Saturday, 8 July 2017

More on John Stevens' capitulation

Following on from http://mothwo.blogspot.com/2017/07/has-fiec-capitulated-on-homosexual.html.

I came across John Stevens' opposition to "gay marriage", just 5 years ago at http://www.john-stevens.com/2012/02/fiec-news-c4m-coalition-for-marriage.html. There are also some quotes at http://www.christian.org.uk/news/fiec-director-urges-christians-to-defend-marriage/

The gay community is a tiny percentage of the population as a whole, but they exercise inordinate power through their vociferous lobbying.
In the post, he calls the proposals for "gay marriage": "Wrong", "Unnecessary", "Dishonourable", "Arrogant", "Opportunistic", "Unpopular", "Insidious", "Dangerous".

Yet now, just five years later, he opposes "those that have consistently stood against the grant of any civic rights and freedoms to the LBGT community", and distances himself from them, as if they were third parties. He continues "It is hardly surprising that the gay community is suspicious of the political objectives of evangelical Christians. Christians need to adopt a political philosophy that is appropriate for a genuinely plural society that encompasses both believers and unbelievers." Yet, who are these third parties that Stevens critiques? Himself! Does he really think that what he calls "the gay community" (or to use a more Biblical perspective: a mob of those bent on serious evil) are going to read him calling their agenda "Wrong", "Unnecessary", "Dishonourable", "Arrogant", "Opportunistic", "Unpopular", "Insidious", "Dangerous", and then not be suspicious of his "political agenda"? Really?

We should never repent of following Biblical teaching. Stevens has shifted his position, but under the guise of criticising other, unnamed evangelical Christians who have held to that Biblical teaching. In 2012, he correctly called the campaign for rebranding and promoting gross sexual immorality as "marriage" accurately, according to what it is - wrong, unnecessary, dishonourable, arrogant, opportunistic, unpopular, insidious, dangerous. In 2017, he says that people who speak like this are a danger to the Christian church, and that it is "urgent" (his word) to "advocate for a truly plural society in which they value the rights and freedoms of other communities as well as their own."

Is there not something deeply "dishonourable" about doing a 180 on your position, under the guise of criticising third parties who continue to say precisely what the Christian church has always said, what you said until a short time ago, and neglecting to explain that the position that you are criticising was your own position? Yes, there is. Is it not wrong for a shepherd to say that the sheep were wrong to do what he encouraged them to do, without openly explaining that that's what you're doing? Yes, it is. And, as I said yesterday, the rot and compromise on the homosexual issue has now apparently reached into the heart of FIEC, the UK's foremost organisation for independent evangelical churches.

A few short years ago, we had the revolting spectacle of seeing Conservative MPs, who as a majority voted against "gay marriage", then doing a swift 180-degree turn, explaining that they were now for it (because their careers now depended on it), and that their positions had changed. We sigh, we lament, and understand that politicians are politicians. When those with a Christian profession did it (e.g. Nicky Morgan, Tim Farron), we sighed and groaned and cried out to God for mercy. But at least we contented ourselves that conservative evangelical leaders were holding the line. But instead, the leader of the FIEC is advocating that we support the homosexual agenda in society, whilst retreating into the quietness of our churches and hoping that the world will leave us alone there. His goal is that the "gay rights" movement will not be suspicious of his political agenda, and leave him in peace. This goal only developed once he realised that they had the upper hand ... in 2012, when there was still a chance, he spoke very differently. Apparently, his principles depend on the political mood, not on unchanging truths. Sad, sad, so sad. May God have mercy!

1 comment:

Henry said...

Thanks for bringing this to attention.