A Response to Aimee Byrd’s Review of Greg Johnson’s book, “Still Time to Care”

---

Aimee Byrd was a guest speaker at a mini-conference we held at our church several years ago. At the time of our conference back in the fall of 2018, she had written Housewife Theologian (2013), Theological Fitness (2015), No Little Women (2016), and Why Can’t We Be Friends (2018), all of which, I had no problem recommending to my church (where I’ve been an Elder/Pastor for the last 6 years). Later she wrote Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (2020) followed by The Sexual Reformation: Restoring the Dignity and Personhood of Man and Woman (2022), both of which I do not recommend as helpful, because I have theological and practical concerns with these two of her works. Those concerns are beyond the scope of this post, but are related to the content of this post.

Because I have promoted Aimee as a guest lecturer to our church and because I have defended her works/ideas/comments publicly, I am writing this response to her review of Greg Johnson’s latest work, Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality (2021). I haven’t written a review of Johnson’s book yet (as I’m still working through it), so his book won’t be my primary source for response, though other statements that Johnson has made publicly will be in view in my response below.¹ For those unfamiliar with Greg Johnson and the Revoice Conference, you can read a helpful article about it here by Kevin DeYoung. My primary source for response is the review by Aimee and her assertions/comments therein.

I’m choosing to post Aimee’s complete review in full here with my comments along side so as to give full context to the original review on which I am commenting.

If you’d like to see the original book review by Aimee, you can find it here.

Below is a copy of Aimee’s review with my notes and the sections to which they pertain. Just click on the numbers² Yes, like that… also, you may have missed it, there is a note in a paragraph above explaining what the deal is about Greg Johnson and the Revoice Conference next to the highlighted sections. I hope this format is helpful to the reader.

---

AN INVITATION TO CARE

AIMEE BYRD

FEBRUARY 3, 2022

“When we read authors who use language different from what we’re used to, we have an opportunity to try to hear what they are intending to say, an opportunity for empathy and what theologians once called the judgement of charity.”

This is what I needed to do. I thought I already was, but reading Greg Johnson’s book, Still Time to Care, has revealed just how much more I need to learn, to listen. I love the handle of this book. It is an invitation to care. Johnson writes as a pastor and as a survivor who is still in the trenches of being vilified. He writes asking for us to hear the experiences of homosexuals, gays, lesbians, queers, same-sex attracted­—whatever terminology is meaningful to describe themselves—in the church.

He begins the book with a “Note on Terminology” that I needed to read.³Terms are clearly important. I don’t think it wrong for Johnson to begin here… it’s helpful. But Johnson’s arguments are not unknown, and I have no trepidation in saying that the arguments against Johnson’s position (eg: Revoice) are not primarily about terminology. I used to be more persuaded that “same-sex attracted” was a more faithful way to describe homosexuality. I thought that “gay” was too identity-driven. I thought that Christians who know that their identity is in Christ should not want to label themselves with a term that connects to a sexual orientation, especially when the temptations that flow from this orientation are not morally neutral. To go a little off script here to something Johnson probably wouldn’t say, I recently was encouraged by an acquaintance when I was saying I should be better at something. She said, “Should is an asshole.”⁴I suspect that Aimee is just being a bit silly here… but “oughtness” isn’t an asshole. Rather sin that makes it hard to do what we know we ought to do is the asshole.

And so Johnson gave me an opportunity to see a more opened up picture of what is behind all this language. As it turns out, there is a lot of historical baggage around the different terminology on sexual orientation. And different age groups hear them differently due to their experiences. I had a lot to learn. But for starters, Johnson doesn’t insist on a specific terminology. He doesn’t want that to get in the way of the opportunity to try to hear. And so he swaps terminology throughout the book, asking for charity as he is trying to speak for and reach a diversity of people. I want to get passed the terminology wars to the heart of the matter. Anyway, who the heck am I from my position of safety with my sexual orientation to tell those who are not how to describe themselves?⁵This is an incorrect way to approach morality. One does not have to be equally disadvantaged in order to make a moral judgement upon the actions of another (however, in this particular case, I don’t think there is actually a disadvantage). It is not a biblically informed idea that, commands from scripture, are somehow subordinate to those who are most directly affected by a specific command, rather that’s an idea from elsewhere (I won’t speculate where… but the possible origins are significant).

Johnson makes the case that the church has shifted from care for homosexually-oriented people of the faith to a posture of trying to cure them. And their cure correlates to their sanctification, or even the validity of their Christian conversion. The book is an invitation to retrieve this posture of care after seeing the utter failure of the ex-gay movement to actually help change sexual orientation and to imagine ways we can practice care in our current cultural context.⁶I’m in the middle of this section now in Johnson’s book. This is probably the most interesting part of his argument (though I’ve yet to find it persuasive). Admittedly, there is probably more ink spilled these days concerning LGBTQ issues within the church than in days past, but I think that’s largely due to its increased prevalence… and not a fundamental shift away from the church’s historic position concern what is to be done about “homosexually-oriented people of the faith”. The book is also a call to holiness, one that convicts even pious heterosexuals, as Johnson challenges our disdain for celibacy and suspicion towards sacred siblingship. ⁷Who are these Christians who have disdain for celibacy?… all Christians ought to desire celibacy for unmarried individuals. It’s incorrect to say that the issue is “disdain for celibacy”. The issue is that celibacy is not the only issue at hand. And here is where the argument lies. Johnson argues that there is no sin involved when a same-sex-attracted (SSA) individual remains celibate. This is incorrect. And though there is similarity between an unmarried opposite-sex-attracted (OSA) Christian lusting after the opposite sex, and a SSA individual lusting after the same sex, there is a critical difference.

It is not sinful for an unmarried OSA Christian to want marriage and all of the intimacy (sexual and otherwise) that comes with it. However, it is sinful for an SSA individual to desire (in any fashion, sexual or otherwise) the intimacy that they hope would come from marriage with the same sex. That is the issue. That is why so-called gay Christianity ought not be celebrated as Johnson and Revoice prescribe.

We say that we love the person and hate the sin. But Johnson reveals our idols in this mindset. We tend to privilege our own sexual temptations and sins while demanding the othered persons look like us. We prop ourselves up as more loveable because we don’t see our own sexual orientations as fallen.⁸This may be, but it is indeed beside the point of whether or not Johnson is biblically correct about his argument regarding celibate SSA Christians.

Before Conversion Therapy

Johnson starts off with the “big four” leading evangelicals of the second half of the 20^th century who began to speak into a “positive and orthodox Christian vision for gay people who follow the call of Jesus Christ”: C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Billy Graham, and John Stott. These were enlightening chapters that made me realize how steeped we are in the ex-gay movement now. We didn’t always use the language that we do or have the same pre-conceived, and over-simplified notions. For example, Lewis “understood that the homosexual Christian’s biggest struggle might be not with sexual sin but with despair or pride.” And his own celibacy for most of his life and deep friendships with men, including one close friend who was gay, counters today’s idolizing of the nuclear family, homophobia, and value of friendship in the church.⁹Lewis is a favorite of those in the Revoice movement to quote on the topic. However, Lewis wrote very little on the issue of homosexuality (most quote from a single letter he wrote to a friend and a couple of examples Lewis gave in Surprised by Joy in which he is describing how it can be tempting to diminish ones own sin by exaggerating the evils of other sins that we don’t struggle with. Lewis in no way establishes that homosexuality is somehow not sinful in and of itself if coupled with celibacy. You can read the quote in context here.

Shaeffer spoke out about how the church too often failed to distinguish between homosexual orientation and practice, pointing out the cruelty of pushing them out of church life because of an orientation that they did not want¹⁰Distinguishing is good. Ignoring the fact that SSA by itself is sinful (even if not acted upon) is not. Billy Graham supported ordaining gay men based on individual merit and qualifications, while upholding that homosexual sin should be repented of. He spoke strongly for a gospel focus, led with empathy and compassion, encouraging Christians to be advocates rebuking others when they treat homosexual sins worse than their own, and to “always trust God with the results.”

John Stott led a gathering for Anglican evangelicals to discuss a pastoral approach to homosexuality. “Remarkably, they led with public repentance for their own sins against gay people.” He too warns that the sins of pride and hypocrisy are “surely worse” than sexual sins and that we are all “sexually fallen beings with disordered sexual desires.”¹¹Regardless of which is worse… all sin is to be taken seriously. If this means removing prideful pastors along with SSA pastors from ministry, then so be it. We don’t forgo biblical commands because there is inconsistency. We work to eliminate the inconsistency. There is chatter about whether Stott was gay. But there is no proof of that. And Johnson says something noteworthy about this: “It would be a lot easier on gay people who become Christians to embrace celibacy if they could look around and see straight believers also following Christ in celibacy in response to Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:12 and the apostle Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 7.”

A Failed Exodus

I was then educated on the history of the ex-gay movement—when the church shifted from care to cure. It was eye-opening to learn the roots of Exodus International¹²Yes, I’ve read about the history of Exodus International. I think that there were many misguided decisions and methods employed by Christians like EI in a desire to minister to those struggling with SSA. Thankfully, we’ve come a long way since then and these approaches to dealing with the sin of SSA in many circles has grown in prudence and biblical structure. and its many ministry partners. Beginning in the early 70’s, it was led by a brand-new convert who was convicted of his own sinful, homosexual lifestyle and who offered a prosperity gospel for getting “out of homosexuality.” With no experience in the Christian life, no theological or clinical training, and very good story telling skills, he became the global expert for the ex-gay movement.

When we started Exodus the premise was that God could change you from gay to straight.”

–Frank Worthen

And riding this story-driven train, the testimonies came pouring in as the movement exponentially grew. Johnson charts this radical growth and the factors that fueled it, such as the AIDS epidemic, the hostile culture and violence toward gays, unsafe churches, and the need for homosexuals to experience a Christian community where they could be honest about themselves and be embraced. Here is where Johnson is good with nuance as well. He documents how there was a lot of good offered in these spaces, as sexual minorities built great friendships and community in these ministries. Grace was offered.

Except, it turns out that they really couldn’t be honest about themselves. They were following a script. And it all unraveled:

In January 2012…Alan Chambers, the last president of Exodus International, came clean about the numbers. “The majority of people that I have met—and I would say the majority meaning 99.9 percent of them—have not experienced a change in their orientation.” This organization represented more than 270 ex-gay ministries.

The Need to Be Seen

But the damage was done. This is the air our generation in the church has been breathing. And the message is loud and clear—you cannot be homosexually oriented and be a Christian.¹³ This is flatly incorrect and a straw man if presented as the only or even the majority sentiment. Instead, what is widely held by the historic church is that one cannot be homosexually oriented, and act as though that orientation is God glorifying, if accompanied by celibacy. No, homosexual orientation is a sin to be put to death. As with all sins, it will not be ultimately put to death until Christ returns, but to act as though it is simply a natural orientation that could be used for good or ill is completely unbiblical. Johnson accesses all the damage that has come out of this—the false hope, the conversion therapy, failure of leadership, and the message of despair in failure to change one’s sexual orientation. It is truly devastating. I am disgusted that anyone can read through it and then give such awful reviews of this book, clearly misrepresenting Johnson’s position, and barely giving a nod to what gay Christians have suffered by the hands of evangelicalism and the church, much less show real empathy to their sincere desperation in longing for the holy love of Christ and his people. They continue to place the shame on those who offer care in honesty. We need to look at this history of neglect, abuse, hatred, and self-righteousness and lament. We need to see those suffering. We need repentance. We need to learn and offer care.¹⁴ We need to learn to be realistic about the fact that God grants sanctification (Hebrews 6:1-3) and man pursues God for that sanctification (Philippians 3:14).

When we look, we see that this was not the gospel. The promise and the aim was straightness, not faithfulness to Jesus.

A Bad Theology of Sin

Johnson nails it when he pinpoints our bad theology of sin as part of the postmortem inventory. We all have fallen sexual orientations. “Heterosexuality as experienced this side of the fall is drenched in sin..” A man’s sexual longing for his neighbor’s wife is a sinful temptation to be resisted, not a natural desire put there by God.¹⁵This flattening is unhelpful at best and sinful at worst. As I pointed out above, a celibate, SSA Christian is not devoid of sin in the same way that a celibate OSA Christian might be. The orientation itself is an aberration of God’s natural law. It is a sin to be put to death… ultimately when Jesus returns.

Quoting Johnson more, “all the straight people I know are bent.” He should know; he is a pastor. “Only Jesus had a nonsinful, nonshameful sexual orientation.” He notes that we are aiming way too low to offer sinful heterosexual temptation in place of sinful homosexual orientation as progress in sanctification. “However our sexual attractions happen to be bent, God calls us to holiness, not heterosexuality.”

We also don’t have all the answers when it comes to the cause of homosexuality.¹⁶True, and this should give us pause on the ways we approach how to counsel SSA Christians. For instance, I have no problem saying that it is possible that “you were born with it” to a SSA Christian. We are born into sin and even possibly born with proclivities towards one certain sin over another. Johnson interacts with fascinating medical and sociological research regarding how much of a factor genetics are, what genetic loci are associated with it, hormonal, immunological, developmental factors, and more.

This section ends with the challenge “to believe the gospel enough to become willing to sacrifice daily in order to obey him.” That is a call for every one of us.

Were There Even Homosexuals in Scripture?

Johnson then tackles the more progressive argument that we got the whole sexual ethic wrong. This line of argument says that the ancients did not have a concept of homosexual orientation and monogamous, loving same-sex relationships. They claim that the verses that appear to condemn homosexuality are speaking against abuse of slaves and pagan practices, not the same-sex unions that we know of today. Johnson asserts that this is not very progressive at all, as these arguments are erasing the experience of mutual same-sex unions from history in the same way as the ex-gay movement erased the sexual orientation of its members. He gives us a history lesson and a look into the Scriptures that reveals once again, this too is an attempt to offer a sexual ethic that they think better than the New Testaments.

Throughout this book, Johnson does not shy away from the tough arguments on both sides. This review is way too long now and will not be able to show how well he handles them all. But I wanted to mention that he devotes a whole chapter to whether the biblical ethic is internally violent to gay people.

A Path Forward

This is yet another section that I learned a lot from. I don’t have space to break it all down, but Johnson covers topics such as:

• Terminology as an area for Christian freedom, not building an identity for oneself.
• The difference between sexual attraction, sexual orientation, and sexual identity.
• The impoverished Western concept of sex
• The history of the concept of identity in Christ vs. older, biblical concepts
• The Nashville Statement
• Spiritual and emotional abuse
• Love as a posture
• Advocacy
• Side B and Revoice
• The distinction between forgiveness and righteousness
• Help with sexual addictions

One reviewer accuses Johnson of offering nothing more than palliative care for the dying. I don’t know what book he was reading! This reviewer proved the case that Johnson builds: homosexuals have to not only be born again, but also be converted from their sexual orientation to be considered Christian. This reviewer does the very thing Johnson points out, using “biblical language” to weaponize. And he completely misrepresents Johnson’s work in the process. But hey, he added page numbers so it must be there how he says it. Worse, the review shows absolutely no care for actual people.

Greg Johnson literally ends his book with hope. While some with same-sex attractions can also be heterosexually attracted and some with a homosexual orientation do find they are able to be attracted to one person of the opposite sex out of love for that person and desire to build a family life with them, many just don’t have any sexual orientation toward the opposite sex. Johnson offers the difficult path of celibacy while showing the beauty in it. This is not offering palliative care to dying people or showing no care towards repentance and holiness. As Johnson says, “There is nothing that calls out the idols of Western culture more powerfully than a person who swears off sex and romance because they love Jesus.” There are more important things than sex. And as Johnson opened his book with, “Jesus captured my heart. And he is worth everything.” And after showcasing the need for a spiritual family and siblingship, he ends,

My fallen sexuality is the thing more than any other that God has used to keep me broken and humble and dependent on him. If that’s the price of knowing his love, I wouldn’t trade it. Jesus is everything.

Spoken by a 49-year-old virgin. Praise God!

A Note on Rejoice¹⁷There are indeed many things to be concerned about coming out of Revoice. Some of them I have pointed out here. On the whole, it is a very flawed response to SSA. We need to do better.

You may be concerned about some of the things that you have heard are coming out of Revoice. So am I. But there is also a lot I just don’t understand. Non-straight people who want to be faithful to God’s design for marriage and sex between a husband and a wife need support that offers real hope that is focused on discipleship, not just transferring sexual temptation to heterosexuality. They need care. Revoice is a gospel-saturated culture that addresses issues like the shame that they feel in their sexual orientation, healing from abuse, celibacy, whether to pursue marriage with the opposite sex, appropriate boundaries, healthy friendships, and evangelizing in the secular LGBT community. Those involved see that they are loved and not alone. Johnson himself shared that he has some differences than others who are trying to face loneliness while living a faithful Christian life, in that he shies away from the paradigm of celibate partnership, preferring focusing on Christian family and siblingship. There is going to be some disagreement. And failure. And yet, this is a group where it is safe to bring it all to the table and discuss with gospel encouragement and biblical guidance. Revoice is offering the care that people need because the church isn’t. Maybe we should listen more and see the fruit that is coming from that before we throw all our stones. Maybe that fruit doesn’t look like heterosexuality for everyone. Maybe it looks like gay people who are chasing God’s love. Maybe there is something we can learn from that, rejoice in, and join in love and care. We do know that if it is of God the fruit will be growth in holiness. Let’s not act like we are further ahead of everyone else in that.