More on Karen Swallow Prior, Southeastern Seminary, and the Revoice Conference- Founders Ministries
The LGBTQ issue is a fundamental of the faith. It was not listed among the fundamentals a century ago because it was not conceived as a controversy then. This piece articulates the issue well (KSchaal).
Make sure you don’t miss this. The Revoice conference wants to empower “gay Christians,” “lesbian Christians,” “other gender Christians,” and “sexual minority Christians” (there’s a malleable definition if I’ve ever seen one) so they can “flourish while observing the historic Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality.”
The problem, which even newly converted Christians should recognize, is that “Christian” is not an identity that you can hyphenate with any other identity that is lawless in God’s eyes and still lay claim to what the Bible says a Christian is. As Dr. Rosaria Butterfield has stated, speaking of the Revoice conference, “Gay Christianity is a different religion.”
Yet, President Danny Akin, President of Southeastern, has hired Dr. Karen Swallow Prior to teach at his school when she has unapologetically endorsed a conference that, in the words of Dr. Butterfield, promotes a different religion. And he expects Southern Baptists to sit back quietly and pay her salary.
Dr. Prior recently addressed her endorsement and the criticism she has received from orthodox, evangelical Christians because of it. She said,
The reason why I supported the Revoice conference is because the people I know who organized it are people who believe in the Biblical sexual ethic.…I want to support those who are struggling with same-sex attraction in their desire to live up to a traditional Biblical sexual ethic….I still support its mission of helping Christians live faithfully regardless of what their sexual struggles are.
While we appreciate her expressed desire to be loving and supportive of those trapped in sin, the problem with Dr. Prior’s approach is so basic that it is easy to miss. The biblical sexual ethic does not start at physical, sexual contact. It starts where all sin does—in the heart at the point of desire. Jesus said, “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness” (Mark 7:21-22).
How would you support someone who identifies himself as a “sexually immoral,” “thieving,” “murderous,” or “adulterous” Christian? If you don’t help him see that all of those descriptions refer to sin that must be mortified, then you are of no help at all. If you tell him it is ok to identify with those sins and to accept the remaining desire to commit them as innocuous as long as you don’t physically act on them then you are spiritually harming him.
Note: All posts in News Items, Opinion Pieces, and Home & Family are offered as a matter of interest to our readers. They do not necessarily represent the views of FBFI. They may often represent a different point of view which we think our readers might like to be aware.
Karen has said in a series of tweets this morning:
“Once again this morning I’m being accused of affirming things I certainly do not affirm. It’s why I was clear to @biblicalrecord that I’m not now affiliated with Revoice. Further I provided a statement in October to Tom Ascol which he did not release:”
She then shows a screenshot of a communication with him. I could not get that to copy here, but I’d urge readers to read it and get both sides of the story. He only quoted part of it. In a subsequent tweet, she says:
“I hold to a Biblical view of marriage. I affirm the Nashville Statement, BFM 2000, and the Danvers Statement.
I refer you to the above email exchange (screen shot) if you have further questions. 2/3”
I’m don’t understand her position well enough yet to say I wouldn’t have any problem with it. But it sounds like this man (and others) are selectively quoting only parts of her record. I hate to see this site spreading rumors from sources that do this kind of thing.
Hi Barbara
Thanks for the comment. Do you know if she repudiates Revoice? It is one thing to be unaffiliated, but another to repudiate. I can’t check Twitter at my current location, but I would say she needs to be very clear on this.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
She said she believes “marriage and sexuality are designed by God to be expressed within marriage between one man and one woman, a picture of Christ and the church.” A few sentences later she says, “I ended up disagreeing with many of the speakers and many of the views expressed there [at ReVoice]. I believe some of them were wrong and unbiblical.” Then a bit later she says her “disagreements were strong enough that I declined a later invitation to additional affiliation, though I continue to pray for and encourage these brothers and sisters as they strive to adhere to the biblical sexual ethic.”
That may not be as much repudiation as some would like, but she definitely doesn’t endorse everything the conference promoted.
Hi Barbara
Well, it is something anyway. I am not sure what to make of it. Is it damage control? Her initial enthusiasm for the meeting at best shows poor judgement. Rosaria Butterfield would be less confident that these people are genuine brothers and sisters, I think.
Time will tell, but at least she is correcting a previous error. I am not sure that totally lets her off the hook.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
You might find this helpful, posted a link at SharperIron yesterday: https://sbcvoices.com/there-should-be-peace-a-response-to-tom-ascol/
The author includes more context for Dr. Prior’s statements and argues that “ALL she is saying and ALL her endorsement has said is that she desires to help those who struggle with same-sex attraction live out a biblically faithful sexual ethic.”
I don’t her well enough to know if he’s right, but his analysis makes sense and is consistent Prior’s protestations on the subject.
Thanks for the note Aaron. I read the piece, but I wonder about its author as well. Is he telling the whole story? It is really hard in any communication to give the whole picture objectively. For me, the issue with Karen Prior is more than simply Revoice, but it seems to me that she showed very poor judgement in endorsing the conference at all. Her responses since seem carefully crafted to minimize her prior involvement. It isn’t a straitforward, “I didn’t realize what they were all about and wish I hadn’t done it.” Instead, she minimises it as a “disagreement” but less than “total disagreement.” She continues to affirm the Christian testimony of those involved.
I don’t say that to say I have come to an entire conclusion about her, nor does it matter much if I do. I’m just saying that in the whole exchange, I don’t see her as without taint. Time will tell what this all means for the SBC, but I think we should continue to keep watching as developments there tend to have a ripple effect throughout Christian circles.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3