Louie Giglio and the New State Church
— Thursday, January 10th, 2013 —
President Obama kicked up some controversy by announcing that evangelical pastor Louie Giglio would be praying at the inauguration. Sexual liberationist groups quickly identified Giglio, as they did Rick Warren under similar circumstances in 2009, as “anti-gay.” After a couple of days of firestorm from the Left, Giglio announced this morning that he would withdraw.
Here’s why this matters. The statement Giglio made that was so controversial is essentially a near-direct quotation from the Christian Scriptures. Unrepentant homosexuals, Giglio said (as with unrepentant sinners of all kinds) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That’s 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Giglio said, “it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change.” The Bible says God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), the same gospel, Giglio says, “that I say to you and that you would say to me.”
The Christian faith in every expression has held for 2000 years that sexual immorality is sinful. This same Christian faith has maintained, again in every branch, that sexual expression outside of conjugal marriage is sin. And the Christian faith has maintained universally that all persons are sinners and that no sinner can enter the kingdom without repentance. This is hardly new.
The “shock” with which this so-called “anti-gay” stance is articulated by the Left is akin to the Pork Producers Association denouncing a Muslim Imam’s invitation because he is “anti-agriculture” due to Koranic dietary restrictions.
In fact, by the standards of this controversy, no Muslim imam or Orthodox Jewish rabbi alive can pray at a presidential inauguration.
When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church. Just as the pre-constitutional Anglican and congregational churches required a license to preach in order to exclude Baptists, the new state church requires a “license” of embracing sexual liberation in all its forms.
Note, this now doesn’t simply exclude harsh and intemperate statements or even activism. Simply holding the view held by every Roman pontiff and by every congregation and synagogue in the world until very recent days is enough to make one “radioactive” in public.
As citizens, we ought to insist that the President stand up to his “base” and articulate a vision of a healthy pluralism in the public square. Notice that the problem is not that this evangelical wants to “impose his religion” on the rest of society. The problem is not that he wants to exclude homosexuals or others from the public square or of their civil rights. The problem is that he won’t say that they can go to heaven without repentance. That’s not a civil issue, but a religious test of orthodoxy.
As Christians, we ought to recognize that the old majoritarian understanding of church/state relations is outmoded. Our situation today is not to hold on to some form of American civil religion. Our situation today is more akin to the minority religions of America’s past: colonial Baptists, nineteenth-century Baptists, early twentieth-century Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are appealing simply for the right to exist at all, in the face of an established religion armed with popular support and, in the fullness of time, state power.
It turns out we’re circling around to where we should have been all along: with the understanding that religious liberty isn’t “toleration” and separation of church and state isn’t secularism.
We don’t have a natural right to pray at anyone’s inauguration. But when one is pressured out from a previous invitation because he is too “toxic” for simply mentioning once something universal in the Christian faith, we ought to see what we’re looking at: a state church.
And as one old revolutionary-era Baptist said, as he went in and out of prison for preaching: “There is nothing so offensive to an established church than the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
20 Responses to “Louie Giglio and the New State Church”
Trackbacks
- If You Had Any Doubt, Evangelicals Are Now an Unwelcome Minority in America! | SBC Voices
- Stand Firm For Truth No Matter What « Arminian Today
- Louie Giglio and the Passion for Tolerance | Fill Up
Excellent article. I would be interested in who the author of the quote near the end is. Thanks
Reply
Thank you Dr. Moore for putting the Gospel at the forefront of this issue and the implications for the church. Great article.
Reply
Martin Luther gives us a great reminder that government leaders, as hard as they try, cannot truly change hearts. Though in one sense the direction of this country can be scary, we can rest securely in the knowledge that our God reigns and has the sole ability to soften and change our hearts. Thanks for the thoughtful article.
Reply
@Tyler Eason, very well said. Amen to this article.
It seems to me that the opposition to Louie Giglio’s participation in the inauguration is implicitly saying “the perception that ’sexual immorality is not sinful’ is more important than reinforcing the message that ‘human trafficking is wrong.’”
Reply
As Christians, we can adapt our language without adapting our principles. When asked the question, “Is homosexuality sinful?” we can answer “All lust is sinful, all humans are sinners, and all sin is forgivable. The only sex that honors God is for the purpose of creating life.”
God calls for discrimination between lust and love, not between people based on who they lust after. Anytime homosexual lust is mentioned in the bible, it’s in a larger list of sins. When we speak with any hint of discrimination between sinners because of their sin, we not only offend people, we violate the gospel.
When Grigio says “it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change,” is he saying that God can transform people who lust after the same sex into people who lust after the opposite sex? I hope not. That’s as ridiculous as saying that God can change a glutton for cake into a glutton for pie, or a cocaine addict into a heroin addict.
On earth, believers can experience freedom from sin if we ask for it, and forgiveness when we fail and repent. In heaven, all believers will be free of all their sin.
Reply
@Paul P, Your paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 are spot on in my opinion. In paragraph 3, I do think you have possibly misunderstood Giglio’s words. No, I believe Giglio would say to the alcoholic, “It’s not easy to change, but change is possible through Christ.” Meaning that one can be free from addiction in general, not just change one addiction for another.
Blessings,
Brian
Dr. Moore,
I always enjoy your articles, thank you for speaking out about the truth. Praise the Lord He is on our side :)
Reply
This turn of events does sadden me. But as a Christian, I disagree with where the blame should go. We know, the President knows that inviting someone like Louie, who my anger the President’s base is dangerous. But out of a sense of nationaly unity and a “vision of a helathy pluralism,” he invited Mr. Giglio anyway. Who is surprised by the ignorant reaction? What saddens me most is that Mr. Giglio would withdraw in the face of such ignorance. His withdrawal does not advance the Gospel. His acceptance might have. In either case, the President is doing just what you, Mr. Moore, said he should do. By invitation he articulated that unifying vision. It is some ignorant activists AND Mr. Giglio who rejected it. Sad.
Reply
Is it biblical truth that unrepentant homosexuals cannot enter the kingdom without repentance for continued homosexuality? Due to the pervasiveness of universalism/pluralism in our society today it has taken me a decade in my walk with christ to “own” that homosexuality is a sin. While I knew when I committed my life to Christ that the bible stated it, it took progressive sanctification for this issue to become a truth in my heart. (like other sins of pride, self righteousness etc)
Its possible that there are newly regenerate homosexual believers who have not yet been convicted of their specific sin even as they have understood that without Christ they are hopeless against any and all forms of sin, known and unknown. If they confess Christ prior to a “heart knowledge” of HS as sin then they CAN inherit the kingdom. In light of this I would then understand Louies specific statement as off-putting despite the fact that I agree with him that HS is a sin. This may be a technicality but I think the church needs to focus on building bridges to Christ regardless of the type of sin than condemning the sin at the forefront. It puts relationship with Christ on the backburner to a specific sin when it should be front and center with conviction of sin following suit. Thoughts?
Reply
Tony, I’m not sure if you read this, but here’s Giglio’s response as to why he’s withdrawing, and I may venture to say that he is choosing to withdraw as the most strategic way for the advancement of the gospel.
“Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.
Neither I, nor our team, feel it best serves the core message and goals we are seeking to accomplish to be in a fight on an issue not of our choosing, thus I respectfully withdraw my acceptance of the President’s invitation. I will continue to pray regularly for the President, and urge the nation to do so. I will most certainly pray for him on Inauguration Day.”
Not saying that he is right, just offering you his opinion.
Cheers.
Reply
@Jake Mitchell,
Yes, Jake, I read Giglio’s reasoning, and I can accept it. What I object to is Mr. Moore’s suggestion that this is some sort of state censorship, state religion, or religious persecution from the state. It is the “state” that issued the invitation, which they never rescinded.
Perhaps there was persecution, but it is unhelpful hyperbole and misinformation to say that this indicates a “new state church.”
Just as with the 2008 inauguration, this Presidential Administration wants to present a “wide tent,” reflecting our religious diversity, including we Evangelicals who can’t wait to cry “discrimination,” whenever someone offers a different view. The administration has not wavered from that intention to include Evangelicals. We can’t blame them when, for whatever reason, we decide to drop out.
I’m…. getting sort of tired of hearing about the gay issue from evangelical Christians. How about we pick a new sin, like deliberately-childless Christian couples, and spend the next few years hammering this topic to death?
Reply
I’m not certain that rejecting someone’s beliefs equals a state religion. Mr. Obama invited someone he disagreed with, which seems to argue against your point.
That said, I agree completely with your statement about the reality of tolerance in our country.
Reply
@Bryan Fordham, It, rejection of Christianity, is a State Religion because it has become the followed religion of Secular Humanism and our public education system is the “church” used to promote said religion.
“My” above = “might.”
“When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church. Just as the pre-constitutional Anglican and congregational churches required a license to preach in order to exclude Baptists, the new state church requires a “license” of embracing sexual liberation in all its forms.”
The “state” invited Mr. Giglio and never uninvited him. Mr. Giglio faced, what could be called persecution and bowed to it.
Reply
I believe(my opinion) a more right position would have been to not to withdraw. But I can’t place myself in Louie Gigleo position because I was not there. Was his withdrawal a form of Christian peacemaking? I again don’t know. My position is clear and based on scripture the same way Louie’s is and by the way I agree with Louie’s position that is at the core of this, I just choose to express it in a different way. When confronted I express my position with scriptural truth and I deal with the consequences, when not confronted, I choose to let God do what only He can do in the situation. If the person is truly seeking God with his or her whole heart the truth will ultimately be revealed to them, at least that what scripture says in Jeremiah 29:13-14. If it is ultimately in God’s hands anyone, my being confrontational (and I am not saying Louie was) is not the going to solve anything, except maybe to prove that I am no different then the one provoking the response. That is precisely why the provocation takes place. When confronted though, I do have to listen in love and respond in love, because that is what Christ I believe calls us to. God can take care of this; no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
Maybe Louie should have let the President make the call, he after all is the one who offered the opportunity, I believe that he knew exactly what he was doing.
As for the whole State church thing, I think we ought to just work harder at being the true Church, I believe that is what God wants for us, to be one, that the world may know and believe in Christ.
Reply