Begging to Differ

Alistair Begg has been a faithful minister of the gospel and pastor for nearly 50 years, 40 of which he has served at the same church near Cleveland, Ohio.[1] Begg also started a popular radio ministry called Truth for Life[2]. His ministry has been influential for the gospel and discipleship of the church for decades. Begg’s thick Scottish accent and fatherly tone has been a mainstay in evangelical homes and an encouragement to fellow churches throughout his ministry. He connects with his congregation and is one of a few popular preachers that can connect with people through a screen or on the radio in a deeply personal and encouraging manner. His loving disposition and fealty to the truth of scripture in the face of cultural rot has been a bulwark against the theological incursion of progressivism in America.

This is why his most recent comments the Truth for Life radio program came as shocking and concerning for many across the nation.[3] The reactions came fast and furious from the evangelical community. Well known Christian theologians such as Owen Strachan,[4] John MacArthur[5], Doug Wilson pulled no punches in their rebuke of the 71-year-old pastor. A transcript of the pertinent section of Begg’s comments on the radio program reads as follows:

I know that we field questions all the time that go along the lines of,

‘my grandson is about to be married to a transgender person and I don’t know what to do about this and I’m calling to ask you to tell me what to do.’

Which is a huge responsibility… A conversation like that just a few days ago. And people may not like this answer but I asked the grandmother]:

‘Does your grandson understand your belief in Jesus?’

‘Yes.’

‘Does your grandson understand that your belief in Jesus makes it such that you can’t countenance in any affirming way the choices that he has made in life?’

‘Yes’

‘Well, as long as he knows that then I suggest that you go to the ceremony, and I suggest that you buy them a gift.’

She was caught off guard.

And here’s the thing, your love for them may catch them off guard but your absence will simply reinforce that fact that these people are what I always thought. Judgemental, critical, unprepared to countenance anything…

And it is fine line isn’t it? It really is. And people need to work out their salvation in fear and trembling.

I saw numerous responses to this advice that expressed vitriol and hatred toward a man of faith and strong service to the church over many decades. In fact, so much anger and frustration that I thought what he said must have surely been tantamount to blasphemy.

A few days ago Begg came out with a response to these criticisms at the end of a message to his church. He responded not to repent but to seek to explain his advice, and to encourage those who sharply critiqued it to see what he considered as a gospel centered perspective. [6]

I think his posture of a humble but stalwart heart in the face of difficult and consistent criticism regarding a one minute snippet on a radio program admirable. Whether it admirable or not the question ought to be asked, was he correct in his advice? That’s a bit more difficult to answer than a simple yes or no.

I think his reasoning boiled down to this statement from the snippet linked in the notes:

“How do you express the love of Jesus and do so in a way that doesn’t compromise everything?”

Begg seems to be wrestling with what it means to love people well in these perilous times. And he is not alone. Perhaps many of us struggle with the same things. How do I show someone love and hold onto my Christian convictions (see Of Truth and Empathy)? As Begg says in his explanation, what happens when the:

“Principle of holy living comes up against the principle of loving your enemy, how are you going to put that together?”

Those that came out to sharply criticize Begg here are, perhaps, guilty of not allowing themselves to sit in the tension of these two commands. As Christians we need to sit in that tension consistently. To embrace that we must love but uphold holiness and have nothing to do with the deeds of darkness but, instead, expose them for what they are (Ephesians 5). It is a tightrope to walk but we must seek the Holy Spirit and search the scriptures to walk it well.

To complicate things, our reactionary culture makes it nearly impossible for us to take a step back and analyze the heart of the issue. We must publicize our takes, especially our grievances, at the drop of a hat. Our X feeds, Facebook posts and Instagram reels must be made to capitalize off of the controversy. Nuance is turned into a dirty word, and the most critical responses are amplified.

That said, there is also a time for a well thought out response to such statements. As the controversy swirls among evangelical circles we can ask, “who is right?” And, we can, at least normally, find clarity amidst the hubbub.

One of the ways to find clarity in this situation is to let Alistair speak for himself. I saw many people saying that Begg, “Counsels people to attend gay weddings” [7] when he did nothing of the sort.

Pastor Begg is sure to ask this grandmother a few clarifying questions, and these questions are important in understanding both Begg’s true beliefs on gay marriage (something he has been unequivocal about in the past[8]) and whether a Christian should tacitly affirm a marriage of this sort by attending.

At the heart of Begg’s position stands a quote from a previous sermon that he reiterated recently in his response to this “storm in a tea-cup” as he calls it. Begg says that the two options given to Christians by society in the LGBTQ+ sphere is either reviling or affirming. Begg says that the Christian cannot do either one, and for the same reasons. We cannot revile the Homosexual because of the Bible and we cannot affirm the Homosexual because of the Bible. He exemplifies this tension in his response to the grandmother on his radio program. Note that Begg is sure to ask the woman two clarifying questions:

Does your grandson understand your belief in Jesus?
Does your grandson understand that your belief in Jesus makes it so that you can’t countenance in any affirming way the choices that he has made in his life?

People responding to Begg’s advice conveniently seem to leave out these two questions. They are important in understanding his response. It seems that, in Begg’s mind, attendance to a homosexual “wedding” could be seen as a tacit endorsement of said union, but, if the couple in question know of your position prior to the ceremony and they know that you are not endorsing their union by attending but choosing to extend love and grace to them even while they commit what you think is a grave sin then it is not simply okay to attend but good to do so.

Begg is trying to offer a grandmother a way to stand up for her convictions while maintaining a connection to her grandson. His goal is evangelistic. Do not close the relationship due to your correct convictions but try to thread the needle to maintain a possibility of reconciliation and, perhaps, spiritual awakening.

In the same snippet Begg says:

“We are to treat with honor those who view us with hatred.”

Again, Begg is correct here, but the issue at hand is not whether we should honor or love those that hate us or live as enemies of the gospel (something Begg says the grandson is, indeed, doing). The question is, what does honor and love look like in those situations?

On its face Begg’s response sounds an awful lot like Andy Stanley’s admonition to the church to sacrifice clarity for compassion and to err on the side of compassion rather than the side of admonition and I believe it is this similarity that caused such a rapid and vehement reaction. But Begg’s position is closer to orthodoxy than Stanley’s (see: The Curious Case of Andy Stanley). Begg is not equivocating as some might think, he is maintaining a consistent position on sin, willing to call the act a sin, and even willing to say attending a homosexual or transgender wedding could be sinful. In fact, he said that in a different circumstance with a different person his advice might be different.

Begg’s position clearly, in my opinion, hinges on the willingness of the grandmother to be honest about her convictions with her grandson so much so that even if she attends the wedding with a gift the grandson would not see her attendance as an endorsement or affirmation of his lifestyle but a sacrifice on her part in order to maintain some sort of connection with him.

I believe this is admirable and I certainly understand Begg’s pastoral heart and reasoning in that regard. In fact, I remember having a similar conversation with a pastor friend of mine about whether or not it is a sin to attend a homosexual or transgender wedding. But I believe the fundamental flaw in Begg’s reasoning is that he is viewing the ceremony as an event rather than an act of worship.

When viewing the ceremony as an event we might be able to make comparisons to Romans 14. Perhaps it is a matter of conscience for the individual just as eating meat sacrificed to idols was a matter of conscience in the first century. However, I believe this misses the point and, I believe, to some extent, Begg understands as much. If attending such a wedding was simply a matter of conscience then why the need to inform the parties involved of my moral stance against the wedding? This is where the analogy breaks down and we find that even attending a wedding in this fashion is more akin to attending the actual sacrifice to the idol than it is in simply partaking in the meat that had already been sacrificed. We cannot take part in the worship of the thing! As I wrote in June of 2023 (See: A Biblical Boycott), participation in the worship becomes a tacit endorsement of the worship even if the parties know that we do not stand for their behaviors.

Attending the ceremony does more than hold open the door for a relationship with the grandson, it signals to all in attendance that you are willing to equivocate on your worship of God for the good of your family and relationships, but this is exactly contrary to what Jesus taught (Luke 14:26; Matt 10:34-39). A wedding betwee two men or a transgender and another is no wedding at all and no marriage at all (see: In Defense of Marriage). The ceremony that is supposed to reflect the gospel has been turned into a display of sinful hubris exalting sexuality above all else. Lest one thinks I am singling out LGBTQ+ individuals in this statement, the same holds true for a wrongly divorced person marrying someone else, or a union of people of two different faiths. It does not extend to non-Christian weddings as, even though they are not believers, they are exhibiting the purpose of the marriage covenant in their wedding vows and their desire to be united in love for one lifetime. There is a hollowness to their marriage, but it at least resembles what a true marriage is.

While this is a difficult line to walk, and while I can appreciate Begg’s heart in this matter I would have to disagree with his conclusions and his advice. However, is that to say, like some, that Begg has forfeit the pastorate over this advice? I do not believe that to be the case. While I believe his advice to be wrong and, in a certain sense, antithetical to what scripture teaches I also recognize the general ambiguity of the situation as Begg presented it. That perhaps in this situation, with this particular woman and her particular grandson that, perhaps, this sort of decision could be an opening for the gospel.

And this is where it is important to note that Begg was not giving advice, as a pastor, in general to his congregation but to one woman in a very specific situation. I believe his advice is misguided but I do not question the heart behind it and I do not question his unequivocal stance on the truth either. I have the utmost respect for Begg and his heart, theology, and his ministry. In fact, at one point in time I was close to working for Truth for Life as a writer and, if felt led to do so, would still consider that ministry a viable option for myself if I was afforded the opportunity and was led to pursue it.

In my opinion it is important to call out error when we see it, and while I believe this is an error in judgement likely due to, as Alistair Begg said, allowing his “grandfatherly hat to take over” it is no where near the type of error that deserves sharp rebuke but gentle correction. As Paul told Timothy, “Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father” (1 Timothy 5:1). I hope I have done that here. Alistair Begg is a stalwart of the faith and worthy of our respect and gratitude but on this topic I, unfortunately, beg to differ and pray that Begg sees the error in his advice.