The Alistair (Begg) Affair (2024)

Introduction

In a recent interview about his book 'The Christian Manifesto,' Scottish Pastor Alistair Begg's advice for a grandmother to attend her grandson's gay wedding has ignited controversy. Originally stated last year, these comments resurfaced, sparking heated debates.

The backlash was swift, with actions such as American Family Radio dropping his show 'Truth For Life' after over a decade, and the Shepherd Conference removing Begg from their speaker lineup. Begg has refused to walk back his statements, despite calls by some for his dismissal as senior pastor of Parkside Church, which he’s held since 1983.

Many were taken aback by the controversy, expecting support from usual allies, only to be confronted with their dissent. This unexpected opposition, rather than moderating the discourse, seemed to intensify the disagreements further.

Amidst these online disputes, crucial issues are being overlooked. Both factions are guilty of transgressions against each other and against Pastor Begg. Scripture reminds us that while truth can indeed lead to division, as followers of Christ, we are called to pursue unity among ourselves. It is my conviction that by engaging with the truth, we can find common ground. Let us, therefore, navigate through this intricate controversy together.

Note: We make a commission when you purchase products from certain links in this article.

The Original Context

The following is a summary of what stirred the controversy. I highly recommend you read the original, available as a transcript from Truth for Life (see near the end.)

A grandmother asked Begg about attending her gay grandson's wedding. Begg asked if her grandson was aware she was a Christian and couldn’t affirm his lifestyle. Begg advises she should attend and bring a gift, to subvert expectation and keep a door open for witnessing.

Unfortunately, far too many have removed the advice of its original context and shortened it to: “Begg tells Christians to celebrate LGBTQ weddings.”

Scripture vs. Begg

Scripture on hom*osexuality

Leviticus 18:22 calls hom*osexual acts an “abomination,” of the most serious types of sexual immorality. In Romans 1:18-32, we see God’s just “wrath is revealed” in the “giving over” of sinners “to dishonorable passions” and “exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,” referring to hom*osexual desire and actions.

Alistair Begg on hom*osexuality

If, as critics claim, Begg was compromising, we’d expect him to break from these teachings. Yet, in his late-2022 sermon series, “God Gave Them Up”, Begg affirms all of these points:

“And now here we see that they exchanged the normal, natural function of human sexuality for that which is contrary…God has given them up to something which…the Bible pronounces to be an abomination, to be a perversion…So, in coming to this this morning…I come to it…with…the conviction…that God knew exactly what he was doing when he put us together the way he put us together, and that anything that runs foul of that runs foul of God’s intentions.” [emphasis added]

These convictions are reflected in his question to the grandmother:

“Does your grandson understand that your belief in Jesus makes it such that you can’t…affirm…the choices that he has made in life?”

Begg Agrees with Scripture

Begg's stance on hom*osexuality aligns with Scripture. The controversy isn't—or shouldn’t be—about him endorsing what God condemns—he doesn't. It's important to confront the misattribution of intentions to Pastor Begg.

Furthermore, accusations that his remarks were made as a compromise or out of fear are contradicted by his own words and follow-up sermon. Begg explains his intention to reach out to those outside the Christian faith, urging the need to "take that risk a lot more." We may interpret his motivation to be fear-based, but we need to make a distinction between our interpretation and his own words.

To continue to insist Begg is “supporting gay marriage” or blanket attendance to the same is to bear false witness. Setting aside these distractions will allow us to address the legitimate and real concerns.

The Nature of a Wedding

At heart, what is being asked, “Is it always a sin for a Christian to attend an LGBTQ wedding?” Some would respond, “YES!” Others, like Begg himself, pointed may argue Christ ate with sinners and prostitutes. This latter position has some problems. Namely, it assumes that a dinner with sinners is the same as a LGBTQ wedding.

Pastor Doug Wilson, love him or hate him, has impeccable acumen when it comes to cultural issues, and respectfully challenges this notion:

So the issue is not kindness, but rather approval. The issue is going along with a serious delusion. It is not a sin for a screwed up person to have a birthday, and it is no sin to help them celebrate it. Jesus ate with tax-collectors and sinners (Mark 2:16), and so may we. But I seriously doubt if Jesus would have been willing to be the after dinner speaker for the Annual Judean Shakedown Banquet. Levi’s birthday, fine. Levi’s celebration of how he squeezed that poor widow woman until she cried over losing her house, not so fine.

Wilson expounds upon how a Christian should be willing to conduct business with a hom*osexual or transsexual person under most circ*mstances. As people living in the world, we interact with people in the world all the time who don’t “recognize Jesus as King.” We can’t, as Begg points out, love our enemies if we avoid them like the Pharisees. However, the issue become when our interactions become celebratory and approving—as we see when photographers, bakers, and other creative professionals are called to specifically serve LGBTQ weddings.

“Well, Matthew,” you might argue, “Alistair didn’t say we should approve of the wedding, only attend.” True. Wilson responds to this:

But what does it mean not to countenance “in any affirming way” a choice to marry someone who is transgender? If your absence from the wedding registers your censorious disapproval …Attending shows the opposite, and does not demonstrate a studied neutrality. Approval or acceptance is what your attendance means. If it didn’t mean that, there would be no difficulty if you didn’t show…So the issue is not kindness, but rather approval. The issue is going along with a serious delusion.

One who “countenances” something shows or gives support or approval. In essence, Begg is asking us to do the impossible and show our approval of non-approval! No wonder why Christians are confused, as it seems at some level Begg’s own reasoning on this has become muddled in conflicting rationales. How can a Christian show “approving disapproval” or “disapproving approval”? Yet, is their attendance always that? And who gets to decide?

Can One Witness in Nineveh?

Since we’re discussing context, it might help to reinsert his remarks as the final thoughts in an interview of his book, "The Christian Manifesto." The book is summarized as a “an exploration of Jesus' Sermon on the Plain, encouraging Christians to live a radically different life that challenges the world's values and philosophies.”

The final portions of the book challenge Christians to leave their comfort zone to witness to the lost—especially relevant given 70 percent of Christians haven’t in the last 6 months.

This does beg the question: Is a ceremony which embodies that, “although they know the righteous requirement of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:32 LSB) the proper place for such a witness? Or the perfect place?

Get 30% off for 1 year

Unfruitful Works of Darkness?

Some have fallen back on Ephesians 5:11, “And do not participate in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead even expose them,” but this is a misapplication of the passage. In context, Paul is warning sinful and sexually immoral people claiming to be Christians shouldn’t be permitted in the church (see the previous 10 verses.) This understanding is affirmed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13:

11But now I am writing to you not to associatewith any so-calledbrother if he is a sexually immoral person, or greedy, oran idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.12For what have I to do with judgingoutsiders?Are you not to judge those who are withinthe church?13But those who are outside, God will judge.Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.

Should Christians follow this interpretation of Ephesians 5:11 to its natural conclusion, we would become as isolated as the Amish. One must also point out the apparent hypocrisy. We can “participate in the unfruitful works of darkness” in as so long as it involves our Netflix, Starbucks, and sports teams, but not if our intent is attendance at a LGBTQ wedding to share the Gospel.

Before we judge another man’s motives, we should begin with our own. (Matthew 7:1-7)

My Position

First, I disagree with Pastor Begg’s advice. I think it was bad advice. That said, one can think advice is bad without summarily judging a man as sinful, or even the advice as sinful. In all of this, I’ve been caught in the awkward position of defending Begg against what he didn’t say to those uninterested in the truth—I’ve never been called a “child of Satan” more times in my life than this last week, simply because I’ve refused to join the mob.

In this world of highly polarized views, nuance is often lacking and attacked as compromise. Just because I can argue and defend aspects of Begg’s message, doesn’t mean I support the whole. A wise person can learn from those with home he disagrees.

Conclusion

In my research for this article, I read and listened to several of Begg’s sermons. They were my first exposure to Begg prior to this controversy. I have been struck by his compassion for the lost, faithfulness to Scripture, and clarity. It is possible to admire him as a faithful man of God, agree he said something unwise. I think Pastor Begg missed the mark and would be wise to reevaluate the broader cultural context. Someone can witness to the LGBTQ crowd without attending a ceremony dedicated to giving God and His intended design the middle finger. If we were discussing other contexts, we likely wouldn’t be having this conversation.

To reiterate, hom*osexual desires and acts are sinful in the eyes of a righteous and holy God who has set the parameters, as we can see in His word, for human sexuality. Everyone involved in this debate agrees marriage should be honored as the union of one man and one woman. The decision for a Christian to attend an LGBTQ wedding is not one to be taken lightly, and never in celebration or congratulation. We do not cheer for joy as people row themselves over the waterfall.

Yet, as we engage in these discussions, it's imperative that we hold steadfastly to biblical truths and God's commandments. This is a crucial conversation, one that should be approached soberly, with love, and a desire for unity, where possible.

Share

FYRE.IS is a reader supported publication. Please consider supporting our merch store by visiting our store at shop.fyre.is