Gay Christian 101 still equals zero

Well, its time for a back to the basics lesson on Biblical sexuality.

Hip and Thigh does and excellent job debunking the warmed over gay theology of “up and coming gay christian apologist” Rick Bretlinger In my survey of Bretlinger’s gay christian 101 site, with all of the fancy arguments and religious philosophizing (probably not a word) the sum of his 101ism still amounts to a whopping zero. I saw nothing new, no revelation, no honest exegesis, no acknowledgement of irrefutable , uninterpreted truth. But that’s fairly common for gay christian adherents. Mathematically speaking, nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

Hip and Thigh writes:

Gay “Christian” apologists first attempt to argue that God’s silence in affirming consensual same-sex relationships in the creation narrative of Genesis 2 does not mean God is against same-sex marriages. “God doesn’t mention grandparents in Genesis 2,” proclaims Rick, “so God must be against grandparents,” and then he mentions several other illustrations of things God didn’t mention like wedding rings, wedding gifts, and adopting children, and says that to take the heterosexual interpretation of Genesis 2, we would have to conclude God is against those things, too. Dear reader, this is facile, childish reasoning that doesn’t even approach interaction with the text of Genesis and how sexuality and human relationships are discussed in the rest of the Bible.

Gay christian arguments are typically so absurd, one can easily disprove them biblically. Although its not about winning a theological argument, we must refute such attractive error so that others can have a choice not to believe it.

Hip and Thigh says he learned that in an email exchanges with Bretlinger and other gay christians:

A lot of Rick’s arguments – and I would imagine this can be said about a lot of gay “Christian” apologists as well – are based upon what he thinks is true to him, or what is reasonable to him. His authority, I hate to say, is not being defined by scripture properly interpreted, but by what he wants it to teach. He charges that heterosexual Christians like those mean-spirited Focus on the Family style evangelicals, read the Bible with heterosexual presuppositions. However, he fails to realize he reads the Bible with homosexual revisionist presuppositions. He wants the Bible to affirm his sinful desires and the rebellion lived out by many of his well-intentioned, and certainly, super nice gay friends. But, our presuppositions must be justified by the whole of scripture, not selected portions wrestled out of context and spun to yield an opposite conclusion than what they original say so as to please the whims of the person.

If you’d like to brush up on the biblical basics of sexuality, read the whole post.


6 thoughts on “Gay Christian 101 still equals zero

  1. I just read this book and will right a critique of it in my up and coming book. In the Gay Theology there are basically 4 different approaches: (1) A Liberal Higher–Critical view of scripture with a rationalist epistemology that denies that the Bible is the fully God-breathed inerrant word of God; (2) A neo-liberal view which has an exitentialist (Barthian) epistemology which claims that only those parts of the Bible that are “central” (as defined by the reader) and personally validating are binding; (3) a radical Liberation theology view which frankly doesnt give a rats *** what the Bible says about anything. (4) Bretlinger’s approach is the first that I have seen, amongst the 22 pro-gay theology books I have read, that actually CLAIMS to have an orthodox view of the Bible. So, what is his hitch? He uses the old Classic Dispensational antinomian hermeneutic of Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie combined with a Liberation Theology trajectory hermeneutic. He also frequently borrows from the arguments of more liberal Gay theologians (such as Daniel Helminiak) without referencing them. I could say more, but this comment is too long already.

  2. Wow, a willy wonka web of theology that isnt worth the toilet paper it should have been written on.

    Rik, thanks for that mini review and please keep us posted on the book. I’ll definitely be a reader.

  3. I suppose it is too much to ask for GCMWatch to interact honestly and objectively with the arguments I make at:

    It seems clear that neither Neil nor Fred at Hip and Thigh Blog nor GCMWatch have actually read what I said about grandparents.

    If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would have noticed that my grandparents reference is said by me to lack common sense.

    I used the grandparent analogy to illustrate the absurd reasoning of Complementarians who read into the Genesis 2 account, things God never said and then teach what God never said as absolute truth.

    Please understand, I and many others who read your words know why you refuse to seriously engage our arguments. You lack the moral integrity to deal with truth or you are intellectually and scripturally incapable of engaging our arguments.

    I’m just saying…

    Rick Brentlinger

  4. Mr. Bretlinger,
    GCM Watch contains a mountain of evidence to the contrary of your false ideology. All of it stated honestly from a diversity of voices, while staying true to Biblical witness. As I noted your arguments reveal nothing new apart from typical gay christian confusion. Please don’t count your research as more than it is. I’m sure youre proud of it, but that may be the extent of it.

    Peruse the site and see that many gay christians have checked in here to make their case. We havent refused anyone. You are no different. Thus if someone desires to engage you, they will. If not, consider it a lack of interest in your suppositions.

    Your arrogance in suggesting that there exists some lack “moral integrity” to argue the veracity of a lie is simply laughable.

    Its a strange concept indeed.

    Talk about not reading, we mentioned nothing about your “grandfather theory”. And why should I? It is of no consequence no matter what context you talked about it.

    Hip and Thigh has already done an excellent job refuting your ideas. You should repent and believe the gospel. The kingdom of heaven is truly at hand.

  5. Gentleman, Yes, the Kingdom of Heaven is truly at hand, as as a gay Christian, I will be there. Will you?

Comments are closed.