The De-Conversion Playbook

A couple weeks ago Jen Hatmaker went on the Peter Enns podcast to promote her revisionist reading of the Bible.  She and Enns and other “progressive” voices urge us to agree that any­thing the Bible says against homosexual activity was “culture bound” and does not apply to our lives here and now.  Hatmaker would have us believe, therefore, that Christian, Bible-based marriage must not be limited to male-female pairs; same-sex marriages are blessed as well.

Michael Kruger, President of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina, reviews this podcast conversation:  “The Power of De-Conversion Stories:  How Jen Hatmaker is Trying to Change Minds About the Bible.”  He points out how Hatmaker follows a now-familiar “de-conversion play­book.”  “De-conversion stories are designed not to reach non-Christians but to reach Christians.  And their purpose is to convince them that their outdated, naïve beliefs are no longer worthy of their assent.”

The de-conversion playbook says:  1) Recount the negatives of your fundamentalist past.  2) Position yourself as the offended party who bravely fought the establish­ment.  3) Portray your old group as overly dogmatic while you are just a seeker.  4) Insist your new theology is driven by the Bible and not a rejection of it.  5) Attack the character of your old group and uplift the character of your new group.

Kruger concludes:  “In the end, there’s no doubt Hatmaker’s de-conversion story will be persuasive to our postmodern world.  And I am sure some will adopt her newfound theology as a result.  But, upon closer examination, it is rife with problems.  While claiming to be non-judgmental, she declares the fruit of those who believe in traditional marriage as ‘rotten.’  Despite her insistence that the Bible should be read without certainty, she offers all sorts of dogmatic claims about what the Bible teaches.  While claiming her views are due to a deep study of Scripture, she offers only simplistic explana­tions for the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, while disre­garding 2000 years of church history.  Yes, we should not settle for pat answers.  But, sometimes the Bible does give clear answers.  And when it does, we should be willing to listen and receive them.”

Some will ask, “Can’t Christians just agree to disagree on LGBTQ?”  Isn’t this a “second-tier” topic—a minor and not a major?  Like the mode of baptism:  “We immerse, others sprinkle, no big deal”?

Historic Christianity has always answered those questions by saying, “No.”  For 2,000 years in cultures the world over, believers have consistently and firmly agreed that, according to Scripture, marriage involves a man and a woman, and homosexual practice is contrary to God’s design for human sexuality.

Trevin Wax wrote a couple of excellent articles unpacking why we should recognize that this is not just an “agree to disagree” issue for the church (see here and here).  Among other things, he draws upon an article by Matthew Lee Anderson (see here) asserting that marriage is an “architectural doctrine” within Christianity.  In other words, it’s part of the deep structure and not merely a surface feature—like a load-bearing wall:  tamper with it and catastrophic damage to the whole building will follow.

An “architectural doctrine” has these characteristics:  1) It permeates all of Scripture (e.g., consider the motif of God’s marriage to his people, the heavenly Groom to his chosen Bride—this is prominent in the Old and New Testaments).  2) It undergirds other traditional teachings (e.g., what it means to be the church and experience the saving love of Christ, see Ephesians 5:21-33).  3) It touches on soteriology (i.e., the biblical teach­ing on salvation).

Let me recommend one more resource.  For a clear, kind, wise, Bible-based, short book on the issues of same-sex marriage and the question of homosexual behavior, check out Sam Allberry’s work, Is God Anti-Gay? (and you can listen to his own personal story here).