Category Archives: Ethical issues

Jesus Said Nothing About Homosexuality?

Some claiming to be Christians assert there’s nothing wrong with homosexual lusts or behaviours.  Sometimes such “Christians” identify themselves as “progressive Christians.” At other times they refer to themselves as “sex-positive Christians.”  In a previous post, I addressed one of their arguments, namely that the Bible never spoke about homosexuality until 1946.  In this post, I’ll tackle a different one:  Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

There are two ways to disprove this claim.  One is to consider how this claim has a far too narrow understanding of how Jesus speaks.  Simply by virtue of his divinity, the entire Bible is the word of Christ.  Because of his deity, Jesus Christ stands behind everything written in the 66 books of the Bible, including what the Old Testament and the New Testament both teach about homosexuality.  If Jesus is God, and if the entire Bible is the Word of God, then the entire Bible is also the word of Jesus.  So, when Romans 1:26-27 speaks of homosexuality in terms of “dishonourable passions” and relations “contrary to nature,” that is Christ speaking.  When 1 Timothy 1:10 includes “men who practice homosexuality” among those who are “ungodly and sinners,” that is our Lord Jesus speaking too.

The other way to disprove this claim is to actually look at the spoken words of Jesus as he carried out his ministry on this earth.  In other words, let’s look at the spoken words of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels and John.  We can readily grant that Jesus never used the word “homosexuality” in his teaching.  We can also readily grant that he never directly spoke of homosexual lusts or relations.  This can be explained quite easily from his context.  Jesus was ministering primarily in a Jewish context where it was a given that homosexuality was out of accord with God’s will – after all, the Torah was clear in Leviticus 18 and 20.  Analogously, I’m quite sure that if you were to jump in a time machine and travel back to listen to Reformed preachers in the nineteenth century, there would likewise be very few mentions of homosexuality because of the broader cultural consensus on it.  There wasn’t a pressing need to address it.

Jesus did indirectly address homosexuality, however.  Amongst the Jews of his day, Sodom and Gomorrah were renowned for their sexual immorality.  The nature of that infamous immorality is described in Jude 7 as the pursuit of “unnatural desire.”  This type of desire and behaviour was regarded as repugnant.  So, when a teacher like Jesus invoked the names of Sodom and Gomorrah, he was calling up that reaction in his listeners.  Jesus does exactly that in Matthew 10:15.  He’s speaking there about any Jewish town which refuses to welcome the preachers of the kingdom of heaven.  He says, “Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.”  This is a remarkable statement.  For the Jews then, and for God’s covenant people today, Jesus was saying there is a sin worse than homosexual lusts and behaviours:  rejecting the preaching of the gospel.  Covenant unbelief is more abominable than homosexuality!  However, don’t miss the fact that the surprising nature of this teaching is based on an acceptance of what the Old Testament teaches about homosexuality:  it is an abomination.

We could also refer to what Jesus teaches about marriage and divorce in Matthew 19.  The Pharisees asked him whether divorce was lawful for any cause.  Before he answered, he affirmed what the Old Testament taught about the institution of marriage:  “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Mt. 19:5).  Jesus here affirmed that God designed marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.  He affirmed heterosexual marriage as the only context in which sexual intimacy (“shall become one flesh”) ought to exist – consistent with the teaching of his Word elsewhere.

To claim that “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality” is just not honest to the facts of the Bible.  I’d therefore propose a new name for “progressive Christians.”  Let’s call them what they are:  “wishful thinkers.”  They just wish the Bible would support their easy-going acceptance of what the world holds about sexuality.  Then they create for themselves their own personal Jesus who will approve of their worldliness.  It’s just as Christ told us in his Word:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false prophets among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.  And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.  (2 Peter 2:1-2).        


Letter to the Editor

I submitted the following letter to the Examiner (our local Launceston newspaper) in response to their February 22 article, “A Tasmanian survivor’s story on conversion practices.”

Dear editor,

In the February 22 article, “A Tasmanian survivor’s story on conversion practices,” our church was referenced as a body that admits to having “carried out SOGI conversion practices.”  To clarify, our church does not provide exorcisms, electroshock therapy, or aversion therapy. We only hold out the same hope God offers to all people:  forgiveness through Jesus Christ and grace to change.  Let me further clarify by quoting my submission to the Tasmania Law Reform Institute:  “…our church preaches and teaches what the Bible says, including what it says about sexual orientation and gender identity. We do this out of our ultimate commitment to God, our love for him, and out of love for the people around us. We counsel accordingly. We pray publicly and privately accordingly. According to the working definition the Issues Paper provides, we are involved in SOGI conversion practices. We make no apologies for that. Moreover, as stated above, this is non-negotiable for our church since we believe what the Bible says. For us to do otherwise would be unloving and disingenuous.”

Rev. Dr. Wes Bredenhof

Free Reformed Church of Launceston


“Is it ok to do X on Sundays?”

I’ve just finished Sinclair Ferguson’s Devoted to God: Blueprints for Sanctification. As with all Ferguson’s books, this one is a winner. It’s rooted in Scripture and Christ-centered from start to finish. Let me share a little tidbit. This is actually from a footnote in Appendix 4 on the Fourth Commandment. It’s a great answer to a common question:

When Christians ask: ‘Is it ok for me do X on Sundays?’ the first response should normally not be ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but ‘Why would you be doing it?’ The most common answer to that question is probably ‘Because I don’t have time for it in the rest of the week.’ This highlights the importance of understanding the whole of the fourth commandment. The problem here is not how we spend Sunday; it is how we are using Monday to Saturday. We are living the week the wrong way around, as if there had been no resurrection! Use Sunday as a day of rest, worship, fellowship first and we will almost inevitably begin to discipline our use of time in the other six days of the week. Grasp this and the Sabbath principle becomes one of the simplest and most helpful of all God’s gifts. The burden-free day at the beginning of the week both regulates the days that follow and refreshes us for them. (p.266)


Submission for Tasmania Law Reform Institute

The Tasmania Law Reform Institute (TLRI) recently released an “Issues Paper” addressing “possible reforms to Tasmanian law to respond to sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) conversion practices.” They requested public feedback via their website. My public submission to the TLRI is below. I urge other Bible-believing Christians in Tasmania to also make submissions. The development of this kind of legislation could have dire consequences for our churches, our families, and our Christian schools. The deadline is January 7, 2021.

****************************************

Public Submission for Tasmania Law Reform Institute

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Conversion Practices

1.0   Introduction

I am Rev. Dr. Wes Bredenhof.  I have served as the pastor of the Launceston Free Reformed Church since September 2015.  Previous to that, I served two churches in Canada.  I have a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Alberta (1996), a Master of Divinity degree from the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary (2000), and a Doctor of Theology degree from Reformation International Theological Seminary (2010).

I am called to be a preacher of the good news of Jesus Christ.  My calling is to show love to everyone I can by first explaining the serious trouble all of us are in.  I am like a medical doctor who explains the disease so the patient can understand the need for treatment and be persuaded to take it.  The serious trouble we all face is that we are all under God’s just judgment for our rebellion against him.  God is infinitely majestic and if you rebel against infinite majesty, the appropriate penalty is infinite too.  However, in his mercy and love, God has provided a way for this judgment to be averted.  God sent his Son Jesus Christ to live and die in the place of anyone who would turn from their rebellion and believe in him.  Jesus Christ lived a perfect life in the place of all who trust in him.  Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross to take the punishment of all who have faith in him.  Jesus rose from the dead, proving that God accepted the sacrifice he made.  There is now a way to eternal life and my calling is to show that way to everyone I can.  Because I love God and I love people, I preach Jesus Christ as the Saviour of rebels like me.  This is what is most important to me and to the church I serve.  I have prepared this submission because this is what is most important.         

Recently I was involved as an expert witness at a case before the State Administrative of Tribunal of Western Australia.  The case involves a couple from another Free Reformed Church (Baldivis, WA) who were denied the opportunity to be respite foster carers for children ages 0-5 because of their religious beliefs on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI).  I prepared a report for this matter testifying to the religious beliefs of the Free Reformed Churches of Australia.  This report is attached to this submission as Appendix 1.  I attach it in order to demonstrate that there are Bible-believing Christians in Tasmania who have the potential to be affected by any proposed legislation regarding SOGI conversion practices.  This report also demonstrates that our beliefs are historic Christian teachings based on what the Bible says.

I also respectfully provide this submission to alert you to the fact that Christian churches like ours will not change our practices.  Our ultimate commitment is to God and our ultimate authority is the Bible as God’s inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word.  Because we believe what the Bible says, we do respect those in authority over us.  The Bible teaches us to pray for those who rule over us (1 Timothy 2:1-2).  The Bible teaches us to submit to our government (Romans 13:1).  We do all this gladly.  However, if there is a conflict between what God teaches in the Bible and what the state legislates, we will always follow what the Bible teaches.  We cannot compromise on that.  Because we love God who first loved us through Jesus Christ, we will be steadfastly faithful to God and to the Bible.       

2.0   Background and Terms of Reference

I note that the inquiry was initiated by peak Tasmanian LGBTQA+ stakeholder bodies and representatives.  This appears to have slanted the inquiry in a particular direction, one that is only sympathetic to LGBTQA+ concerns.  The Terms of Reference bear this out.  It is assumed from the start that all SOGI conversion practices (as defined by the working definition) are to be viewed as harmful.  The rest of the Issues Paper is consistent with that assumption, making it almost a foregone conclusion that Tasmania must do something about SOGI conversion practices. 

3.0   Inquiry Process

The Issues Paper was prepared by research staff guided by an independent Expert Advisory Group.  I note that this includes “a member of a community of faith” (p.xiii).  In the Acknowledgements (p.xiv), the Expert Advisory Group is thanked by name.  Rev. Jeff Savage, Uniting Church pastor in Hobart, is mentioned.  Was such a choice intentionally aligned with the bias mentioned above in 2.0?  What if the TLRI had selected a Presbyterian pastor instead?  Ideally, the Expert Advisory Group should have included several members from a range of communities of faith, including Bible-believing Christians and even non-Christians.  For example, Hobart has a growing Islamic community – it might be helpful to hear their perspective.        

Whatever the case may be, I gladly raise my hand to be involved in any future work in this area.  If the TLRI would care to understand the concerns of Bible-believing Christians and how they may be affected by prospective legislation, I would certainly be willing to have such a conversation.  The TLRI should act in good faith and genuinely aim to be as inclusive as possible.  That would mean not excluding sincere Bible-believing Christians.                    

4.0   List of Questions

I have read the entire Issues Paper as background to the questions asked for this consultation.  Some of the questions assume from the outset that all SOGI conversion practices (as defined by the working definition) are harmful.  These questions (by design?) exclude Bible-believing Christians and are, therefore, impossible for me to answer.  I will only answer four of the questions.

4.1   Question 1

After considering the background and working definition (see [1.3.23] on page 13), in your opinion, what are and are not ‘sexual orientation and gender identity conversion practices’?

In my view, the definition of SOGI conversion practices, for the purpose of this consultation, should be narrowly limited to extreme acts that would normally be described as torture – such as non-consensual electroshock or aversion therapy.  However, it should then be proven that such practices take place in Tasmania – the Issues Paper acknowledges in 2.3.1 that there is no data on this question.   

Additionally, I would ask the TLRI to give consideration to reviewing 1.2.8 of the Issues Paper.  In particular, the Paper speaks of “false claims” and “false publications.”  Does preaching from a Bible passage addressing SOGI constitute a “false claim”?  Does asking a parishioner to read a Bible passage addressing SOGI involve a “false publication”?  The TLRI ought to recognize that the Bible does speak about these things, for example, in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.  Will a consequence of SOGI conversion practice legislation be that the Bible is considered to be a “false publication” which ought somehow to be proscribed?  That seems to be the direction of the Issues Paper. 

Moreover, the presupposition behind 1.2.8 needs to be justified.  The presupposition is that there are false claims and there are true claims.  The language of the Issues Paper is not even provisional about such claims, but rather appears to be grounded on absolute certainty.  However, by what objective standard are we to determine which claims are true and which are false?  The Issues Paper seems to presuppose further that science is the objective standard by which truth is determined and distinguished from falsehood.  Science appears to be the ultimate authority for the Issues Paper.  In Christian terms, we would say that science is “the Bible” here.  However, what do you do when your “Bible” contradicts itself or needs to be constantly updated?  How would you be able to have absolute certainty about what is true or false with such a “Bible”?  In the nature of the case, there is scientific research calling into question some of the claims in the Issues Paper.  In 2016, the journal The New Atlantis published an extensive review of social scientific research regarding SOGI issues.[1]  There is no unanimous scientific consensus on these issues.  So how can the Issues Paper so boldly insist that some claims are false while implying that others are true?  Such absolute claims require a transcendent objective standard.

Finally, in this section of the Issues Paper, there is no discussion about the inherent nature of sexual orientation and gender identity.   For example, are these concepts rooted in biology, are they social constructs, or something else altogether?  More to the point, are they inherently fixed or can they change?  If they can change, what factors might be involved?  Are allowances made for changes in any direction?                  

4.2   Question 3

Have you been involved in or offered, or are you aware of, any forms of SOGI conversion practices in Tasmania?  If so, what were the effects on you, or the person exposed to them?

As evidenced in Appendix 1, our church preaches and teaches what the Bible says, including what it says about sexual orientation and gender identity.  We do this out of our ultimate commitment to God, our love for him, and out of love for the people around us.  We counsel accordingly.  We pray publicly and privately accordingly.  According to the working definition the Issues Paper provides, we are involved in SOGI conversion practices.  We make no apologies for that.  Moreover, as stated above, this is non-negotiable for our church since we believe what the Bible says.  For us to do otherwise would be unloving and disingenuous. 

4.3   Question 4

Do you think that Tasmanian law should be changed to address SOGI conversion practices?  If so, should this be through comprehensive reform, amendment or both (a hybrid)?

No, not if it will prevent people who want to seek Christian, Bible-based help with their sexual orientation and gender identity from getting the help they desire.  Human dignity is most honoured when individuals are allowed choice as to the assistance they want.    

Also, Tasmanian law should not be changed if it will conflict with the sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of people like me and the members of my church.

4.4   Question 9

Are there any other matters that you consider relevant to this Inquiry and would like to raise?

The federal government has indicated its intention to introduce a Religious Discrimination Bill.  Surely it would be reasonable for Tasmania to wait and see what this bill entails and how it may impact SOGI conversion practice legislation. 

Also, I believe it would be reasonable for the TLRI to engage in more comprehensive community consultation before moving forward.  TLRI especially needs to understand the concerns of Tasmanian Christians around religious freedom.  I am confident many pastors and churches would be willing to discuss this with the TLRI.  Such a reasonable step could go a long way towards preventing unnecessary legal conflicts in the future.

There may also be far-reaching unintended consequences for such legislation, especially as regards parents and Christian schools: 

Appendix 1 was submitted as an expert witness report in a case involving a Christian couple who wished to be foster parents.  Their religious beliefs as they relate to SOGI resulted in Wanslea Family Services determining they were not fit even to be respite foster carers for children ages 0-5.  The WA State Government intervened in the hearing and supported Wanslea’s position.  The couple involved have their own natural children.  Would not consistency demand that Wanslea and the WA State Government hold that this couple are not fit to have any children in their care?  I would urge the TLRI to give careful consideration to the consequences of any proposed SOGI conversion legislation – will this require the government to remove children from the homes of Christian parents who hold to what the Bible teaches about SOGI?  Will this result in a new “stolen generation”?

While it is not operated or governed by our church, members of our church community operate a Christian school in Launceston.  This Christian school is also unreservedly committed to what the Bible teaches about SOGI.  The children who attend this school are taught accordingly, because their parents want their children to be taught in a way which corresponds with their Christian faith.  In fact, the parents have all made public vows to this effect – this is taken very seriously in our community.  There are several similar Christian schools throughout Tasmania.  The TLRI ought to give careful consideration to the consequences of any proposed SOGI conversion legislation as they relate to Christian education.  Will it continue to be lawful for Christian parents to have their children educated in a context where the teachings of the Bible about everything are communicated and honoured?  Or is this legislation going to have the consequence, intended or otherwise, of destroying Christian education which follows the teachings of the Bible?

Finally, I would urge the TLRI to give due consideration to the recent Bell v. Tavistock case, decided by the High Court in the United Kingdom.  This case illustrates the harm that may occur when children and young people are pushed towards gender transitioning.  Furthermore, it opens up the question of whether a government adopting SOGI conversion legislation might be held liable under similar circumstances.            

5.0 Conclusion

Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to discussions around this potential legislation. 

Let me conclude by reassuring you that my concern and that of my church community is not to oppress or injure anyone.  We are not motivated by hatred or animus – quite the opposite.  Rather, we sincerely believe that following what the Bible teaches leads to human flourishing.  This is a genuinely held religious belief.  There are many examples of individuals who identified as gay or lesbian, but, when they became Christians, they found a different identity which gave them joy and peace.  They identified with Jesus Christ.  They became disciples of Jesus, committed to following him as Lord in every area of their lives.  You can research some of their stories for yourself:  Sam Allberry, Jackie Hill Perry, Rosaria Butterfield, and Becket Cook.  They did not become Christians because of some extreme form of SOGI conversion practice (like electroshock therapy).  It happened just because someone talked about the Bible with them and prayed with them – and the Holy Spirit worked through that to change their lives.  That is simply what we aim to do in our church.  In other words, we strive to carry on in the historic Christian tradition as Reformed Christians have done for centuries.

If you so desire, I would welcome the opportunity to add to this submission in person or in writing.    

Submitted respectfully this 17th day of December, 2020

Rev. Dr. Wes Bredenhof

Free Reformed Church of Launceston


[1] https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/introduction-sexuality-and-gender


The Domino Theory

A few weeks ago I visited the new Western Australia museum in Perth.  One of the exhibits was about Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War.  There was a section explaining the Domino Theory.  The display had large, physical dominoes which visitors were invited to knock over to see the idea in action.  Every time someone would knock over the dominoes it’d make a loud noise reverberating through the gallery.  There was no quiet way to knock over those dominoes.

The idea of “the Domino Theory” was that if South Vietnam fell to the Communists from the North, soon communism would spread unchecked throughout other countries in Southeast Asia.  South Vietnam would be the first domino to fall and then it would knock down all the other dominoes in turn.  It appears that the Domino Theory was wrong, because South Vietnam did fall in 1975, but communism didn’t spread to every other country in the region.  The display in the WA Museum made the point with a question:  “Did the Domino Theory prove to be correct?”  The real point being, of course, that Western countries like the US and Australia went to war on a flimsy pretext.      

That’s just bad history.  We don’t know what would have happened if there’d been no Western involvement in Vietnam.  We do know that communism is a missionary cause – it’s inherently expansionistic, it wants to grow and spread.  Perhaps the lengthy involvement of the US and Australia and other countries actually prevented the domino effect, even if they didn’t stop the North Vietnamese.  Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first Prime Minister, had another plausible explanation.  He argued that Western intervention gave time for other Southeast Asian countries “to consolidate and engage in economic growth.”  Such growth was inhospitable to communism.  The Domino Theory may have been at least partly a valid reason for war after all.

For several decades, we’ve been in a different type of war.  This war also involves dominoes.  This war involves a cause that’s inherently expansionistic.  It’s a war for hearts and minds, but it has far wider consequences.  It’s the Sexual Revolution, especially as it pertains to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) issues.

The strategy of the SOGI “warriors” has been incremental.  They’ve patiently taken one slow step at a time.  The dominoes haven’t fallen in rapid succession, but in slow motion. 

In about 1995, I remember attending a town-hall meeting in Edmonton, Alberta with our MP, David Kilgour.  Kilgour, a member of the ruling Liberal Party, professed to be a Christian.  This town-hall meeting was to discuss proposed federal legislation which would grant benefits to the partners of government employees in same-sex relationships.  The building was packed for this meeting.  Many people spoke, most of whom were opposed to the legislation.  Some raised the possibility that this was a step towards formal government recognition of same-sex relationships, and maybe even same-sex marriage.  At the end of the evening, Kilgour spoke to the crowd.  He said that he appreciated hearing everyone’s concerns, then he added an assurance that this wasn’t going to lead to further developments.  He was wrong.  I knew he was wrong. 

How did I know that?  Because the SOGI warriors told me.  Their goal was never simply indifference.  That was just the first step.  Their goal was never simply toleration.  That was the next domino to fall.  The SOGI warriors’ goal was never even simply acceptance.  Their stated goal from the beginning of the Sexual Revolution has always been universal affirmation and celebration.  Every knee must bow to the Revolution. 

Today we’re in the last stage of this war.  In most of the culture around us, the last domino has already fallen.  Woe to the city hall that doesn’t fly a rainbow flag during Pride Week.  Woe to the politicians who refuse to march in Pride Parades.  Affirmation and celebration are now virtually mandatory.  It’s like a replay of the scene in Daniel 3 with Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image.  When the music played, everyone was required to bow in reverent worship. There’d be fiery consequences for those who didn’t. 

Just like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, Bible-believing Christians today are the holdouts.  Sadly, many so-called Christians have bowed the knee in affirmation and celebration.  They’ve fallen.  But true Christians haven’t and never will.  We can’t, no matter what they threaten us with.  Our ultimate commitment is to the true God.  This true God promises that his people will not fall like so many dominoes:  “To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy…” (Jude 24).  In the meantime, our calling is to hold the line and fight with the only weapon we have:  the Word of God.  Against this expansionistic missionary movement, we need to keep on sharing the real gospel of Jesus which can truly change lives, and ultimately even cultures.