For the sake of clarity I will reproduce their statements and leading questions, and then give my response to each. The first six come from the non-evangelical bishop Alan Wilson of Buckingham. Starting at no. 7, the statements and questions come from the new book by "evangelical" Anglicans.

1. "The idea that that gender binary is part of the Judeo-Christian tradition is rubbish."

1. My response: Jesus didn't think so. He said, "Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'" (Matt 19.4-5)

2. Those who would deny gender binary in the teachings of Jesus deny the Jesus of the New Testament.

2. (He says) "Nothing bad has happened in the two years since England permitted same-sex marriage."

1. Nothing other than thousands of young people unsure of their sexual identity receiving new encouragement to enter a lifestyle with vastly greater incidence of physical and mental disease.

2. Not to mention the thousands of babies conceived by gays and lesbians and raised in homes where they will never know both? a mom and a dad, both of whom the social sciences have told us are essential to optimal flourishing.

3. "The time is coming when churches everywhere will accept gay marriage."

1. Not likely. No more likely than the expectation by liberals almost a century ago that all the churches would accept eugenics. Liberal churches accepted it, and are embarrassed now to admit it.

4. "Jesus challenged the patriarchal family."

1. It depends on what you mean by "patriarchal."

1. If you mean the family where Dad is domineering and abusive, yes.

2. But if you mean where Dad is spiritual leader and a servant leader, no. Jesus' disciple Paul, by the inspiration of Jesus' Spirit, said children are to obey and honor their parents, and that husbands are to be the spiritual heads of their families (Eph. 5.23).

5. "The Bible does not mention same-sex relationships."

1. Yes, it does. In Rom 1.26 Paul refers to lesbians, who were known even in the ancient world for having "love" relationships and not one-night stands.

6. "The Bible is inconsistent because it seems to condone Solomon's hundreds of wives."

1. Not really. The very beginning of the Bible defines marriage as monogamous (Gen 2.24), goes on to realistically depict the problems in the patriarchs' polygamous families, and then implicitly condemn Solomon's polygamy (Dt. 17.14-20).

7. "There is too much damage and pain in Anglicans with same-sex desires who cannot be honest about those desires and are not free to express them in monogamous ways."

1. I don't discount the pain of having same-sex desire and all the problems that are associated with it.

2. But there are two kinds of pain--the pain all believers have which comes from denying the desires of the flesh, and the pain from denying those which according to Scripture and tradition are disordered.

1. We need to keep this in perspective. Millions of heterosexual Christians desperately want to get married and enjoy that full relationship but for providential reasons are not able to. They feel pain too--and deep pain--but ask God daily for grace to live chastely as Scripture and tradition command them to. In the midst of the pain they also experience the joy that comes from obedience.

3. Fulfilling same-sex desires brings long-term pain, if short-term fulfillment.

1. There is not only an abundance of pathologies that come with such practice (even in countries like Sweden and Holland where they are not persecuted in any way), but there is also the spiritual desolation that comes to those who pursue a lifestyle clearly prohibited by Scripture.

2. Monogamy is not enough.

1. A monogamous incestuous relationship is still condemned by God, even if it is monogamous.

2. Men and women are made for either singlehood (Jesus' "eunuchs" [Mt 19.12] and Paul's "unmarried" [1 Cor. 7.8, 32-38]) or for one another. A same-sex relationship is disordered, and same-sex desires, while not sinful in themselves, are still disordered.

8. "Are stable, faithful, and permanent same-sex relationships universally condemned in the Bible?"

1. It is astonishing that a bishop, and an evangelical one at that, asks this question. Evangelicals pride themselves on being Christians who read and study the Bible more than others.

1. Paul says in Romans 1 that same-sex intercourse is "unnatural" and "shameless" (1.27 NRSV). He refers to the "acts" themselves. There is no possibility that motivation or length of relationship (faithful, permanent, stable) change the nature of the act--which he states is against nature and brings shame. Arguments by liberal scholars to see here condemnation of only pederasty (abusive couplings) have failed.

2. Jesus himself refers to porneia (the umbrella Greek word for sexual sins, which all Jews knew were defined in Lev. 18 & 20, where the only such sin that is toevah or "abomination" is a man lying with a man). Jesus says porneia is ponera, a strong word for "evil." So Jesus himself upholds the biblical and Jewish condemnation of same-sex relations.

3. Nowhere in Scripture is same-sex genital relationship treated with anything other than condemnation.

1. In 1 Cor. 6 Paul says that some who were "male prostitutes" and "sodomites" are now "washed and sanctified." But he also says that those who are unwashed and unsanctified from this sin will not "inherit the kingdom of God" (9-11). Neither will unrepentant adulterers and drunkards and fornicators and greedy.

9. "Even if it is condemned by Scripture, should we refuse to share in the mission of God with those who disagree with us?"

1. Well, there are major and minor matters of disagreement.

2. Marriage (and sexuality in the Bible is defined by marriage) is major, not minor. It is the number one metaphor in Scripture for God's relationship to His people. Yahweh is married to Israel in the OT, and the church is the bride of Christ in the NT.

3. This is just as important as the Trinity and Christology (contrary to what these "evangelicals" argue).

1. For they are saying implicitly that Jesus and Paul and Moses were wrong about marriage and sexuality.

2. Thus Scripture is wrong when it comes to marriage and sexuality and family.

1. Therefore for them Scripture is not our final rule for faith and practice.

2. If they say, But Scripture has been wrongly interpreted for two millennia . . .

1. We must respond that the intellectually honest pro-gay Christian scholars like Walter Wink have said, "Let's be honest and stop trying to prove our position with exegesis. The Bible is clearly against same-sex practice."

3. Then we must ask which God are we worshiping?

1. The God who inspired this Bible that lifts up the marriage between a man and a woman as the principal image of God's relationship to his people? Or another God who dispenses with this image and therefore this Bible?

4. We must also ask, Which Jesus?

1. The Jesus who condemns all porneia and therefore same-sex relations, no matter how "faithful"?

2. Or another Jesus who doesn't think these things are important?

5. These authors say sexuality is not at the heart of the gospel.

1. Then the gospel is not to transform our family and sexual life? It just gets our souls to heaven?

2. This is more Gnostic than biblical, or else conforms more to a cultural than a biblical Christianity.

10. "I know gays who want to express their sexuality as a gift from God in the context of faithfulness."

1. How can a desire which Scripture clearly says is disordered be a gift from God?

2. A heterosexual married man can excuse his desire to commit adultery in the same way. So can an alcoholic.

11. "The horrific events in Orlando show what happens when ignorance and fear are left to fester and ferment."

1. That is exactly what did NOT happen in Orlando.

1. What happened in Orlando was terrorism inspired by radical Islam.

2. It was motivated by religion, and it happened to target gays. It was really intended against every non-Muslim American.

3. It is wrongheaded to call this a tragedy, or to say it was mostly about ignorance and fear. This man was quite knowledgeable about what he was doing and not at all fearful. If only he had been more fearful, and refrained from murdering scores of innocents!

Are these bishops and priests and layfolks still evangelical? Only if "evangelical" is given new meaning. Only if the classical definition, which involves surrender to the biblical vision, is radically altered. In other words, only if evangelicals are the new liberals.