Gay christian cleric rejects Christ’s sacrifice as “insane”

The theology espoused by homosexual clerics is dangerous and hostile to the most fundamental belief of authentic Christian doctrine. The Apostle Paul wrote that Jesus willingly humbled himself to sacrifice his life, securing for us redemption from sin.

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:  8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.  9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. Philippians 2:7-9 

But gay christian Rev. Jeffery John, a member of the Church of England says the whole idea is “insane”.

From World Net Daily

Church of England traditionalists, wearied by the battles over homosexuality in the church and the clergy, are about to take it on their spiritual chins once again when a leading “gay” cleric will tell listeners to BBC Radio 4 that Christianity’s traditional teaching on Christ’s crucifixion for the sins of mankind is “repulsive,” “insane” and makes “God sound like a psychopath.”

Rev. Jeffrey John, who was forced to withdraw before assuming a position as bishop in 2003 after it was learned he was in a longterm homosexual relationship, is scheduled to appear on Wednesday and will criticize ministers who use their Easter messages to preach that Jesus was sent to earth to die as an atonement for sin, reported the London Telegraph.

Christian theology has taught the doctrine of “penal substitution” – that humans, alienated from God by their sins and unable to save themselves, could only be forgiven by God sending Christ as a substitute to suffer and die in their place.

“In other words, Jesus took the rap and we got forgiven as long as we said we believed in him,” said John. “This is repulsive as well as nonsensical. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If a human behaved like this we’d say that they [sic] were a monster.”

With gay christian rejecting and denying Christ’s death, suffering, holiness and commandments one can only come to believe they are anti-Christ.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Gay christian cleric rejects Christ’s sacrifice as “insane”

  1. Wow. If I hadn’t seen the article myself I’d have never believed someone could actually think like that… to decry and denounce a critical, foundational tenent of the Christian faith is the truly insane thing, not the other way around.

  2. Firstly, “Gay-Christian” is an oxymoron. To be Christian is to be Christ-like: Like Christ.

    The article link below is a feature on a soon to be ordained gay minister that refused to take a vow of celibacy.

    http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/religion/638050,CST-NWS-Lutheran07.article

    We need God to heal the land 2 Chronicles7:

    14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

    Peace

  3. He doesn’t appear to believe Jesus is God, either, so he doesn’t understand the significance or the sacrifice Jesus made.

    False teachings usually come in a package. It is rare to have someone who believes all the essentials except one.

  4. Isnt it simply astonishing that such people whould continue to call themselves Christians? I mean if you dont believe it or accept its tenets why be a part of it.
    I think I know the obvious answer even though it still boggles my mind.

  5. Just discovered this blogpost about “Oprah and Friends” To Teach Course on New Age Christ

    The heresy sounds eerily similar to Jeffrey John’s reprobate theology.

    From blogspot article:
    When I left the New Age “Christ” to follow the Bible’s Jesus Christ, I had come to understand that the “Jesus” of A Course in Miracles was a false “Christ,” and that his Course in Miracles was dangerously deceptive. Here are some quotes from the “Jesus” of A Course in Miracles:

    “There is no sin. . . “9
    A “slain Christ has no meaning.”10
    “The journey to the cross should be the last ‘useless journey.’”11
    “Do not make the pathetic error of ‘clinging to the old rugged cross.’”12
    “The Name of Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol. . . . It is a symbol that is safely used as a replacement for the many names of all the gods to which you pray.”13
    “God is in everything I see.”14
    “The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself.”15
    “The oneness of the Creator and the creation is your wholeness, your sanity and your limitless power.”16
    “The Atonement is the final lesson he [man] need learn, for it teaches him that, never having sinned, he has no need of salvation.”17

    Warren Smith, the author of the blogpost concludes:

    If people want to follow Oprah Winfrey and the New Age “Christ” of A Course in Miracles they certainly have that right. But let them be warned that the New Age “Christ” they are following is not the same Jesus Christ who is so clearly and authoritatively presented in the pages of the Bible.

  6. Hi Spiritual Son,

    This is simply insane! The only “psychopath” is this clown! Throwing away major doctrinal truth’s is the only way they can validate their abominable lifestyles!

    Good work Son:)

    Phil

  7. I wonder thought what if any of the atonement theories he does believe in. Though many of us do hold to penal substitutionary atonement, there are and have been several variants on viewing Christ death through out history. Perhaps he is of the Christus Victor view which was the dominate theological view before Penal Substionary atonement. Perhaps he argues for a substionary atonement without the penal aspect. I am interested to see how he will argue the atonement. And before anyone does call me a heretic for writing this, do know I do believe that via Christ’s death and resurrection we have been forgiven and reconciled back to the Father and Christ’s great work provided victory over the Enemy and death. Anyhow I am interested to see if this gay cleric is simply rejecting penal substionary for another traditional atonement view or whether he is abandoning an orthodox view of atonement all together.

  8. Your reasoning is bloated with fallacies man. Are you saying that this Bishop is rejecting Christ’s substitutionary atonement because he’s gay? If that is what you are saying, then the burden of proof falls upon you to show that every gay person in existence rejects the substitutionary atonement. That’s simply not true. His acceptance of his own homosexuality may ALSO be the result of a more liberal worldview, but that acceptance on the one hand, and the rejection of the doctrine of SI on the other are not necessarily causally linked. Listen brother, specious ideological ratiocinations do not serve the cause of Christ. They are simply a mechanism by which people who are equipped to recognize them reject you, and with you – Christ.

    I disagree with the vast majority of this websites contents, but I hope you can do better than this. This is simply an ad hominem attack concealing a red herring. Unless of course your thesis is to prove that you cannot be an “orthodox” Christian and consider yourself gay. This is of course true in at least one sense (insofar as there actually *is* a single orthodox set of beliefs about all things theological that is monolithic – and there is not) because most evangelical American Christians believe that it’s a sin to be gay. On the other hand, to decide what is true based on the position adopted by the majority (which is the real function of saying that a belief is orthodox) presents MAJOR epistemological problems. It took William Wilberforce’s counter-intuitive methods of Biblical exegesis to convince British parliament that the slave trade was immoral.

    So, you are faced with a dilemma. Either use this website as a meeting ground of opposing viewpoints – allowing and even seeking out counterexamples and reasonable, credible advocates of the opposing view – then summarily showing with reasonable logical Biblical interpretations (that do not seek to disguise critical weakness) that those viewpoints are actually, and incontrovertibly wrong, OR continue to operate as a rallying ground for people of like mind effectively neutralizing yourself and your messages as a potent force in the ideological and spiritual debate surrounding homosexuality and the Christian faith. If you do the former, you may even have a chance of winning over “Godless heathen” like myself. If you continue to do the latter – no one will pay you any mind except people who already agree with you. There will be no chance of actually changing public opinion, and you will continue to push orthodox Christianity further into the margins. This is critical. Your decision is the equivalent of a dedication to hinder, or to further Christ’s call. It’s your choice.

    jimmy bunch

  9. Mr. Bunch,

    Your dislike of this blog will in no way change the way I present the information I discover on the fallacies, biblical error and egregious conduct of those in the gay christian movement.

    Although its evident that you reject it based on your own predetermined ideological perspectives, others see great merit and truth in it. That’s what happens when information is presented in a public format. Even Jesus’ words were rejected by some and embraced by others.

    It is certainly your right to reject and equally the right of others to accept. You also have a limited right (based on our comment policy) to air your views.

    Its not my intention through this writing to “win you over”, nor do we write to satisfy your objections about the publicizing the gay christian movement anti-christ agenda. Our purpose is to expose false teaching, false teachers, false prophets, wolves, and demons masquerading as ministers of righteousness. This is a biblically based service to the body of Christ. As a self-professed “godless heathen”, you should repent of your sins (Romans 10:9, 10), accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as the sole atonement for your sins and begin walking in relationship with the Lord according to His Word.

    Having said that, thanks for sharing your opinions.

  10. Fair enough. Just a couple of things.

    1.) The gay Christian movement – which is surely less monolithic than you make it sound – is not anti-christ. It’s composed of a group of individuals (myself included) who love Jesus Christ, got blind-sided by the fact that they are attracted to members of the same sex, tried very hard to change that (unsuccessfully) and are in the process of trying to bring reconciliation between our desire to live for Christ and not be swallowed up in the despair of a battle that nobody could possibly win.

    2.) I’m not really a Godless heathen. This is just the way that your website portrays all homosexuals. Note the quotation marks in my original post.

    3.) Yes, you have the right to post whatever you wish, to say whatever you like, and to control the flow of information on your website. It’s a free country. All I’m attempting to say is that – though I do disagree with the majority of the content of your site – you are in reality not serving your own agenda well by suppressing alternative viewpoints and indulging in ad hominem attacks. The best course of action is to create an atmosphere of good-natured, well informed, well reasoned debate. To do anything else is merely to reveal the weakness of your position. If your goal is to win people to Christ, and you see homosexuality as being a major barrier between God’s love and the lost, then you’re going to need to approach them with grace, love, truth, fairness, patience, and an open mind. They won’t go for anything else. From your perspective you might as well be condemning them to hell right then and there.

    peace,
    jimmy

Comments are closed.