T.D. Jakes and Homosexuality

Big flap this past week with T.D. Jakes speaking about homosexuality.  I’ve been waiting to address it to see how the situation develops, but I think we’ve come to the end for the moment so I’m commenting now.

There are some things he said which must be examined, because some say he was ambiguous and he claims he is personally against homosexuality, but then he makes it sound as if Christianity — i.e. a real Church — can approve of homosexuality!  Let’s look at some statements:

“I think it is going to be diverse from church to church. Every church has a different opinion on the issue and every gay person is different. And I think that to speak that the church—the black church, the white church or any kind of church you wanna call it—are all the same, is totally not true.”

Here’s a problem — If ANY church has an opinion on homosexuality other than that it is a sin and should not be tolerated, then that church is NOT a Christian church, even though Jakes is suggesting it can be.

“LGBT’s of different types and sorts have to find a place of worship that reflects what your views are and what you believe like anyone else.”

But can there be a true place of worship which accepts LGBTXYZ as not sinful?  If Jakes is suggesting they find a place which agrees with them and that will be legitimate worship, doesn’t this make Jakes a false teacher (of course he’s a false teacher anyway, but just add another dimension now)?

“The church should have the right to have its own convictions and values; if you don’t like those convictions and values [and] you totally disagree with it, don’t try to change my house, move into your own … and find somebody who gets what you get about faith.”

Here Jakes seems to be suggesting that you can have a “homosexual” church — but if you did then it wouldn’t be Christian!

He said that the issue of homosexuality is “complex.”  The issue of homosexuality is complex?!?  In what way?  God says it is sin — PERIOD.  It can’t be marriage because God defined marriage as between a man and a woman — PERIOD.  So where is the complexity?

“Paul spends a lot of time wrestling back and forth, trying to understand should a woman wear a head covering, should you cut your hair.  I mean, they grappled back then and we’re grappling now because we’re humans and we are flawed and we’re not God.”

Wrong!  Paul spent very little time on that topic, and that has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, rather Jakes just throws a red herring out there to distract from the issue at hand.

When asked if his position on homosexuality has “evolved,” Jakes agreed that it has.

“Evolved and evolving,” he replied. “I think that where I am is to better understand we, the church, bought into the myth that this is a Christian nation.”

Excuse me, but how can a Christian have an “evolving” position on homosexuality?  Either you agree with God that it is a sin, or you rebel against God by saying it’s okay.  There is no middle ground.  And another red herring about people thinking this is a “Christian nation” has nothing to do with the topic at hand — just another distraction.

A follow-up article was supposed to clarify what Jakes meant, but I didn’t see any change in what he was saying.

“I think it is going to be diverse from church to church. Every church has a different opinion on the issue and every gay person is different.  And I think that to speak that the church—the black church, the white church or any kind of church you wanna call it—are all the same, is totally not true.”

Well, it SHOULD BE true.  Every real Christian church should have the very same fundamental doctrines, and the same fundamental understanding of how God sees homosexuality as a sin.  Herein lies a major problem with Jakes’ statements — he is suggesting a real church CAN accept homosexuality.

Jakes said that he thinks homosexuals should find congregations that affirm their lifestyle.

Why would he suggest that homosexuals attend apostate congregations?  How are they supposed to learn the truth of the Christian faith, and of the saving Gospel, if they attend congregations which affirm them in their sin?

Following Christian News Network’s report on Jakes’ statements, he shot back on Facebook, remarking that he was “shocked” at how his comments were interpreted, but reiterated that while he personally disagrees with homosexual “marriage,” he “respects” the government’s provision of it.

So, does Jakes also respect the government which provided for slavery?  Does he respect the government’s provision for abortion?

He contended that when he used the phrase “evolved and evolving” in response to Hill’s question, he was only referring to the methods used to minister to homosexuals, not his position on the issue.

So how can one “evolve” in their methods to deal with sin?  Downplay it because it is culturally acceptable?

“I was shocked to read that this was manipulated in a subsequent article to say I endorsed same sex marriage! My position on the subject has been steadfast and rooted in Scripture.”

And yet he respects the government’s provision for it?!?!  How can you respect a government’s position which is in direct rebellion against God?!?

I think Michael Brown had a very good commentary about the issue, and I don’t think Jakes has really clarified anything except to say what his personal beliefs are regarding same-sex fake marriage.  Otherwise, he seems to believe a Christian assembly can affirm homosexuality and still be a Christian assembly, and that is not possible.