From the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Sympathy for the Devil




Rosaria Butterfield’s books are essentially agitation propaganda to advance the cultural Marxist agenda of destroying Christianity and Western Civilization. Secret Thoughts and Openness Unhindered were written to prejudice Millennials, Generation X and future generations against Christianity and the Bible which calls homosexuality an abomination and does not allow for the “gay Christian” meme. These young ideologues have been educated in the atheistic philosophy of cultural Marxism in schools and colleges across the United States and other developed countries. They have learned that Marxism is an improvement over Western Civilization but they have never been taught the horrors of Communism, which is the destination to which cultural Marxism is conveying them. Yuri Bezmenov predicted the unhappy ending for the radical left Social Justice Warriors:


“The psychological shock, when they will see in future what the beautiful society of equality and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy, frustrated people. And the Marxist Leninist regime does not tolerate this people. Obviously they will join the ranks of dissenters, dissidents. Unlike in present United States, there will be no place for dissent in Marxist Leninist America… In future this people will be simply squashed like cockroaches.” (KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov’s Warning to America)  


The vocabulary of cultural Marxism which Rosaria employs is familiar and acceptable to the historically uninformed Millennials and Gen X, unlike previous generations which were taught the totalitarian nature of Communism.  To further the Marxist programming of her young readers, Rosaria uses intellectual sounding words and phrases like “ontology,” “teleology,” “social construct,” “homosociality,” “homophobia,” ‘human flourishing,” “social justice,” “egalitarian,” “greater social good,” “neologism,” “poststructural,” “epistemology,” and self-representation which are straight out of the philosophical, psychological and socialist theorielgbr of Freud and the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt Institute, such as Herbert Marcuse, Antonio Gramsci and Theodor Adorno.


To poison the well and preempt any credibility Christians may have to prevent the ruin of the younger generation, Rosaria reiterates cultural Marxism’s dishonest portrayal of Christianity:


Homosociality is an abiding and deep comfort afforded in keeping company with your own gender, and finding within your own gender your most important and cherished friendships. This is not a sin. Neither is this ‘gay’” But once that comfort level shifts to sexually desiring a person with whom you are not biblically married, you are in sin. ...homosexual lust is a sin, but so is heterosexual lust and homophobia….


Homophobia—the fear and hatred of people who identify as LGBT, and the wholesale writing off of their souls.” (Openness Unhindered, Kindle 607-608)


Rosaria’s equation of homosexual and heterosexual lust with homophobia, defined as “hatred,” and “the wholesale writing off of the souls” of LGBT people, is patently false. In the first place, “homophobia” is not a sin but a God-given aversion to a sin that he calls an “abomination.” Furthermore, Christians do not “hate” homosexuals per se nor do we “write off” any soul.


As a cultural Marxist, Rosaria must demonize Biblical morality to legitimize her “new conversation” which is “sexual liberation” from the boundaries God has set for mankind. Rosaria’s statement borders on Herbert Marcuse’s revolutionary call for sexual liberation from the repression of “libidinous drives” by the “homophobia” of the “monogamic and patriarchal family,’ whose institutions will disintegrate by “changing the value and scope of libidinous relations”:


“According to Marcuse, homo-phobia is a form of capitalistic social control – ‘surplus repression’ – in which libidinous drives are controlled through the elevation of the ‘monogamic and patriarchal family’…the problematization of sex is premised on the Marcusian hypothesis that ‘a resurgence of pregenital* polymorphous sexuality…would lead to what Marcuse would identify as ‘a change in the value and scope of libidinous relations’, that is, ‘the disintegration of the institutions in which private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchial family’.”


*pregenital = prepuberty


The writings of Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) were particularly influential in the 1960s counter-culture sexual revolution and rise of the New Left. It was said that “Marcuse quite ostensibly sponsored the student upheavals.”


The Origins of Political Correctness


“Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of ‘polymorphous perversity,’ that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole [Frankfurt] Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.’ Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct…


“One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the [Students for a Democratic Society] and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of ‘polymorphous perversity,’ in which you can ‘do you own thing.’ And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s!  They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow.  He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, ‘Do your own thing,’ ‘If it feels good do it,’ and ‘You never have to go to work.’ By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, ‘Make love, not war.’ Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines ‘liberating tolerance’ as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.”




Rosaria Butterfield disingenuously denies the success of all ex-gay ministries and debunks Reparative Therapy as dangerous and hurtful to gay people.  But she does have another solution to the problem. Instead of expecting homosexuals to repent of their sin, why can’t Christians play mind games with the evangelical language, like cultural Marxists do, of course to redeem it.


“Words, though, are unstable creatures. We need revised dictionaries each year because new words enter into the culture, and because words do change over time. In the 1990s, many people in the gay community (myself included) ditched the term gay or lesbian for the term queer. Why? In the sixteenth century, queer was an adjective and meant perverse, strange, bad, worthless, and counterfeit. By the eighteenth century, queer became dominantly used as a verb, and it meant to interfere with or spoil (‘queer a pitch’), to swindle or to cheat. By the late nineteenth century, queer was a pejorative term used again as a noun to refer to a new kind of person, a homosexual. In an effort to take back the word, queer activists embraced it in order to remake it on our own terms. We believed that signs (words) and signifiers (meanings) could be reshaped by sheer force of use, that they were inherently unstable and only found meaning in our usage of them. We believed in the social construction of gender and sexuality through language. We wanted to claim this term on our turf, because once it became our term, it lost its pejorative power.


“So, if radical queer activists can play with language to redeem it, why can’t evangelical Christians? If language has an inherent fluidity, why not use this on our own terms?  Because as Christians, we need to practice what we want to model: a call to use words honestly. A call to use words honestly, in ways that correspond to God’s truth. And, while words do have a semantic range of meaning, we are never to use this fact to deny that God’s standard for obedience is the bulls-eye.” (Openness Unhindered, (Kindle 2019-2022)


Rosaria calls Christians to “use words honestly” and to never deny God’s standard for obedience, but then she proceeds to inject clearly unbiblical terminology into the Christian vocabulary and comes up with a new category of Christians – “gay Christians” who profess to “love Jesus but are also, in attraction or action, persistently experiencing homosexual desires.


“In the phrase ‘gay Christian,’ gay is a descriptive or limiting adjective, and its job is ‘to indicate the quality of a noun or pronoun.’ It indicates what kind of Christian you are. When a limiting adjective is used to define a people group, it is a mark of identity. When you modify the noun Christian with the adjective gay, you pair terms with incompatible anthropologies, and recommend a false philosophy of the soul. Adjectival modifiers create new nouns. The case in point here is the category of ‘gay Christian,’ someone who both loves Jesus but is also, in attraction or action, persistently experiencing homosexual desires. The question is this: do we really want to say that gay Christians are a different type of Christian? ...


“When I question someone’s use of the term ‘gay Christian,’ I am not saying that I do not want to hear about my sister and brother’s deep feelings and longings. I am not minimizing these feelings and identities and senses of self. I am not discounting the heavy hand of loss that these feelings seem to portend, or the deep sensitivities and character building that marginalization ushers forth. I am saying that I want to be your friend. And, I’m saying that if you stand in the risen Christ alone, your self-representation is Christian.” (Openness Unhindered, (Kindle 2030-2040)


In other words, Christians must assume that “gay Christians” are brothers and sisters in Christ if they profess to be “in Christ” (‘represent themselves as standing in the risen Christ alone.’)  Rosaria accuses Evangelical Christians of “easy believism,” but does she not see the superficiality of making a profession of faith?  How many deceived souls will stand at the Judgment and hear the words, “Depart from Me, I never knew you.” 

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matt. 7:21-23

Rosaria’s understanding of the Gospel for gay people is not necessarily the new birth and a changed life, but “representing oneself as standing in the risen Christ alone” and “beckoned to grow in sanctification.”


“‘New creature’ is a term that beckons God’s people to grow in Christ-likeness, to grow in sanctification, but we do harm to the call of Christ when we presume that opposite-sex desires should replace same-sex desires as the exclusive proof of real sanctification.” Openness Unhindered: Kindle 2058-2060)


John Calvin mistranslated and rejected the Greek wording of 2 Cor.5:17 in his commentary, which Calvinists believe teaches true Christianity.


Therefore if any man is in Christ. As there is something wanting in this expression, it must be supplied in this way — If any one is desirous to hold some place in Christ, that is, in the kingdom of Christ, or in the Church 1 let him be a new creature.”


1. ‘Et estre tenu pour membre de ceste saincte compagnie;’ — ‘And to be regarded as a member of that holy society.’”


How many Calvinists, as a result of reading this commentary, believe they are “in Christ” by virtue of joining a church, or making a covenant with a “covenant community” which they are told is the “Kingdom of God”?


Of course, John Calvin left no personal testimony of having been “born again,” but only of his conversion to the Reformation which is consistent with his false interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:17. Those who have never experienced “new birth in Christ” do not comprehend the radical spiritual and moral change of becoming a new creation, as described by 19th century Presbyterian theologian, Albert Barnes in his Notes on the New Testament, which refutes John Calvin’s false interpretation:


He is a new creature. Marg., ‘Let him be.’ This is one of the instances in which the margin has given a less correct translation than is in the text. The idea evidently is, not that he ought to be a new creature, but that he is in fact; not that he ought to live as becomes a new creature—which is true enough—but that he will in fact live in that way, and manifest the characteristics of the new creation. The phrase ‘a new creature’ (kainh ktisiV) occurs also in Gal. 6:15. The word rendered ‘creature’ (ktisiV) means, properly, in the New Testament, creation


“Here it means a new creation in a moral sense; and the phrase ‘new creature’ is equivalent to the expression in Eph 4:24: ‘The new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.’ It means, evidently, that there is a change produced in the renewed heart of man that is equivalent to the act of creation, and that bears a strong resemblance to it—a change, so to speak, as if the man was made over again, and had become new. The mode or manner in which it is done is not described; nor should the words be pressed, to the quick, as if the process were the same in both cases—for the words are here evidently figurative. But the phrase implies evidently the following things:


(1.) That there is an exertion of Divine power in the conversion of the sinner as really as in the act of creating the world out of nothing, and that this is as indispensable in the one case as in the other…


Old things are passed away. The old views in regard to the Messiah, and in regard to men in general, 2 Cor 5:16. But Paul also gives this a general form of expression, and says that old things in general have passed away—referring to everything. It was true of all who were converted that old things had passed away… Their former prejudices, opinions, habits, attachments pass away. Their supreme love of self passes away. Their love of sin passes away. Their love of the world passes away. Their supreme attachment to their earthly friends rather than God passes away. Their love of sin—their sensuality, pride, vanity, levity, ambition—passes away. There is a deep and radical change on all these subjects—a change which commences at the new birth; which is carried on by progressive sanctification; and which is consummated at death and in heaven.


Behold, all things are become new. That is, all things in view of the mind. The purposes of life, the feelings of the heart, the principles of action, all become new. The understanding is consecrated to new objects, the body is employed in new service, the heart forms new attachments. Nothing can be more strikingly descriptive of the facts in conversion than this; nothing more entirely accords with the feelings of the new-born soul. All is new. There are new views of God and of Jesus Christ; new views of this world and of the world to come; new views of truth and of duty; and everything is seen in a new aspect and with new feelings. Nothing is more common in young converts than such feelings, and nothing is more common than for them to say that all things are new. The Bible seems to be a new book; and though they may have often read it before, yet there is a beauty about it which they never saw before, and which they wonder they have not before perceived. The whole face of nature seems to them to be changed, and they seem to be in a new world. The hills, and vales, and streams; the sun, the stars, the groves, the forests, seem to be new. A new beauty is spread over them all; and they now see them to be the work of God, and his glory is spread over them all, and they can now say, ‘My Father made them all.’


”The heavens and the earth are filled with new wonders, and all things seem now to speak forth the praise of God. Even the very countenances of friends seem to be new; and there are new feelings towards all men; a new kind of love to kindred and friends; a love before unfelt for enemies; and a new love for all mankind.”


Having never turned her back on Sodom, Rosaria rejects the language of Scripture, which identifies “gay Christians” as the “unrighteous” who “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”


“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” 1 Corinthians 6:9



“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” 2 Cor. 6:15

Christian readers would likely give Rosaria a pass because her conversion seemed genuine and her relationship with God seems very spiritual. And her book, Openness Unhindered is subtitled Further Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert on Sexual Identity and Union With Christ. Who does not aspire to “union with Christ” which sounds ever so holy.  For the most part, however, her book is not about union with Christ but about how far the Church should depart from the Word of God on the issue of homosexuality. All of her religious talk is lipservice to advance her Marxist agenda which is to manipulate Christians to affirm and admit to their churches those who “love Jesus, but also, in attraction or action, persistently experience homosexual desires.” In other word, gay persons can continue their homosexual activities and still love Jesus.   


Those who don’t suspect an agenda – to bring homosexuals into the church membership – are being deceived that all who call themselves “gay Christians” are brothers and sisters in Christ who “are desperately trying to be heard.” But there are many who call themselves “gay Christians” who are sexually active and have no intention of changing their lifestyle, but have infiltrated Christian churches to change their interpretation of Scripture. For example, the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention has been meeting with LGBTQ organizations which are demanding that homosexuality be omitted from the Bible’s “sin list.” Here are a few “sin lists” the LGBTQ wants removed:


Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (2 Cor. 6:9-10)


“Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.” Col 3:5-6


For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Rom. 1:26-27


The dialectical process is in play, but few Christians would recognize it as a ploy to compromise God’s Word by adopting the new term “gay Christian” and the LGBTQ’s “queering” of Scripture. (See Part 9: “Queer Theory”)  Rosaria Butterfield’s mixed message is Stage 1 of the dialectical process leading Christian churches to compromise the Word of God and, ultimately, to embrace same-sex marriage.


Thesis (Word of God) + Antithesis (Same-Sex Marriage) = Synthesis (Gay but Celibate "Christians" in their Church) 


Thesis (Gay Celibate Christians) + Antithesis (Same-Sex Marriage) = Synthesis  (Gay Non-Celibate Christians in Church) 


Thesis (Gay Non-Celibate "Christians" in Church) + Antithesis (Same-Sex Marriage) = Synthesis (Same-Sex Marriage in Church) 


Do you see the progression to a predetermined outcome in this dialectical scheme? In Stage 1, “gay but celibate Christians” are received and affirmed in the churches. In Stage 2, it will be found that gay celibacy does not lead to “human flourishing” (more “newspeak”) as claimed by Pastor Fred Harrell of the San Francisco City Church, a plant of Tim Keller’s New York City Church. In the San Fran City Church, the condition of celibacy was waived and gay men and lesbians are now welcomed as “gay Christian” members. 


“Pastor Fred Harrell of City Church, San Francisco, just announced his elders have embraced sodomy and will grant sodomites access to membership in the church and full communion at the Lord's Table.


“Our pastoral practice of demanding life-long ‘celibacy,’ by which we meant that for the rest of your life you would not engage your sexual orientation in any way, was causing obvious harm and has not led to human flourishing...


“As we consider the life of Christ, his example of love, his call to embrace the outsider and cast down, and his patience with those earnestly seeking him, what is a Christ-like response?


“...the doors of this church are as wide as the arms of the Savior it proclaims.


“We will no longer discriminate based on sexual orientation and demand lifelong celibacy as a precondition for joining. For all members, regardless of sexual orientation, we will continue to expect chastity in singleness until marriage...”


Another example of the “gay celibate Christian” modus operandi is former Wheaton College chaplain, Julie Rodgers, who worked with Exodus International and claimed being a “celibate gay Christian.” Eventually Julie admitted that all along she was in favor of same-sex marriage and she is now engaged to be married to another lesbian.


“Shortly after the end of her first academic year at Wheaton (July 13), Julie posted on her blog site an article entitled, ‘An Update on the Gay Debate: evolving ideas, untidy stories, and hopes for the church,’ in which she explained why she could no longer abide by Wheaton’s policy on sexual ethics. The next day the Washington Post published her blog post verbatim under the new title, ‘I used to attend an ex-gay ministry. Here's why I now support same-sex relationships.’ In it she acknowledges: ‘Though I’ve been slow to admit it to myself, I've quietly supported same-sex relationships for a while now.’” (Robert Gagnon)


The fact that so many articles by Reformed leaders slamming Christians as homophobic are published in the Washington Post reveals their true liberal position on homosexual issues. Russell Moore and Albert Mohler occasionally pay WaPo a visit to broadcast their criticisms of the Christian Church.


To hear their complaints, one would think that “gay celibate Christians” are the only people in the church with a cross to bear, who have to deny themselves, lose their lives and suffer for Christ, although theirs is a false Christ. One homosexual change agent who seems to have no clue about the Christian life criticized the apostle Paul for being too spiritual:


“Tyler Huckabee, a former editor of Relevant magazine, and Julie Rodgers, until very recently a counselor at the Wheaton College chaplain’s office, both publicly endorsed same-sex relationships…


“A 30-year-old graduate of Moody Bible Institute, Huckabee chided the apostle Paul for his low view of sex: ‘This is a rather dim view of sex, which isn’t all that surprising, considering Paul. He seemed hugely unbothered by anything that wasn’t strictly spiritual.’


“Perhaps this is my overweening traditionalism speaking, but my ears always perk when I see a millennial who writes about Marvel comics publicly tweak an apostle whose ministry for Christ led to his beheading.” (Owen Strachen)


LGBTQ Millennials are demanding that the churches accommodate their lifestyle so they don’t feel unhappy or unwanted or different from others or guilty about their sin. Julie Rodgers is one of these complainers about how hard it is for Gays in the church:


“I’ve become increasingly troubled by the unintended consequences of messages that insist all LGBT people commit to lifelong celibacy. No matter how graciously it’s framed, that message tends to contribute to feelings of shame and alienation for gay Christians. It leaves folks feeling like love and acceptance are contingent upon them not-gay-marrying and not-falling-in-gay-love. When that’s the case—when communion is contingent upon gays holding very narrow beliefs and making extraordinary sacrifices to live up to a standard that demands everything from an individual with little help from the community—it’s hard to believe our bodies might be an occasion for joy. It’s hard to believe we’re actually wanted in our churches. It’s hard to believe the God who loves us actually likes us.,


“I don’t think this happens because anyone hates gay people. Most of the Christians I know love gay people­. They simply underestimate the burden of feeling marginalized, scrutinized, unwanted and relationally toxic because one of the best things about us—the way we give our love away—is seen as sinful. It’s easy for straight Christians to underestimate how exhausting it is to simply exist in communities that feel uncomfortable with gays: we’re constantly wondering if we should tell the truth when asked that question, or sleep on the floor when there’s room in the bed, or cut that hug short, or voice that question, or publish that post, or write that tweet, or curb that mannerism, or run from that friendship, or shut down those feelings or leave the church altogether. Those fears subside around friends who simply delight in who we are as whole human beings made in the image of God.”


Tragically, the Millennial generation appears to never have heard Jesus’ teachings on suffering. The apostles understood the reason for suffering; they embraced fiery trials, and rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for Christ.


Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.”


To further agitate gays who feel “marginalized” by the Church, Rosaria pulls out the moral “race card” accusing Christians of “ghettoizing” “gay Christians” as inferior Christians—which begs the question of whether “gay Christians” even belong to the Body of Christ:


“The question is this: do we really want to say that gay Christians are a different type of Christian? Doesn’t that create the kind of ghettoizing subgroup mentality that works against and not for real unity in Christ’s Body?...


“Many people who identify as “gay Christian” are desperately trying to be heard. And the church needs to listen up, because the failure to listen degrades faithful brothers and sisters. The conservative Christian church bears some responsibility for driving brothers and sisters in Christ into this “gay Christian” ghetto with our blindness to the way that we have insensitively tried to fix or fix up all of the singles in our church.” (Openness Unhindered, Kindle 2040-2042).


Many ministers and church members who are intimidated by this bullying will end up affirming “gay Christians” and many will even modify their preaching to appease the LGBTQ demands.  However, as this dialectic runs its course, Christian pastors everywhere will not be allowed to preach against homosexuality or counsel homosexuals to repent, for “reparative therapy” is fast becoming illegal throughout the U.S. In our rapidly declining culture, it is perfectly legal and right for school administrations and teachers to counsel children to change their biological gender, but it is illegal and harmful to counsel an LGBT person so they can make the transition to heterosexuality, which is God’s design for mankind.


When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, Rosaria Butterfield and Christopher Yuan issued a joint statement which is posted at The Gospel Coalition.


“The Supreme Court of the United States of America has made gay marriage legal in all 50 states, and much of our country celebrates. The world with its rainbow flags waving proudly and plentifully was our world. We locked arms with our LGBT loved ones and friends and believed they were truly and honestly our family of choice.


“This is the world that we, Christopher and Rosaria, helped build—a world pursuing dignity and equality. The people you see celebrating the recent SCOTUS decision to redefine marriage (and with marriage, personhood) would have been us, not very long ago.”


Predictably, Rosaria and Yuan did not miss another opportunity to criticize the Church:


“Defining marriage as being between a husband and a wife appears unfair to the LGBT community, in part because a life of singleness is seen to be crushingly lonely. Have we in the church inadvertently played into that lie with our idolatry of marriage while being pejorative and silent toward singleness? If singleness is unfair, then it’s no wonder marriage has become a right. Just as the LGBT community appealed to the rest of the world for dignity and respect, it’s time for the church to fight for the dignity and respect of single women and single men.


“Some are now comparing the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage with the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on abortion. Indeed, there is an important lesson for us to learn from the pro-life movement. Today, there are more pro-life young adults than others from previous generations who champion pro-life. When pro-life people, made up of more than just evangelical Christians, began fighting less and caring more for unborn babies and for women with unplanned pregnancies just as they were, a shift in focus brought about an important change. So the question now stands: will we begin caring for the LGBT community just as they are?”


A discerning blogger took issue with their demands that the Church “fight for the dignity and respect of [LGBT] single men and single women” and “begin caring for the LGBT community just as they are.”


On Homosexuality and Singleness: A Response to Christopher Yuan and Rosaria Butterfield


“Yuan and Butterfield’s particular application of these ideas is rhetorically worrying, and it leans overly much on a blurring of distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual single people…


“I must take issue with this paragraph towards the end of the statement:


When pro-life people, made up of more than just evangelical Christians, began fighting less and caring more for unborn babies and for women with unplanned pregnancies just as they were, a shift in focus brought about an important change. So the question now stands: will we begin caring for the LGBT community just as they are?


“Right away, the phrase ‘just as they are’ raises a whole host of questions, all of which are conveniently evaded as the authors’ word count runs out. Even under the assumption that they would draw the line at affirming sin, or welcoming unrepentant homosexuals as official church members, a phrase like this is meaningless without specific examples and clear definition of terms. Define ‘care for.’ Define ‘LGBT community.’ Define ‘as they are.’ Do the authors mean to imply that Christians are duty-bound to invited unsaved gay and lesbian couples into their homes, even if they have young families? Do they mean to imply that a man who believes himself ‘transgender’ should be allowed to use the bathroom of his choice at the local church? Do they mean to imply that anyone who expresses concerns about shared living situations involving even celibate gays and lesbians is a bigot? And so on and so forth.


“Furthermore, I have no idea what they think they mean when they refer to pro-life activists’ ‘fighting less’ Perhaps they need to do a bit more catch-up reading on the history of the pro-life movement. The truth is that the fight for legislative restrictions on abortion has run in absolute parallel with the rise of outreach ministries to pregnant women. These things are not mutually exclusive and never have been. Yes, on-the-ground tactics have been somewhat refined and updated as data comes in about their efficacy (e.g., marching with graphic pictures outside abortion clinics), but this is hardly the same thing as ‘fighting less.’ ‘Important change’ may be brought about in a variety of ways, including political activism. The recent expose of Planned Parenthood’s trafficking practices, which has been met with serious talk of defunding Planned Parenthood altogether, is a particularly stark example…


“I was focusing on their paragraph about ‘loving our LGBT neighbors as they are.’ In point of fact, I have yet to see either of them offer specific answers to most of the particular questions I was asking. And what Rosaria has offered as far as ‘hospitality’ is concerned actually makes me more, not less worried. She treats it almost like a joke in her autobiography when she talks about inviting her ‘transgender’ friend to church and drawing embarrassed looks. I don’t know what her opinion is on bathroom usage and the like, but let’s just say she wasn’t appearing to take the concerns of ordinary church folk about their kids and their privacy in such a situation nearly seriously enough.


“She has also spoken and written at length about how Christians are not being properly Christianly unless they behave with maximal friendliness and hospitality to even unrepentant homosexual couples. For example, she talks about a lesbian couple who lives in her family’s own neighborhood, and with whose kids she lets her children hang out freely. Her entire mode of interaction with this couple and their kids sounds altogether too free and easy, and whether she acknowledges it or not, that kind of unhindered communication does have an anesthetizing effect for the kids involved. There are scenarios involving heterosexual sin where this is a concern as well. For example, suppose your neighbor is shacking up with his girlfriend. Do you have him and the girlfriend over for lunch and tell your 5-year-old, ‘Oh, this is Mike and Sarah! They live in the house down the street, only to be stuck for an answer when 5-year-old Joey asks, ‘Are they married?’ I say no. All the more reason not to take that approach with a couple who practices perverted sex.


“So actually, I’ve looked into their other work and already have concerns even with what little I’ve seen that begins to address my questions. I guess I disagree that all relatively orthodox writers and speakers should be ‘congratulated’ merely for being orthodox on a hot topic. If there really are issues that are not getting addressed, or not being addressed in a satisfying way, we should point that out.”




The latest performance in the “gay Christian” theater of the absurd is chanting their “woe is me” dirge because neither the Church nor the LGBTQ culture loves them. It’s not their fault they are gay, so it’s the responsibility of the Church to be a refuge for unrepentant homosexuals who claim to be celibate (but this could change if they are not “flourishing” like heterosexuals do). Take, for example, Greg Coles’ Single, Gay, Christian: A Personal Journey of Faith and Sexual Identity which is Coles’ “story” of “belonging nowhere” because the church does not understand his homosexuality and the LGBTQ community doesn’t understand his celibacy.


“‘I’m gay.’ I’ll tell you how I cried and prayed and begged God to make me straight, or else to make me believe that the Bible left room for monogamous same-sex relationships. I’ll tell you how God kept refusing to do either one, how he kept pointing me back to the cross of Christ. How I followed my Savior in costly obedience and became a mythical creature, a thing that wasn’t supposed to exist: a single gay Christian.


“I’ll show you the world through my eyes: The books on Christian masculinity that never seemed to be about me. The churches that treated my singleness like an acne problem that could be cleared up with a few weeks’ treatment. The sincere Christians who called it ‘love’ when they talked about people like me with revulsion in their voices.


“I’ll tell you what it’s like to belong nowhere. To know that much of my Christian family will forever consider me unnatural, dangerous, because of something that feels as involuntary as my eye color. And to know that much of the LGBTQ community that shares my experience as a sexual minority will disagree with the way I’ve chosen to interpret the call of Jesus, believing I’ve bought into a tragic, archaic ritual of self-hatred.” (Prelude)


Gregory Coles works with Preston Sprinkle who is president of the Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender.


About: The Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender is a collaboration of Christian pastors, leaders and theologians who aspire to be the Church's most trusted source of theologically sound teaching and practical guidance on questions related to sexuality and gender.”

Leadership: Our collaboration is a growing team of Christian leaders, pastors, scholars, and LGBT+ persons to serve as advisors, writers, speakers, researchers, and board members.”


The Center for Faith, Sexuality and Gender is all about creating “safe spaces” for the LGBT+.


The Commons


“The Commons is an online platform where pastors and leaders can share ideas to create safe space for LGBT+ people, their families, and to engage the unique challenges that arise in conversations related to sexuality and gender.”


“At The Commons you’ll find:


“All the Pastoral and Academic Papers written by Dr. Preston Sprinkle and other pastors and scholars in the field. New papers will be forwarded to members of The Commons as they are written or updated.

“Videos, podcasts, e-books, and other resources put out by The Center to help leaders stay ahead of this fast-moving culture shift.

“Discussion forums where pastors and leaders are asking questions and sharing ideas about how churches can maintain theological faithfulness while extending radical compassion and gospel-centered care for LGBT+ people. These forums are open only to members of The Commons, assuring confidentiality.”


Of course, all of the Center for Faith’s resources and activities are “confidential” in order to conceal their real agenda which is to convert Christian churches into “safe spaces.”  The Center for Faith may as well own their affinity with the Human Rights Campaign whose work is toward the same end.


Faith Resources | Human Rights Campaign


“These resources are intended to help LGBTQ people, their families, friends and allies find powerful and transformative spaces to learn about the intersection of their faith and LGBTQ issues.”


Same goal as the Human Rights Campaign and PFLAG whose “Christian Conversation Guide" is an instruction manual on how to manipulate churches into becoming “safe spaces” for LGBTQs.


Same goal as Leftist religious groups like the United Church of Christ’s “New Sacred” Blog:


Making Your Church a “Safe Space”

“The need for safe spaces should not be limited to universities. If any place is going to offer psychological protection, shouldn’t it be the church?

How can the church create a safe space?

“By prioritizing people over theology or politics. We can keep each other safe only by setting aside any worldview disagreements and prioritizing healing and love.

“By becoming educated about all manner of oppression. We should know how our communities are being impacted by various forms of oppression.

“By listening rather than speaking. We should be asking trauma survivors what they need to feel safe and to heal.”


The only difference between the Human Rights Campaign, PFLAG, the UCC’s New Sacred and Together for the Gospel, Gregory Cole and Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender is that the latter claims to espouse “celibacy” and the “faithful Biblical view.” However, as we have seen, the “celibacy” requirements are waived as soon as LGBTs get their foot in the door and don’t feel like they are “flourishing.” And a recent Center for Faith video is actually a promo  for sexually active homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders who are seeking to become members of Christian churches.


Gregory Coles’ major field was Rhetoric and he is a doctoral candidate in English.


“His academic research on rhetorics of marginality (how language works in society for disadvantaged groups) has appeared or is forthcoming in College English and Rhetorica.”


“Rhetoric refers to the study and uses of written, spoken and visual language. It investigates how language is used to organize and maintain social groups, construct meanings and identities, coordinate behavior, mediate power, produce change, and create knowledge. Rhetoricians often assume that language is constitutive (we shape and are shaped by language), dialogic (it exists in the shared territory between self and other), closely connected to thought (mental activity as ‘inner speech’) and integrated with social, cultural and economic practices. Rhetorical study and written literacy are understood to be essential to civic, professional and academic life.” (What is Rhetoric?)


As documented in the next section, Rosaria’s English major equipped her and her radical queer activist community to “queer” the social construction of gender and sexuality through language to effect cultural change. Would this also be Gregory Coles’ job description at the Center for Faith, Sexuality and Gender?


Coles’ language in an article on the Center for Faith, Sexuality and Gender blog reflects the immature, entitled, not to mention irreverent, attitude he is encouraging in the younger generation for whom he writes. Through his “rhetoric of marginality” he is basically deconstructing their Western values and encouraging them to be nonconformist, irresponsible and perverted, and he calls this “loving Jesus.”


“Being so in love with a two-thousand-year-old Jewish guy that I choose not to pursue any of the present-day guys I might fall in love with.”


“Worshipping the same God as people who think my very existence is an affront to heaven. Standing halfway between the LGBTQ community and the evangelical church community, not quite fitting into either one, catching occasional rotten tomatoes from both sides of the aisle.


Gay Christian celibacy is weird.


“In some ways, I’m deeply saddened by this state of affairs. I lament that the church has historically created so little room for sexual minorities. I hate that kids who grow up gay and Christian are so often told they must choose between loving Jesus and ‘being gay,’ as if their mere sexual orientation were enough to send God running in the opposite direction. I mourn the many people like me who don’t feel safe being open and honest about their sexuality within their communities...


“For the early disciples, pursuing Jesus inevitably meant startling some people.


“One of my concerns with 21st-century evangelical Christianity in the West is that we’ve lost the art of weirdness. We chase after political power, create monocultural social bubbles, climb socioeconomic ladders, and fit quite comfortably into Western society. We’re so busy living lives that make perfect rational sense, becoming known for our campaigns and policies rather than our mind-boggling love and devotion. We’ve fallen out of practice at following Jesus in startling ways.


“And in that sense, I love being a celibate gay Christian. I love having people stare at me like I’ve sprouted a third eyeball when I explain what Jesus means to me, the things I’ve given up for him, and the joy I’ve received in exchange. I love telling people how I’ve experienced the faithfulness of God to look out for my wellbeing in the moments I stop putting myself first. I want to be remarkable, not because of my sexuality, but because of the all-consuming way in which I love Jesus...


“Our lives were meant to be written in code, indecipherable to onlookers except through the cipher of Jesus. If you claim to follow Jesus, gay or straight, and your life story makes perfect sense without the cipher of Jesus, you might need to reconsider who you’re actually following.”


On the cover of Coles’ book, Single, Gay, Christian, is the occult symbol (code/cipher) of the All Seeing Eye of the counterfeit Jesus the book is peddling:



All-Seeing Eye – Symbol/Code for Lucifer…



New Sacred


Stephen Black of Restored Hope Network wrote an article expressing his astonishment that D.A. Carson, president of The Gospel Coalition, endorsed Gregory Coles’ book. Black then penned an adaptation of the apostle Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthian church for tolerating incest in their assembly. In his missive, Stephen Black substituted the oxymoron “gay Christians” for the “incestuous Christian” whose “alternative lifestyle” was permitted in the Corinthian church which was proud of being “tolerant.”


What Would St. Paul, the Apostle, Say to the American Church Embracing So-Called ‘Gay Christianity” & ‘Spiritual Friendships’?


“I was reminded of what St. Paul wrote in his epistle to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 5.  I highly recommend reading this chapter before reading the rest of this article. So with this in mind, and with all this merging of homosexuality – ‘gay’ and Christianity, I will do a little merging myself, as I believe St. Paul would say something like the following:


“It is actually reported everywhere that there is sexual immorality among you, a kind of immorality that is condemned even among the people in the world with common sense: that some are having intimate relationships with members of their own sex. Some of you are emotionally enmeshed with members of your same-sex and you are embracing unnatural desires for one another. You are proud and arrogant to put homosexuality before Christlikeness and call yourselves, ‘gay Christian.’  How utterly offensive this is to God and to the truly repentant sexual sinners. You should have mourned in shame so that the people who have done this disgraceful thing would be removed from your fellowship!  Instead, you are welcoming this perversity into the Church? 


‘For I, though absent from you in my physical body, but present in spirit, have already passed judgment on those who have committed these perverse acts as if I were present.  I am also passing judgment on those who are promoting this detestable and unnatural behavior. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I am with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to hand over these people who continue in their sin to Satan for their destruction, so that their spirits may be saved on the judgment day of the Lord Jesus.


‘Your boasting over the supposed spirituality of your church is not good, indeed, it is vulgar and inappropriate in allowing such uncleanness. How disgusting to spiritualize homosexuality and put it before our Savior’s title of Christ.  This ‘gay Christian’ word merger is blasphemous. Do you not know that just a little leaven, leavens the whole batch of dough, just as a little sin, when tolerated, corrupts a person or an entire church? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new batch, just as you are, yet you are still unleavened. For Christ, our Passover Lamb has been sacrificed. Therefore, let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of uncleanness, vice, unnatural behaviors, malice, and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity, holiness, consecration and untainted truth.  This is not even debatable! Get this evil of homosexuality, idolatrous relating and ‘gay Christianity’ out of your midst!


‘I wrote you in my previous letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not meaning the immoral people of this world, or the greedy ones and swindlers, or idolaters, for then you would have to get out of the world altogether! The body of Jesus Christ must give the compassionate message of the uncompromising good news to those living in immorality. But I have clearly written to you. I have told you not to associate with any so-called Christian brother if he persists in sexually immoral or is greedy, or is an idolater like putting the word merger of ‘gay Christian,’ or an idolater devoted to anything that takes the place of God, or a reviler, or those practicing drunkenness or a swindler—you must not so much as eat with such a person who claims Christ as Savior and Lord and continues in sin. 


‘‘Do you not understand?  I am clearly telling you not to have any fellowship at all with those who are sexually immoral or idolatrous! Let me make this clear, this includes people bringing in sexual uncleanness in the way of ‘gay Christianity!’ For what business is it of mine to judge outsiders, the non-believers? Do you not judge those who are within the church, to protect the church from defilement, as the situation demands of those who are under the authority of the Holy Spirit? God alone sits in judgment on those who are outside of the faith. Remove the wicked one from among you, expel him from your church.  Have you become so arrogant under this so-called ‘gay pride banner’ that you are acclimated to evil to embrace pride as a good attribute being blinded by the six colors of this banner which actually represent the number of man and the judgment to come? Have you really become so deceived and lack passion and love for your Savior that you defile His very title as your Savior and Master?  It is reported that you are allowing these LGBTQ so-called Christians to defile Christ the Messiah by attaching the lust of Sodom to Christ by embracing the description ‘gay Christian!’ 


“What is wrong with you people?  Have you completely lost all sensitivity to the Living God and Jesus Christ your King?  Do you have the Holy Spirit of God?  How utterly debaucherous and evil to have the Name of the Holy Son of God defiled by those who have uncontrollable desires and lust for members of their own sex!  This is against nature, and makes a mockery of God! However, I also heard it reported that you have about 70% of your men now looking at pornography every week?  Is this true? The majority of the men in your midst are now fornicators?  Truly the presence of the Holy Spirit is being removed from you if you do not repent quickly! It is utterly disgusting to think you would allow for this continuation of all this sexual uncleanness, along with ‘gay Christianity,’ to debase Our King from Heaven with such unspeakable perverse sins!  Truly judgment is at the door of your church if you do not repent quickly!”


The Corinthians were faithful to obey Paul’s command to remove the incestuous Christian, which brought about his repentance, restoration and salvation. Unfortunately, removing the “gay Christians” from the churches and requiring repentance is not an option for cultural Marxists, whose agenda is transforming Christian churches into “safe spaces” for sexual perversion. But God is not fooled by man’s labels. Those “safe space” apostate churches will not be safe in the final Judgment, nor will “gay Christians.”


“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Cor. 6:9-10