I received a call on Oct 20th 2024 from a parishioner at our church who had received some sermon scripts as part of a sermon series from another church that troubled her. She asked me if I would look over the transcripts and provide a rebuttal to the sermons, wanting to know if the preacher who had delivered them was right or wrong about the topic of marginalized people groups.
The Sermons in Question:
Delivered By:
Bethel Lutheran Church (https://bethellutheranpalisade.com)
Preacher: Steve Teff
My Rebuttal:
Preaching and teaching is a dangerous business. What you say can be misconstrued, misinterpreted, or even misrepresented by people. But, it can also be a tool that is often used to promote an agenda that is wholly against Scripture and do it in such a way that appears to be in line with it. It is clear after reading through these three sermons by Steve Teff from Bethel Lutheran Church that he has an agenda. All three sermons are topical, and it is evident that he is trying to make a point. He says outright, “I want to challenge your long-held beliefs regarding some very difficult topics.” He even says that he learned in college how to “use research and data to support multiple sides of a discussion.”
The difficulty in starting from this place is the presuppositions that we hold and how those presuppositions affect the conclusions we draw. One of those presuppositions Teff illustrates from the very beginning is his belief that as the world “becomes more educated…many topics in history are being explained with new evidence and points of view.” While this may be true in the strictest sense, it is not true for the arguments Steve makes in his sermons.
Scriptural Evidence Against
Before we get too deep into the subject, let’s take a look at the actual issue in question. Fundamentally, it is a question of acceptance. Teff is asking the question: should Christians (and Christianity) accept those from the LGBT+ community or should Christians (and the Church) reject them? It is a topic that is hotly debated today, with many churches and Christians concluding that we should, while others are more cautious, and conclude that there are scriptural reasons for not.
Let’s be clear: LGBT+ as a concept, intersectionality as a worldview, and wokism as a movement are not found in the Bible. These were simply not issues during the time the Bible was being penned. But, they are an issue now for our age. What is spoken of in the Bible is about same-sex sexual interaction, and on this topic, the Bible does have much to say. While this may not cover the full spectrum of nuance found in the current controversy, it does cover a greater extent of it.
The two primary texts argued against in the Old Testament are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. These both state that a man should not have sex with another man. We are told in the plainest of terms that this is an abomination and that under the Mosaic law, those guilty of such behavior should be put to death. They are considered guilty and death is the price of that guilt. It would be disingenuous to claim these two verses point only to a particular type of homosexuality, such as a non-monogamous relationship, as the verses do not indicate type or variety, other than to say, “as you would with a woman.”
The next most often cited is Genesis 19:1–28 the account of Sodom and Gomorrah. In this story, two angels go down from the mountains enter the city, and are invited to stay with Lot and his family. While doing so, they are confronted by a mob of the men of the city, who demand that Lot give up the strangers so they can “know them.” This word in the LXX is συγγίγνομαι or “to have sex with.” It is found in only two places: Ge 19:5 and Ge 39:10. In the latter instance, it is used to describe what it was Potiphar’s wife wanted Joseph to do with her. So, it is pretty clear what this word means. This is reiterated in Jude 1:7 when it states, “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (Ezek 16:49-50). To claim that the events that predicted the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were issues of “inhospitality, cruelty, and injustice” rather than same-sex perversion is simply revisionist. The crowd of men from the Sodom who pressed at Lot’s door never once indicated, “Bring out the two men with you so that we might be more hospitable to them” or “Why are you being hospitable to them and not us?” Nor did they say, “This is an injustice what you are doing, Lot, please rectify what you are doing.” Instead, their words were straightforward, “And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally” (Ge 19:5). [וְנֵדְעָ֖ה (wnedah) – means together with, learn them, have intercourse with them]. The only other logical argument put forward would be that the men of the town knew these strangers to be angelic beings and they wanted to have intercourse with them, or where ἀπέρχομαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας “going after strange flesh” which, itself, would also be an abomination so great that God condemned those who committed such acts to perpetual imprisonment until the Judgment (Ge 6:2-4; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6).
In Romans 1:26-28 Paul talks at great length about the behaviors in question. He states that God gave people up to their “dishonorable passions.” This was specifically “women exchanging the natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, and the men likewise giving up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.” He tells us that homosexuals and a host of other types of sin (sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers) will not “inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Co 6:9-10). In 1 Ti 1:8-11, we are again given a similar list (the lawless, the disobedient, the ungodly, the sinner, the unholy, the profane, the parent beaters, the murderer, the sexually immoral, homosexuals, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and all who are contrary to sound doctrine).
Greek & Hebrew Words
Now that we have covered the primary texts that pertain to the issue in question, we need to spend a moment reviewing the individual words found in Hebrew and Greek that bear weight on the matter. The Hebrew word “מִשׁכּב זָכָר” (mishkav zakhar) is used in both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and is translated as “male who lies [with a woman]” about what some men do. It is clear from both passages that such an act, a male “lying with” another male “as a man does with a woman” is “an abomination.” The Greek is even more exacting, with two distinct words being used, “ἀρσενοκοίτης” (arsenokoitēs) and “μαλακοί” (malakoi) with μοιχος or “adultery” being closely related. The first word is found in 1 Co 6:9 and 1 Ti 1:10 and occurs only those 2 times in the NT. The second word is found in 1 Co 6:9, Matt 11:8, and Luke 7:25. Of these, only in 1 Co 6:9 does it refer to an effeminate individual or a “soft male.” In these other instances, it refers to a “soft garment.” It is also referred to as “catamites,” or those men and boys who are sodomized by other males. This word seems closely connected with the term μοιχος or “adultery.” These lists are those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” In 1 Ti 1:10, they are those who are “contrary to sound doctrine.”
Church Fathers
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) in his First Apology, criticizes the moral behaviors of the Greeks and Romans and includes homosexuality while doing so. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), in “The Paedagogus” (The Instructor), argues that ethical living is at odds with various sexual practices, including homosexual behavior, and concludes these are inconsistent with Christian teaching. Tertullian (c. 155-240) addresses sexual morality in his work “On Modesty,” where he condemns various forms of sexual immorality, including homosexuality. Lastly, Augustine of Hippo (354-430) refers to homosexual acts in several writings including his “Confessions” and “City of God,” where he often discusses them in the context of biblical interpretation and moral discourse and condemns the practice explicitly. Thomas Aquinas, in his “Summa Theologica” (ST II-II, Q154, Articles 11-12) and his “Summa Contra Gentiles” (Book III, Chapter 122), interpreted natural law as governing human behavior, and while he did make the argument that homosexual acts do not result in reproduction, and as such this behavior was contrary to natural law and thus morally wrong, he was strongly against the very practice of it citing it was a “sexual deviation.” He concluded that the Bible stood in direct opposition and cited the account of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Levitical Law, and the various references in Paul’s writings (Ro 1:26-27) as support for his claims (Le 18:22, 20:13, 1 Co 6:9-10, and 1 Ti 1:9-10).
The writings of the church fathers were typically reflective of a consistent view that homosexual acts were not in alignment with Christian ethics or teaching throughout much of church history.
Ancient Greek World Literature
In ancient Greek, frequent terms used to reference homosexuality include “ἀρσενοκοίτης” (arsenokoitēs), which is found in the New Testament and often discussed for its implications regarding homosexual acts, and “παιδεραστία” (paiderastia), which refers specifically to the social and educational relationship between an adult male and a younger male. In classical Greek literature, “φιλοπαίγνων” (philopaignōn) could also be used to describe a fondness for play, but often with homosexual implications. Cinaedus, a Latin term, describes a man who plays a passive role in a same-sex relationship. It intimated effeminacy and was often used derogatorially. It is closely connected to “μαλακοί” (malakoi). The term τρίβες (tribades) was used to describe women who engaged in same-sex relationships and had literal connotations. The term “λεσβιάς” (Lesbias) was coined from the island of Lesbos, the home of poet Sappho, who famously wrote about love between women. Despite all this, though, the Hebrew does not have directly related terms for lesbianism.
His Interpretation of Mark 8:27-38
His interpretation of Jesus’ remarks in this passage is troubling. This is where Jesus asked his disciples who the people thought he was. And, despite their best efforts, they get it wrong. He tells them that he would suffer, die, and then be brought back to life. On hearing this, Peter has the nerve to try and correct the Son of God. But Jesus tells Peter that he is arguing from human wisdom and not from divine knowledge. He then concludes, “If any wish to come after me, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” The preacher here, though, ignores pretty much the entire context of the passage as well as the continuity of the New Testament and the Bible altogether. You cannot cherry-pick your verses and then misrepresent them to your end. We are called to “rightly divide the Word of truth” (2 Ti 2:15), not “twist the Scriptures” (2 Pe 3:16). Jesus is not here telling us to lay down biblical mandates or the objective truth of Scripture for the sake of inclusion or equality. He is in no way saying that truth is relative, that your truth is just as valid as my truth, and no truth is any more valid than any other. These are concepts that are implanted in the text by what Peter considers “untaught and unstable” minds.
His Interpretation of Mark 9:30-37
A second section in which this preacher attempts to connect to his preconceived argument has Jesus traveling a roadway where his disciples have been talking with each other. He asks them what they have been talking about, but they don’t want to tell him because they have been arguing over who will be first in the kingdom. Jesus states, “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last and servant of all.” This, again, is not an invitation to the radicalized view of “inclusion” that is espoused by the LGBTQ community today. Jesus would never have “included” or forgiven someone simply so that they could be included while simultaneously forsaking the truth. He expanded on what was already established (the Law and the Prophets), with an even greater expectation than the Law itself. In his interactions with sinners he consistently stated, “Go and sin no more” (John 5:14; 8:11). Inclusion for the sake of inclusion alone is the lukewarm doctrine Jesus spoke against in Rev 3:16, of which we are cautioned to avoid.
His Interpretation of Mark 9:38-50
Lastly, the preacher discussed the encounter when Jesus told his disciples not to forbid someone from doing something in his name because no one can do so without God’s approval. Jesus’ words were, “he who is not against us is on our side” and “Whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.” But, just because someone is not against Jesus does not mean that Jesus would condone their sinful behavior or allow it to continue unabated or uncorrected. Yes, we are to have compassion on people. All people, regardless of their sin. But, at the same time, we are called to make a distinction between one another, to “convince, rebuke, and exhort, with all long suffering,” and this is to be done publicly and consistently until repentance is achieved in the other person (2 Tim 4:2; 1 Tim. 5:20; Titus 1:13; 2:15).
Yes, every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt, but that salt is God’s Word. We are called to have salt within ourselves, which is to be aligned with the Scriptures. We are called to be at peace with one another, both in and outside of the church. To actively protest against people, I would say is not in keeping with scriptural truth. To call people names, to malign people or people groups is not in keeping with the spirit of Christ. But, to stand on the biblical mandate to identify sin and also to remove it from the assembly of God is in keeping with God’s command on the Christian life. We do not condemn an individual as this is God’s job alone in Christ. Instead, we offer repentance in Christ Jesus and attempt in this life to walk circumspectly and to pray ceaselessly.
Points of Agreement
With all the above said, there are some points in this sermon series that I agree with wholeheartedly, while still providing cautious hesitation along the way. This subject does boil down to how people see the world. It is more specifically about how Christians see the world, but more so how they view the Bible. The preacher makes his case based entirely upon worldly and secular science, worldly research, and then a claim to prayer. But nowhere does he rest his arguments on the final, authoritative word of God.
I would also agree with him that, in the end, whatever position we take will be 100% between us and God. As he stated, we all see things differently from each other. God made us different. Unique. And we do need to be self-critical about our own views, examining what we believe to ensure we are standing in Scriptural truth rather than the doctrines of men. It is okay for us not to always agree, but we also must be honest with ourselves and with each other. If we are to have any genuine dialogue about important issues, especially issues about church life, then the redefining of terminology to suit our predilections is misguided at best and outright dishonest at worst. To reframe the conversation by stating that to disagree is “violence, hatred, and exclusion” is to end the conversation before it can begin (which is kind of the point). In the end, the Christian is called to two primary roles in this life. First, to be a light to the world, and, second, to protect the church Jesus is building. We accomplish both of these things by declaring, preaching, and standing upon the Word of God.
Issues of Disagreement
Unfortunately, there is much in these three sermons that are at odds with what the Bible says about the subject in question. First, to say there is no “right or wrong view” about anything is to deny the absolute and fundamental nature of biblical truth. To replace the final authority of Scripture with human ethics, human emotion, and human feelings is to subvert the authority placed over humanity at its inception. We cannot rely on “evolved knowledge” over special revelation. To say simply that we are to “take up our cross” is not Scriptural for Jesus in this instance is not referring to persecution for its own sake, nor is he referring to it for the sake of political agenda. He was strictly speaking of salvation and following Christ into whatever mission God has for us. Following Jesus will include hardship and controversy, but it will be because we are standing on the message of the Scripture, not on our predilections or the vices of others, or even on our sense of right and wrong.
The preacher concludes that we need to “let go of our expectations.” This is in error. We certainly need to let go of our presuppositions. But we cannot abandon scriptural truth for expediency or commonality or inclusivity for its own sake alone. God has simply not called us to take a stand against “climate change,” “immigration reform,” or any kind of idealized “justice for all.” He does not demand that we fight for universal health care or to feed the hungry. Jesus told us, “The poor will be with you always.”
Jesus desires us to make disciples of men. He tells us and shows us how to do this through love. To “love your neighbor as yourself.” But, to do so is to do what is in the best interest of the other individual. This is not accepting them “as they are” unconditionally and unilaterally, without discernment based on behavior or the absolute truth of the Word. In this newly birthed ideology, there is no judgment based on Scriptural authority, but simply the lack of judgment at all (save for their condemnation of anyone who does not ascribe to their lack of discernment). To claim that we must accept everyone’s sins because we are all sinners is disingenuous. We are called to reject not only sin in general but even the sin within ourselves. We are to reject the adultery committed by an individual just as much as we are to reject the same-sex interaction by another. We do not condemn. We rebuke. We correct. We try with our utmost effort to restore the individual to God. This cannot be done with active, persistent sin in the life of the person. Condoning, accepting, and including an individual into the body of the Church who is unrepentant in their sinful behavior is to put the church at risk, and it is not in keeping with Jesus’ command or Paul’s direction.
Additionally, to claim that the “bible is complex when it comes to the issue of inclusion” is simply to say we as individuals cannot find out for ourselves what the Bible says about a particular topic, and thus, we need the help of the “experts.” This opens the door for self-appointed experts to define inclusion any way they desire rather than measure it against what the Bible says. The reality of the situation is not, the more we know, the more we love,” but the more we rightly discern the way of truth, the more we can love individuals sacrificially. The very idea of leaving a sinner in their sin so that we can spare them the pain of change or the pain of identity (in their identification of themselves by a particular sin) is to render them no love at all. This is the equivalent of the blind man leading the blind man into a ditch (Matt 15:14).
The example the preacher here gives of the Jewish people is conflating two very distinct occurrences. Just because the Jewish people have met with racism and discrimination throughout their history is no reason to force Christianity to accept LGBTQ individuals wholesale without any qualification or limitation. The Jewish people have been persecuted and discriminated against because God has ultimately called them to that hostility in this life. They have become an example for us, illustrating to us God’s abundant mercy and benevolence. But, this is not the same for those who are engaged in illicit sexual behavior which is prohibited in the Bible. Just because the views of the world have changed over the years does not in any way condone the idea that we can compromise on sin. This includes homosexuality and intersectionality or any other ideology or behavior that is at odds with and contrary to biblical truth.
Jesus’ Claims
The preacher makes the off-handed comment in his sermon series that Jesus never actually taught or spoke about homosexuality in the gospels. But, we can see from Mark 7:20-23 that there are certain sexual practices that he forbids. Because of the historical record, the known cultural norms of the time, and the uses of the words Jesus uses, homosexuality would have been included in this list of prohibited acts. The word πορνεία or “fornication” is used here, and if not argued successfully for those reasons listed above, it can be argued from Romans 1 that such behavior is not approved of God. Both homosexual and lesbian activity is condemned, as is any kind of sexual contact outside of the bounds of the marital state (Matt 5:18; John 10:35). Also, this passage refers to the kingdom of Heaven, which is the Millennial Kingdom, not heaven. The sheep and goat division of Matthew 25:31-46 is not based on compassion but on how we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ. To be salt in the world is to bring the gospel to that world. To be a benefit to them. Not to capitulate on scriptural truth for the sake of not offending others or to allow them to continue in their sin.
Who Are We to Listen To?
It is true, that one of the major issues about this topic is having a discerning nature. We have to be critical, of those around us and also of ourselves. We have to not only have a multitude of counselors but we have to pick them carefully for they will guide us in the way in which we will go. We are called, above everything else, to be like the Bereans of Acts 17:11. We are to not only be readily willing and able to hear what is being said, but we are to then be conspicuous and determined enough to then double check what is being said against the Word of God.
This world is full of opinions. That is just the reality of the day and age in which we live. So, this requires the biblical-believing Christians of today to be discerning when it comes to what organizations, what individuals, and what teaching we are going to not only listen to but expose ourselves to. The preacher in question who delivered these three sermons is a pastor in the ELCA denomination. He is a Lutheran. He is part of what has been coined a dead denomination. This is because the ELCA, as the preacher stated himself, has a long history of supporting controversial issues. They have a long history of supporting intersectionality, critical race theory, and wokism. They are committed he said to “inclusivity and justice” and these agendas are more important to them than their commitment to Christ and especially their submission to the final authority of the Bible. They have a documented history of fighting against the prohibition of homosexuality in the church. They are on record as having said the Bible is antiquated. They have said that Paul was culturally driven and that his writings are not inerrantly inspired. They paint Jesus as being radically inclusive despite the reality that Jesus was quite exclusive in his teaching.
While it is true there is no difference between the sin of homosexuality and the sin of adultery, there is the reality that God has provisioned licit sex for the marital state of a man and woman singularly, and not for the use or abuse of males with males or females with females. This does lay a heavy weight on the same-sex individual attracted. What are they to do? How are they to function in society? The reality is that Jesus has called such to a celibate life of service to the body of Christ, to God, and to abstain from sexual activity altogether. His instructions were, “he who can accept it, let him accept it” (Matt 19:12).
But, this preacher’s God is not the God of the Bible. It is human wisdom. As he stated in his second sermon, “As more and more research is done, many people now believe…” Do we believe in God or men? Do we accept the human opinion or the creator of the universe? We are not all children of God. Some are children of the devil. Some are irretrievably lost. They were made vessels of wrath for the day of destruction. While we do all have the “right” to our own beliefs, it is a ploy to justify their ideas and then turn and condemn our convictions as hate, prejudice, and injustice. It is inaccurate to claim that we hold to “traditional religious views.” We hold to the scriptural view, to the final authority of life and living. It is this that the progressive agenda is fighting against.
The body of Christ has never been called to “stand on the side of the marginalized.” We have been called to the sick and the dying, and not those who are sick with disease or who are dying of terminal illness. No, we are called to those who are sick and dying from sin. Those who are without hope and who need the gospel message that they might turn from their sinful ways and throw themselves on the mercy of Jesus, who is the Christ. For it is by grace through faith that we are saved, not of works, lest anyone should boast. Jesus set our priorities clearly in Matt 16:26, stating, “What profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?” and as well in Matt 10:28, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Homosexuality and intersectionality and anything else the left cooks up in the modern era have nothing to do with perceived offense or undue inclusivity. It has to do with their outright rejection of biblical truth and what a fearful thing it will be for them when they fall into the hands of the living God. When that happens, no one will be able to help them. As Abraham told the rich man about his brothers while he was burning in torment, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” But still urging, the Rich Man pleaded, “If one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” But, Abraham replied, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.” (Lu 16:19-31).
In the end, we must be steadfast in our call and our election before God and in the sight of men. We must stand firm in the faith once delivered to all. As we walk along our journey, we must keep in mind the words of the apostle John, “The time is at hand. He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still” (Re 22:10-11).
If you would like to continue with this and other deep discussions about theology, culture, philosophy, check out the various small groups we offer at Harbor Baptist Church, including our Lakeside Group on Wednesday (1pm) and Thursday (10am), our Men’s Prayer Group on Friday (8am), and our Sunday School on Sunday mornings (9:30am).
“If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.” (Romans 12:18).
Harbor Baptist Church 
Leave a comment