everything. Hence, there are permissible "compromises" so as to preserve familial unity without selling out on core convictions.
I’m with you and Alister Begg. If we destroy all traces of a bridge between us and those who don’t know God or are far from him, they can’t come back over it to be restored should they ever desire to repent. The infinite, unfathomable God of all creation is infinitely “nuanced.”Thanks for not being afraid to speak your heart when cancel culture is as much active in the church as it is the culture.
1 in my view marriage is the union of one man and one woman. So anything other than that is not marriage.
2 a wedding is not a marriage. Only God can create the union of marriage (“what God has put together let no one put asunder”). So no matter who officiates or what is said, no Christian marriage results if it’s not as 1 above says. Maybe in the eyes of the state it is, depending on the laws. But I would call this a civil union, not a wedding resulting in Christian marriage.
3 a gay wedding by analogy then becomes an issue on the level of eating meat sacrificed to idols. Since we know those idols have no real existence, we are free to eat or not, so long as we don’t stumble another’s faith. So by analogy, since a gay wedding is not a Christian marriage, we are free to attend or not, with the caveat of not stumbling a weaker faith person.
Therefore, go ahead an attend if appropriate. I think Begg is correct.
For me, I hold a traditional view on marriage but have a trans-child. I will not officiate a same-sex service but, if or when my child gets married, I’ll be there. I applaud Pastor Begg.
James, next week I have a post about the update in guidance on treating trans and gender dyphoric adolescents. Would love to hear your thoughts on it!
I look forward to it.
James, I'm with you mate!
Begg is embodying courageous fidelity to orthodoxy in an age of ethical compromise—and the compromise is coming at him like a double tsunami from both sides: from the religious Left as progressive deconstruction and from the religious Right as Pharisaical condemnation.
My family has a same sex wedding coming up soon, one of whom considers themselves a Jesus person. My wife and I have taken the posture with them of "Clear is kind, unclear is unkind." As long as we are clear with them on both our Christian convictions and our love for them, we are happy to be with them on what they consider the most important day of their lives. Plus, I'd rather give up being right for a day than give up a lifetime of trust and relationship, especially since they are clear that my presence at their wedding does not mean approval of same sex marriage but full embrace of them as incredible individuals! I have no idea why so many American Christians I know are incapable of envisioning the kind of emotionally healthy communication required for loving clarity despite disagreement.
Of course, I cannot officiate the ceremony as a pastor who holds to historic orthodoxy. Aside from that, my goal is to stay as relationally close to them as they will possibly have me!
Evan, yes, I think I'd be similar.
I rejoice at Alistair Begg’s position. It represents Jesus, embodying the gospel. Love requires such nuance. Lord, please conform us all to the image of your son.
Well said Gordon.
It seems that Beggs' critics are making the claim that attendance at a wedding ceremony universally signals agreement with the union — in all situations. I would challenge that presumption as it ignores the variety of family traditions and nuance of individual relationships. At the same time, I'd recognize there are likely some relational dynamics wherein attending the ceremony sends the wrong signal. I don't know everyone's family.
Even if we stipulate universality in these social implications, would it be a stronger signal than that in Jesus' time of dining in private homes? Was Jesus not aware of the assumptions his critics would make? Certainly he knew the social implications of dining with sinners. He knew what people would say, and he choose love over fear.
Yes, I think the attendance = approval is the problem. I think attedance = I love you despite our differences.
I agree.
While I grew up in the states, I have been blessed by reading many wonderful writers from the British Evangelical tradition (starting with John Stott & JI Packer, as a student in InterVarsity in college).
I think that early adulthood grounding has kept me from completing "writing off" the church the past 8-10 years, as far too many American Evangelical "Christians" flip Paul's teaching (I Cor 5) completely on it's head. Rather than loving those around us who sin apart from the Lord and calling believers to repentance/keeping the church set apart as holy, they "overlook" (and hide and even excuse/promote) gross immorality in the church because of "tribal loyalty," while labeling those whom Jesus calls us to call to Him our "enemies."
(Excuse me, but tell me again, what is that Jesus told us to do to/for our enemies...?)
Many American fundamentalists are more like the Pharisees in the New Testament than they are like Jesus -- I think that Begg and Bird know the difference and act accordingly. Bravo to them!
Totally agree
Don't you think that you've been just a tad bit harsh on the Pharisees?
We have a couple of transgender people in our family, and this is the basic position I’ve taken. I can love them where they are, which is what God has done for me. Goodness knows I’ve screwed up a lot, and yet God never left me or abandoned me or withdrew His love because I was sinning. I don’t have to agree with someone’s choices to love them well.
Begg is advising grace in action. Good ol’ American fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are angry evangelicals. What are they angry about? …everything! Shame on MacArthur!
I am a huge supporter of Alister Begg and believe he did the right thing!! Thank you for supporting his decision,!!!
I knew this 20 years ago when asked to attend a gay "commitment ceremony" (since it wasn't legal for them to marry). I didn't know the difference between British and America evangelicalism, but I knew that love would be a far more effective witness to the love of Christ than disapproval (which they'd gotten from every other Christianesque practitioner in their lives) .
Selina, you were obviously gracious and loving long before Alister made it cool.
Ouch!
Alistair’s ministry has played a vital role in my discipleship. I’ve always admired his sensitivity to nuance; this situation simply manifests that trait.
I spent most of my formative years in American fundamentalism, so the backlash he’s facing doesn’t surprise me. I suspect that there may be an element of the political tail wagging the religious dog here.
MacArthur’s reaction shouldn’t come as a shock either, given his recent behavior. Somewhere along the line, I’m afraid that JMac has gone from flawed but mostly effective servant to a net negative influence on the church. May we all beware of overstaying our usefulness.
There also seem to be some lessons here about celebrity in the Church that someone should write about.
JMH, I agree, I'm more shaped by Alistair's brand of Christianity, and JMac and co.'s response is somewhat predictable.
Well said Dr. Mike. From where I come from (the Philippines), family is everything. Hence, there are permissible "compromises" so as to preserve familial unity without selling out on core convictions.
That makes sense, family matters.
I’m with you and Alister Begg. If we destroy all traces of a bridge between us and those who don’t know God or are far from him, they can’t come back over it to be restored should they ever desire to repent. The infinite, unfathomable God of all creation is infinitely “nuanced.”Thanks for not being afraid to speak your heart when cancel culture is as much active in the church as it is the culture.
Amen, love must supersede all.
Couple of things rolling around in my head.
1 in my view marriage is the union of one man and one woman. So anything other than that is not marriage.
2 a wedding is not a marriage. Only God can create the union of marriage (“what God has put together let no one put asunder”). So no matter who officiates or what is said, no Christian marriage results if it’s not as 1 above says. Maybe in the eyes of the state it is, depending on the laws. But I would call this a civil union, not a wedding resulting in Christian marriage.
3 a gay wedding by analogy then becomes an issue on the level of eating meat sacrificed to idols. Since we know those idols have no real existence, we are free to eat or not, so long as we don’t stumble another’s faith. So by analogy, since a gay wedding is not a Christian marriage, we are free to attend or not, with the caveat of not stumbling a weaker faith person.
Therefore, go ahead an attend if appropriate. I think Begg is correct.
Nothing to add. You nailed it. Grateful for A.B.'s faithful ministry, too.
Thanks Peter!