In this first episode of a three-part series, pastors Derek and Cliff discuss why so many Christians are talking about popular pastor and Bible teacher Alistair Begg right now.
Transcript
Derek: Welcome to the With All Wisdom podcast where we are applying biblical truth to everyday life. My name is Derek Brown and I’m here today with Cliff McManis. We are both pastors and elders at Creekside Bible Church in Cupertino, California, and professors of theology at the Cornerstone Bible College and Seminary in Vallejo, California. And today, we want to talk about a current controversy that’s been swirling around the internet for the last several days. You may have heard about it already. It concerns a pastor’s advice about whether or not a Christian should attend a so-called gay wedding. But before we get to our topic, I want to direct your attention to Withallwisdom.org, where you’ll find a large and growing collection of biblically rooted articles, podcasts, and now videos. They’re all aimed to help you grow in your walk with Christ. Peter instructs us to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior. And so that’s what we’re trying to help you do with Withallwisdom.org. So check that out if you haven’t already or if you have. We always have new articles and new resources available there, so check out withallwisdom.org. All right, let’s get back to our topic. A few days ago, the evangelical internet exploded after Alistair Begg, a well-known Bible teacher and pastor, said that he would counsel a grandmother to attend a so-called gay wedding of a transgender relative. And not only that, but he encouraged this lady to purchase a gift for their relative and give it to them.
And this ignited a firestorm of controversy. And there was a lot of response back to Alistair Begg’s comments. Almost immediately, the moment this interview went public, there was a massive response. [There were] plenty of people decrying Alistair Begg’s advice, saying that it was wrong, unbiblical, foolish, and so on; there were others defending him, and others throwing up their arms, saying, why are we even arguing about this as Christians? And we want to weigh in on this topic for a few reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Alistair Begg has a very wide reach and has had a wide reach for many years, and we want our people especially, but really anyone who is influenced by Alistair Begg’s teaching, to be able to think clearly about this specific topic that he addressed, namely, what should Christians do when they are confronted with the possibility of attending the so-called wedding of someone they know? Or attending the so-called gay wedding of someone they know and love like a family member. But before we launch into the topic, Cliff, I wanted to ask you a question about Alistair Begg himself, because as I’ve listened to some of the responses to this controversy, even those who disagree with Begg make it clear that this seems to be an anomaly with him. In other words, he has a track record of faithfulness in his ministry. Now, is this an important point, or is Alistair Begg’s past faithfulness irrelevant to this particular controversy?
Cliff: That’s a great question. It’s not an easy one to answer because, like you said, the internet exploded over this for the last two weeks. Every who’s who in America that’s a Christian who has a podcast show, or a lot of high-profile evangelical leaders, have all commented on it and given their opinion. And I think everyone that I’ve listened to actually comments on Alistair Begg and his past 40 years of apparent faithfulness as a minister. And that’s how they begin and frame this whole conversation. Because he’s very popular, he’s very high profile, and they establish that as a foundation. And I don’t remember anybody asking whether that’s relevant or not, except you. And I think it’s a great question and needs to be asked. My first thought is, it doesn’t matter for two reasons. [The first is], because of the nature of the issue at hand. This is a key doctrine. This is the very definition of marriage. One of the first institutions that God created in its foundation to all of society. It’s foundational for church. It was foundational for the theocracy of Israel. It’s the living metaphor of the eternal entity of Jesus Christ being married to his bride. So there is no other more foundational doctrinal issue. So if Alistair Begg had said something else not as important, maybe, but because it is such a significant foundational doctrine to what we believe as Christians, I don’t think his 40 years of history really matters on this issue.
He has to get it right on this issue. This is not a gray area issue. That’s why he has to get it right. And the Bible is clear that you can be faithful for years, and you’re still susceptible to blowing it and blowing it big time. So Moses was faithful for almost 120 years. He was faithful for 40 years of leading the disobedient Israelites through the desert. And then one act of a lack of faith and disobeying God at the rock of water—of not speaking to the rock, but hitting it in anger—that cost him big time. God forgave him. He was still a believer, but his reputation was marred and God got angry at him, it says in the text, and he also got punished. You can’t go into the promised land now. So that was a severe consequence for a man of God who had a great itinerary in history. You know, his resume of 40 years of faithfulness didn’t really matter because of the issue at hand. And Paul said the same thing in the New Testament, knowing that, as one of the key apostles and just a very godly man, he was always conscious and aware. I could disqualify myself. One act of major compromise can disqualify me, despite my 20 plus years of faithful ministry as an apostle. And that’s a great warning for all of us, especially [those of us] who are in ministry. I’ve put in my 35 years of faithful ministry. I’ve been faithful to my wife for 37 years. And then a guy commits adultery right in his 38th year. I have seen that happen. So, no, you don’t get a pass, right? Because of your previous faithfulness. That’s the perseverance of the saints. You’ve got to persevere to the end. So two issues. And that’s why James, I think, reminds us in James 3:1, let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that, as such, we will incur a stricter judgment. So because Alistair Begg has had such a long and influential ministry and literally reaches millions of people across the world, the accountability that he incurs from God because of that is at the highest level. That’s a high level of accountability from God himself and the people that hear his voice. Because as a pastor, he literally professes to be a spokesperson for God. He’s speaking on behalf of God. I mean, that’s what you and I do as pastors, right? I mean, we get up and this is—thus says the Lord; this is the Bible. This is what God says and thinks. We are speaking for God. And that’s what he’s doing here. This is what God would tell you about whether you should go to a gay wedding or not. This is what God thinks. This is what God wants you to do. God wants you to buy a gift for the wedding. That’s really what he’s saying. So that would be my initial thought.
Derek: Yeah. And I and I would agree with that, that the 40 years of faithfulness—we can be thankful for that. And I have benefited from his teaching in the past. But in terms of dealing with this particular issue and addressing it biblically, the past years of faithfulness—I agree with you—they are irrelevant. They don’t exempt him from critique. We don’t step back and treat him differently. We’re not going to be rude or misrepresent or be unkind with our words, but multi years of faithfulness doesn’t exempt someone from critique, and particularly on a topic so important. So I’m with you on that. That’s why I wanted to ask the relevance question. And I’m certainly not disparaging anyone who has spoken highly of him and highlighted his past faithfulness. That’s not my point. My point is to question the relevance of that now that we are addressing this topic. So let’s now talk specifically about the advice that he gave. We’re going to actually play it for you so that you can hear it and listen in. We’re going to listen to it now, and then we will comment on it. So Cliff, let’s listen to the actual advice that he gave. And then we’ll comment on it.
[Alistair Begg audio clip]: “…I know that these people believe a very different agenda—that their lifestyle is orientated in another direction. But I have no basis upon which I could argue that I myself would not be where they are were it not for the amazing grace of God—were it not for his compassion towards me, and in very specific areas this comes across. I mean, you and I know that we field questions all the time that go along the lines of, my grandson is about to be married to a transgender person, and I don’t know what to do about this. And I’m calling to ask you to tell me what to do, which is a huge responsibility. And in a conversation like that, just a few days ago—and people may not like this answer—but I asked the grandmother, does your grandson understand your belief in Jesus? Yes. Does your grandson understand that your belief in Jesus makes it such that you can’t countenance, in any affirming way, the choices that he has made in life? Yes. I said, well, then, okay, as long as he knows that, then I suggest that you do go to the ceremony, and I suggest that you buy them a gift. She said, what? She was caught off guard. I said, well, here’s the thing. Your love for them may catch them off guard, but your absence will simply reinforce the fact that they said, these people are what I always thought: judgmental, critical, unprepared to countenance anything. And it is a fancy. It is a fine line, isn’t it? It really is. And people need to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. But I think we’re going to take that risk. We’re going to have to take that risk a lot more. If we want to build bridges into the hearts and lives of those who don’t understand Jesus and don’t understand that he is a king.”
Derek: So there’s Alistair Begg’s advice. He gave it in the context of talking about his latest book, The Christian Manifesto, not to be confused with Francis Schaeffer’s book from a few decades ago called A Christian Manifesto. Similar title. Alistair Begg’s is called The Christian Manifesto. But that was the context. And he gives this advice or he relays advice that he had given in the past about this topic. Cliff, what are your initial thoughts about the advice that he gave to this grandmother?
Cliff: Yeah, I thought it was just categorically unbiblical counsel or advice. He even used the word, that the grandma that he counseled [about whether or not she] should go to her transgender grandson’s wedding, Alistair Begg acknowledged that she was surprised or shocked by his answer. She wasn’t expecting the answer that he gave, right? And he even prefaced by saying, the listeners here might be shocked or not like his counsel. So Alistair Begg knew ahead of time that his response could be controversial. So he was quite cognizant of that. And he’s right. I didn’t like his answer, as he predicted. And I’m not the only one. It’s the majority, if not all, of the pastors and Christians who’ve given feedback so far publicly on this. This is categorically unbiblical for a lot of reasons. A lot of people have spoken out and given good biblical reasons why this is just outright unbiblical, unhealthy, bad counsel. I would just say first because it undermines the institution of marriage as God has given it and created it, which is a sacred institution. Genesis one and two. But also Hebrews 13. I just want to read this verse because I haven’t heard many people talk about this verse. Hebrews 13, verse four. It says, “Marriage”—that’s the institution that God had created. And that’s not talking about the wedding day. It’s marriage, the institution of marriage. “Marriage is to be held in honor among all.” And that’s a command from God about the institution of marriage. When whoever wrote this 2000 years ago, the author of Hebrews was moved along by the Spirit of God. This is inspired by God. This is God speaking through Hebrews 13. Marriage was universally understood as an institution, and a heterosexual relationship before the Creator between a man and a woman—a real DNA man and a real DNA woman. The two become one. So that was just universally understood at the time when it was written. It still stands true today. It was true when God created Adam and Eve. Marriage is to be held in honor among all. So the institution of marriage is to be honored. And when it says among all, I believe that’s universal. It’s not just Christians. It’s the entire human race is obligated to honor the institution that God created between one man and one woman. And God will hold every person accountable for that, for honoring it, whether they’re married or not. Every single people need to honor the institution of marriage as God has created it. Married people need to be honoring it. Christians need to honor it. Unbelievers need to be honoring it. People of different religions need to be honoring it. That’s been true for 6000 years of history. For the most part, the world over has honored the institution of marriage. Governments have honored it by their codified laws protecting marriage. It’s not uncommon for two people who aren’t even Christians who get married, a man and a woman, and they can be faithful to one another for decades. I have family members who have been married for 40 years, faithfully, a man and a woman, and they would probably say they’re atheists or agnostics. They are not religious at all. They got married formally before a justice of the peace. They’ve been faithful to one another for over 40 years. I can think of many examples of that. And there are religions around the world. Same thing. Honor the institution of marriage, whether it’s in Buddhism or whatever else. They are fulfilling this from God’s mandate here of Hebrews 13, for marriage to be honored among all, in all respects, in every respect. And then he gets more specific. “And the bed”—and the Greek word there is coitus, which is the actual act of sex between two people, a man and a woman—“is to be undefiled.” It is to be protected. So intercourse, sexual intimacy, is reserved only for the marriage bed between a man and a woman, and that is to be honored.
So the institution itself, as God created it between man and woman, is to be honored. The actual act of sexual intimacy in the marriage is to be honored, and everything else around it. And I would say, including the wedding day and the celebration of it or the public announcement of it. So that’s God’s decree. It’s not an option. It’s not fuzzy or gray. This is black and white. And then he goes on in verse four, giving the reason why this is to be honored—the institution of marriage and sexual intimacy. Because “for fornicators and adulterers, God will judge.” God is going to punish people who distort the beautiful gift of sexual intimacy as God has given it, and everyone is going to be held accountable for it. And that’s why the parallel verse in Romans 1:30 and following, where God, through the mouth and the pen of the Apostle Paul, condemns the sin of sexual immorality in all of its forms. And the unbelief that goes with it. And it also condemns those who endorse those who do those things, and those who allow people to be sexually immoral, and those who condone it and tolerate it. And God says, no, that is sin. So not only should you refrain from sexual immorality, it will be sinful if you endorse it, allow it, cater to it, compromise with it in any way. That’s clear in Romans one.
Derek: So when you’re talking about condoning and endorsing, would you see the attendance of a so-called gay wedding as the endorsing of that of that so-called union?
Cliff: Yeah. Is it a neutral, tacit, non-verbal way? I would say yes, it is. But either way, attending says something. I would say not just tacitly, but overtly. And maybe refraining is also saying something. And here’s where Alistair Begg actually contradicts himself. If you listen carefully to what he said, on the one hand, he wants to say that if you attend, you’re not condoning the wedding, right? But if you don’t go to it, your actions are saying something, that you’re protesting the wedding. Well, you can’t have it both ways. If you don’t go, you’re protesting clearly. If you do go, you’re not saying anything. It’s not an affirmation, right? That’s a contradiction.
Derek: Absolutely.
Cliff: Your actions are communicating one thing very clearly depending upon which action you take.
Derek: And it was interesting how he was questioning the grandmother. Does the grandchild know that you don’t condone the homosexual lifestyle or the transgender lifestyle—that you can’t countenance these things? And she’s like, well, yes. And then basically you are allowed to go to the wedding, apparently, when in fact you actually are taking away what you said in terms of affirmation. I disagree with how you’re living. I do not want to affirm how you’re living. God’s Word is against how you’re living. And yet I will now go to your wedding, basically removing all the bite of what I just said, and by that action I am actually condoning the things that I say I don’t condone. That very act of going to the wedding is precisely what does show that you do condone and endorse what they are doing, regardless of what you have said previously to them. So even that question by Begg when he was questioning the grandma, is this grandchild clear about your beliefs? Yes, they are clear. Well, what I want you to do is completely contradict those beliefs in the face of your grandchildren.
Cliff: There’s a second major self-contradiction in the statements there. Exactly what you’re saying, because the words he used were, is it clear? Have you made it clear to your grandson that you can’t countenance by affirming in any way homosexuality? And Alistair Begg seems to be saying, oh, that’s good because you shouldn’t affirm in any way his practice of homosexuality. That’s what he says. That’s good, grandma. You’ve made it clear that you aren’t supposed to affirm in any way his practice of homosexuality. But go anyway. Go to the wedding, attend and affirm it, and doubly affirm it by giving them a gift to celebrate it. So there’s just two blatantly self-contradictory statements that he makes in that one paragraph.
Derek: That’s right. And the idea that you can separate—now, he doesn’t bring this up, but it almost might be a working assumption—the idea that you can separate the wedding ceremony from the actual marriage itself or the sexual immorality that occurs within that context. You can’t separate those two things—the wedding and the marriage. They are connected inextricably. They cannot be disconnected. Therefore, to attend the so-called wedding is to endorse all that will happen in that relationship from that point onward. All those things you said that you cannot countenance, you are saying, but I can. So you’re right. It was very confusing and surprising how blatantly contradictory it was, even on the face of it, which is why I think so many people were confused because you didn’t expect that kind of answer from someone like an Alistair Begg. All right. Well, thank you for that, Cliff. I want to move on now and go a little deeper with how we might counsel someone in a situation like this. And we’ll address this later. We’ll talk about his response, because he has given a response to the kerfuffle, and he has come out and said some things. So we will talk about that. What I want to address now—well, I should say that in the response. I will at least say this for now. In the response, he did say that his main concern was to help the grandma maintain the relationship with this grandchild. That was his main concern, and I had already been thinking these things even prior to hearing his response, because I’ve had to address this very issue as a pastor with our members before when I’ve been asked this question. I think I’ve even been asked this question by non-members, both non-members and members. I’ve had to address this question of what should I do? And one of the first texts that comes to mind for me is actually a collection of text, which are Jesus’ words about the family, about the natural family and how we should think about those relationships within our natural family. Our husbands, our brothers, our sisters, our parents, our wives. Jesus has some very strong words to say about family relationships, and that’s precisely what Alistair Begg was concerned about in this situation with this grandma preserving and conserving that family relationship, that grandmother to grandchild relationship, when that, actually, in my judgment, is the wrong starting point. And you’re probably going to end up with bad advice if that’s your starting point. And this is what I mean. And then I’ll let you say some things because I know you have some thoughts on this. But for example, in Matthew chapter ten, Jesus is addressing his disciples. He’s going to send them out into some evangelistic efforts and endeavors. And he prepares them by saying, I’m sending you out in as sheep in the midst of wolves.
And it’s going to be dangerous. And then he tells them, listen, you may not be entirely sure why I came. Let me tell you one reason I came. I came to bring a sword, not peace, but a sword. And, well, who did he come to bring a sword between? Well, then he goes on to say, between mothers and fathers and mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law and between sons and their fathers and between mothers and daughters and so on. He came to bring a sword into family relationships. And it’s a very strong word. And you wonder, well, what does he mean there? What is he talking about? Well, what he’s doing is he’s making it very clear that he came to make it clear who are his people and who are not his people. He came to elevate the spiritual family over the natural family. So that even in a family where you have parents and siblings—you could have a dad who’s a believer and the son is not. And for that reason, the son turns against the dad. And in that situation, it becomes clear who Christ’s people are, namely, the dad, and who they are not. And elsewhere, Jesus would say that you have to value him over even your closest relationships, and that you have to love him even more than father or mother.
He says that in Luke 14. And is Jesus saying that the natural family is bad, or that it’s evil? Absolutely not. But what he’s doing is he’s elevating the spiritual family over the natural family, so that your loyalty to Jesus and your love for Jesus surpasses the love that you naturally have for the closest people in your life, like a grandchild. And so I think those are the starting points. And the reason I would say Jesus spoke so sharply and so strongly to these family relationships is because he knew this would be where loyalty to him was proven or lost. This was the place where it would be hardest to follow him. When you have a family member, you’re close to them. You love them, you’ve grown up with them, and now Jesus is making claims on your life that go against the way they, your relative, thinks. What do you do? Well, Jesus made it very clear what you do. You value him above all, even your family members, and follow him. And so I think, had Alistair Begg started from that starting point of understanding Jesus’ hard words to the family members, he would have come out probably with different advice for this grandmother. What are your thoughts on that?
Cliff: Yeah, I agree. I think that’s really the heart of the matter. Because Alistair Begg did, from what I heard—there were two compelling motives he had. One was protecting the relationship between grandma and grandchild. Preserving blood family relations. That was his driving motive, apparently. So that was a starting point, which is an emotional starting point. Wrong starting point. It should have been with the truth of Jesus Christ. That should have been the starting point. And then the second one that he articulated is his grand motive. And all this was that he’s a champion for compassion. That Christians need to be compassionate and loving and not Pharisees. And we need to love sinners, and that includes homosexuals. And so that’s why I gave the counsel that I did. My counsel represents being truly loving like Jesus and like all those other people who disagree with me, who aren’t loving like Jesus and aren’t compassionate, who don’t love sinners, and are Pharisees, and especially don’t like homosexuals. So that’s really what he was arguing.
The family one definitely was a driving force in his argument. After he’s publicly addressed it several times now—and you’re right, that’s contrary to everything that Jesus stood for, taught, and even publicly proclaimed, like you said when you quoted the one in Matthew. And he also says the same thing in Luke. He came to bring division or a sword, not peace. And then it manifests itself first and foremost in that closest knit relations that we have in the family. And like you said, that is the hardest domain in which to exercise your faith when everyone else is against you. And every conceivable factor weighs in on that from the emotional, the relational, and the psychological. It’s a tremendous burden to bear, when you’re going upstream in your own family with respect to your faith and commitment to Jesus Christ. And that’s why Jesus would say things that were hard. Jesus said hard things about the family. Like the guys crying out, hey, can I go bury my father? He said, no, not if you’re following me. And Jesus wasn’t just all talk because he lived this himself. So he grew up in his home for 30 years, left his family, his mom that he loved, and his five plus siblings that were younger than him, to do his ministry.
And he knew that even the truth that he spoke was going to divide himself from his own family, so that in John seven, his own brothers are making fun of him, maligning him, and criticizing him. Jesus doesn’t cater to his brothers or his siblings. I was going to ask you, Derek, when Jesus says—because it is such a harsh statement or verse when you read it and if you don’t understand the context when you read it for the first time. In Matthew ten there, which says I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I came to bring division. It’s like, wow. When he says that, what is it about Jesus that is divisive? Because, you know, immediately people are thinking, oh, that means Jesus intended to be mean, right? Or narrow minded or not commonsensical or violate all protocol and sensibilities of people, but that is not what he’s talking about. Not at all. What was it that was divisive? What brought about the division?
Derek: The truth about the division?
Cliff: Yeah, yeah. The truth.
Derek: He came to speak the truth. And if you’re for the truth and there are people in your family who are not for the truth, there’s going to be division.
Cliff: Yeah, yeah. Truth is what divides. And that was what Jesus meant. And so division is the natural byproduct. Whenever you speak, and we’re talking about spiritual truth. God’s truth biblical truth. Truth first and foremost about Jesus Christ, who he is, his demands that he requires us to repent of our sin and to recognize him and only him as Lord and Savior. That makes people mad. And you see it all over the Gospels.
Derek: Yeah. You do see it all over the Gospels. Jesus was no stranger to controversy, no stranger to speaking hard words of truth. Not because he took delight in making people angry. He says it in John five, that he said these things so that you might be saved. Truth saves. And this brings up another point that I wanted to address, and I think we should address it in our next episode, because we have more we want to say. We do want to eventually talk about Alistair’s response, but we also want to talk about some lessons learned. So we’re going to take some more time to do that. And we are going to wait for our next episode to address those things. So we thank you very much for listening. Again, check out withallwisdom.org, with a lot more resources that will help you walk through the issues that we are addressing in this podcast. Check out withallwisdom.org. And until next time, keep seeking the Lord and His Word.
