Preston Sprinkle, Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender, and Exiles in Baylon Conference.
by Jared Moore, April 2024
What Does Preston Sprinkle Teach and Believe at his Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender and Exiles in Babylone Conferences?
Here are quotes from Sprinkle:
"I’m actually pro-gay. I’m pro-gay in the sense that I am for gay people, and I want God’s best for them and believe they can fully follow and honor God while being gay."1
"Given their destructive potential, mixed-orientation marriages are rarely viewed as an option for people who are same-sex attracted (or gay)."2
"Jesus wants more trans* and dysphoric people in His church, not less. So should we."3
"...someone could use a trans* identity label and still believe that Jesus reigns supreme in their life.”3
"We can acknowledge that many of the elements that draw people to polyamory—deep relationships, care for others, hospitality, and community—are good things."4 HT: @EvangelicalDW
"Trans* people are needed in the church. The church will look more like Jesus if it has more trans* people in it, not fewer....many trans* people are already following Jesus more faithfully, more passionately, more consistently, more boldly than other non-trans* Christians"3
Response to quote: this quote seems like a slam-dunk gotcha, right? But what's that asterisk there? In the document, Sprinkle explains: "I will use the phrase trans* people as an umbrella description of both people who identify as transgender (among other identities) and people who experience gender dysphoria but don’t identify as transgender. When I attach an asterisk to trans*, this indicates that I’m using it as a broad umbrella term that includes identities such as transgender, non-binary, gender fluid, agender, pangender, genderqueer, and many others." [emphasis added]
So, for anyone who objects to this quote, Sprinkle has a fig leaf to fall back on: "Don't you agree that people who experience gender dysphoria but don't identify as transgender can be faithful disciples of Jesus?" The answer, of course, is yes. But by anchoring himself with that truism, he has also smuggled in the idea of "transitioned" and non-desisting "trans* people" who are more faithful than the prayer warrior grandma who's been married for 63 years.
The asterisk'd term carries both meanings, so the trans-affirming camp can celebrate the statement Adam quoted, and the pro-repentance camp can be chastised for objecting to it. Toxic nuance equivocates and injects unnecessary confusion to destabilize conservative opposition.
I don't go after Sprinkle all that much, but I don't think we have a mandate to treat him as operating in good faith. His SOP is to treat contradictory positions as non-contradictory, always in service of a trajectory that undermines orthodoxy.
For example, in the same document, he declares, "I do believe that one long-term goal of discipleship is for all believers to identify with their biological sex." Wonderful! It looks like he agrees with the biblical position! However, when he gets into the nuance of what that looks like for people in different situations, he says some churches might not require detransition as a step in discipleship. He presents this as a viable, faithful, biblical option.
"[S]ome churches might not say detransitioning is necessary for discipleship. Again, we’re dealing with a lot of grey here. Most churches wouldn’t require a divorced couple who joined the church to remarry one another. We’d typically leave this decision to the couple and support them whether they remarry or remain divorced. The analogy is imperfect—as all analogies
are—but it does illustrate the principle that sometimes it might be okay for a person to 'remain as they are.'"
That quotation ends with a footnote, which reads:
The phrase “remain as you are” comes from Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 7:20-24, where he instructs the Corinthian believers to remain in their circumstances when they become believers. These circumstances include circumcised/uncircumcised, married/unmarried, and slave/free...[S]lavery still indicates ownership of one human by another, a circumstance that Paul himself elsewhere describes as falling short of God’s ideal (1 Cor. 7:23; Philemon). The point is that sometimes Christians can “remain as they are,” even if “as they are” might not be ideal. I can see a valid argument, then, for concluding that people are not always ethically obligated to change their current situation, even if it is less than ideal or does not reflect God’s design. [emphasis added]
So, we have an ideal, but not everyone will live up to it, and not all churches will require it. The bottom line is that the "ideal" of obedience is optional.
If you apply "remain as you are" to examples besides his silly divorce scenario, you'll see the problem: "Most churches wouldn’t require a thief who joined the church to return what he has stolen." "Most churches wouldn't require a Hindu who joined the church to dispose of his household gods."
Earlier in the document, Sprinkle carefully maps the difference between social, hormonal, and medical transitions. So, in his allowance for "remain as you are," most people would understand that a person who has had "bottom surgery" cannot reverse that action if they detransition. But here's our toxic nuance. Lumped in with that truism (surgical detransitioners will have a more challenging time presenting themselves as their created sex) is an obstacle to requiring social detransition (particularly desisting from using cross-sex names and pronouns) for church membership.
So, while Sprinkle says out of one side of his mouth that people *should* identify with the sex God assigned to them, he instructs that churches can tolerate people who profess faith but insist on disagreeing with God on their sex. He would never go so far as to say churches should accept it because it'd be easier to press him on it, but he does if you chase him down to the ends of his footnotes. Not. Have. ANY. Problem. With. It.
Toxic nuance. Many words are designed to destabilize your opposition to subversive positions. They are designed to soothe you and convince you that churches can hold contradictory positions without abandoning the orthodox position and surrendering to the subversive position over time.
So, ultimately, the quote above is as bad as you think. Just don't fall into the trap of freaking out about it just by itself. Sprinkle gets to jump in with his spiel of, "Well, actually, you're just being reactionary, and I'm being extremely reasonable if you look at X+Y context," while leaving out the Z of context in the footnote that proves it means precisely what you thought.
“Trans* people are needed in the church. The church will look more like Jesus if it has more trans* people in it, not fewer. Many trans* people are already following Jesus more faithfully/passionately/consistently/boldly than other non-trans* Christians.” From Woke Preacher Clips
A summary of Preston Sprinkle’s heresies:
• “Being gay” is not sin.
• “Being trans” is not sin.
• “Gay Christians” and “trans-Christians” can fully follow and honor God while being “gay” or “trans.”
• The church can learn from “gay Christians.”
• The church can learn from “trans-Christians.”
• Christians do not have to repent of “being gay” or “being trans.”
• Gay can be good.
• Trans can be good.
(Direct Quotes and Sources below)
Preston Sprinkle claims that Same-Sex Attraction "includes a virtuous desire to be intimate—in the David and Jonathan, or Jesus and John sense of the phrase—with people of the same sex."
How is this not blasphemy?
Preston twists Scripture to praise sin. “Gay Christian men” in no way, shape, or form desire godliness because of their “same-sex attractions.” They desire the opposite of Jesus and John, and Jonathan and David. What Preston is teaching is that men looking at other men the way that Eve looked at Adam is virtuous. He’s praising effeminacy.
Sprinkle writes,
“Being same-sex attracted includes a wealth of other quite virtuous emotions and desires toward members of the same sex; it cannot be narrowly and ignorantly reduced to a volcanic hunger for sex. SSA includes a desire for conversational intimacy, same-sex physical touch, emotional bonds, companionship, doing life together, and expressing mutual affection toward members of the same sex. And if all of this sounds ‘gay’ to you, then David and Jonathan really were gay, since I’m alluding to 1-2 Samuel…
SSA includes a virtuous desire to be intimate—in the David and Jonathan, or Jesus and John sense of the phrase—with people of the same sex…
Maybe, just maybe, straight men can learn a good deal from gay Christian men about what it means to be a Christian man, who can say to each other, as David said, ‘your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women’ (2 Sam 1:26).”
SOURCE: Preston Sprinkle, "Is Same-Sex Attraction Sinful?" theologyintheraw.com/is-same-sex-at…
1)"Same-sex attraction is a sinless temptation, and only a sin if you act on it?" (Preston said this was accurate)
2) "People who experience same-sex attraction are actually gay-Christians called to life-long celibacy?"
My summary response:
By Preston arguing that a Christian who "experiences same-sex attraction" "is gay" ontologically and that this person can never act on his ontology, he's arguing that they're called to life-long celibacy, that is, never acting on their "gayness." His heresy is in teaching that same-sex attraction is who a person is and in arguing that same-sex attraction is not sin.
Quote from Preston:
"Some conservative Christians say that “being gay is a sin.” But when they say “gay,” they typically mean sexual lust, gay sex, and affirming same-sex marriage. Again, however, the term gay simply means “attracted to people of the same-sex” and doesn’t have to include details about a person’s sex life or views about marriage. This means that being gay is not in itself a sin, since same-sex attraction is not itself a sin. Many of my gay friends are committed to celibacy because they love the Bible—yet they’re still gay. Some of my gay friends are married to people of the opposite sex (often called a “mixed-orientation marriage”) and believe in a traditional Christian sexual ethic, and they still identify as gay. Are they in sin for “being gay?” How are they sinning.” I can’t tell you how many people have been damaged by the statement, “Being gay is a sin.” A kid comes out to her parents and says she’s gay, and her parents flip out and accuse her of living in sin—just because she said she’s gay. Sticks and stones will certainly break your bones, but words used wrongly will crush your soul. If same-sex attraction is not a sin, and gay means “to be attracted to the same sex,” then being gay itself is not a sin" (27-28).a
My response:
The damage done to a kid who "comes out" is not due to the parent calling same-sex attraction a sin; it's the damage from people like Preston who tell the kid "being gay" is who she is. If the kid saw her same-sex attractions as particular instances of sinful desire rather than "who she is," she wouldn't be in despair. The parent could point her to Christ to be cleansed completely. But, instead, Preston sends such a kid to the mirror to self-justify, saying, "I'm gay," "but I'm not sinning in my heart," and "My homosexuality can be sanctified" rather than teaching her that her homosexual desires can be forgiven and changed in Christ. After all, the Bible never says anyone is born "gay" or "trans," but rather, men and women exchanged the natural use of the man or woman in Romans 1:24-27. They were not ontologically different than any other men or women; they just chose to walk in sin.
Quote from Preston:
"And since same-sex attraction (i.e., being gay) itself is not a sin, I’m not anti-gay. I’m actually pro-gay. I’m pro-gay in the sense that I am for gay people, and I want God’s best for them and believe they can fully follow and honor God while being gay. Because same-sex attraction (being gay) itself is not a sin” (29).a
My Response:
If Preston is "pro-gay" and believes that "'gay people' can fully follow God and honor God while being gay," then how does he not argue exactly what Rosaria said, "People who experience same-sex attraction are actually gay-Christians called to life-long celibacy?" And why would a Christian ever repent of same-sex attractions if they are "pro-gay?"
In a "Pastoral Paper" on Preston's ministry's website, Nate Collins and Gregory Coles, two "gay Christians," argue,
"...recognizing that same-sex orientation is not a sin will free sexual minorities within our congregations from the burden of unnecessary guilt and shame. Same-sex-oriented Christians have often been told that they are in sin merely for being gay—even if they remain sexually pure. This false accusation weighs people down with an unbearably heavy load, demanding that they cannot truly experience the love of God unless they also experience a change in sexual orientation. By recognizing that no orientation is more or less inherently sinful than another, we become equipped to truly preach the gospel to sexual minorities—a gospel in which all are equally invited on the dangerous journey of self-denial and obedience to Christ."b
My response:
First, there is no such thing as a "sexual minority" because there is nothing ontologically different in a person God created, male or female, who has same-sex attractions. They're still male or female, not some other thing.
Second, biblically, only God’s design is good (Gen 1, 2:18-25). Evil attractions or desires, what the apostle Paul calls the flesh (Rom 7:7-25, Gal 5:16-24), cannot be sanctified because they are morally culpable sin. We must turn from the flesh and walk in the Spirit, for the flesh is opposed to the Spirit. The flesh is not good or neutral. Moses tells us that God forgives iniquity (Ex 34:6-9), a twisted or bent character against God. Sprinkle and his ministries teach you do not need forgiveness for bent sexuality against God. Jesus says we must love God with our hearts, souls, and minds, and our neighbors as ourselves (Matt 22:37-39). Gay attractions come from the flesh, not the Spirit. They do not love God or our neighbor, nor can they. Instead, they are contrary to God’s design of us as male or female; they hate God and our neighbor (Gen 2:18-25). All sexuality was designed for marriage according to Genesis 2:18-25. And sexuality cannot be separated from God’s design of us as male or female, but that’s precisely what Sprinkle does when his ministry refers to “being gay. This is not a “sexual orientation,” not ontology; rather, "same-sex attraction" is pathological sin-pattern that, in the power of the Holy Spirit, can be repented from; and can be healed by God through repentance and faith in Christ. If you never talk to a “gay Christian” and only read the Bible, you’ll come away believing that God can save and transform anyone from any sin. But, if you practice anthropology, the study of human feelings, like Nate Collins, Gregory Coles, and Preston Sprinkle do, and submit to personal experience as equally authoritative as the Bible, you come away teaching what these men have argued.
3) "People who experience same-sex attraction rarely, if ever, change, and therefore, should never pursue heterosexual marriage."
My Summary Response:
Preston says that people who have same-sex attraction rarely, if ever, change. And, because he believes they rarely change, he teaches something called "mixed-orientation marriages," rather than heterosexual marriage, for "same-sex attracted Christians." But he even views "mixed-orientation marriages" as a rare option. In other words, in you are always "gay," and you marry an opposite-sex person, you're still not in a "heterosexual marriage," according to Sprinkle; therefore, he does not teach that a "gay Christian" must pursue or even can pursue heterosexual marriage, since he or she is "homosexual." At best, a "gay Christian" can pursue a "mixed-orientation marriage," according to Sprinkle.
Quote from Preston:
"A “mixed-orientation marriage” is where one spouse is straight while the other opposite-sex spouse is attracted to the same sex. History has seen many such marriages end in much pain and confusion—especially if kids are involved. Given their destructive potential, mixed-orientation marriages are rarely viewed as an option for same-sex people attracted (or gay).”c
4) "Sex and gender are different, and God doesn't care if men live as men or if women live as women because all you need to do is grow in the fruit of the Spirit as if the fruit of the Holy Spirit can grow from sin."
My Summary Response:
Preston advocates for pronoun hospitality, encouraging Christians to use the preferred pronouns of those they interact with. He also permits Christians to write for his ministry and to speak at his conference, posting pronouns in their bios on Twitter. To permit "exercising pronoun hospitality" is to separate sex from gender, as if someone can self-identify contrary to his or her biological sex.
Quote from Preston:
"Trans* people are needed in the church. The church will look more like Jesus if it has more trans* people in it, not fewer. Jesus loves and values such people and wants to be in a relationship with them” (1).d
My response:
Does this not sound like what Rosaria said? If the church "will look more like Jesus if it has more trans* people in it, not fewer," doesn't that sound like Preston argues that "God doesn't care if men live as men or if women live as women, because all you need to do is grow in the fruit of the Spirit, as if the fruit of the Holy Spirit can grow from sin"? A trans person, in his heart, is not living as a man. I mean, imagine saying the same thing about any other sin. And that's the issue. Preston does not believe "being trans*" in your heart is sin. Imagine saying, "The church will look more like Jesus if it has more murderous people in it, not fewer." "The church will look more like Jesus if it has more racist people in it, not fewer," or any other sin. It's preposterous. He's treating trans desires as different than all other sin, though all sin comes from the same place, the heart, according to Jesus (Mark 7:20-23).
Quotes from Preston:
“What does it mean for a trans* person to live as a follower of Jesus? First of all—and I can’t say this loudly enough—many trans* people are already following Jesus more faithfully, more passionately, more consistently, more boldly than other non-trans* Christians" (1).d
"The fact that so many Christians with dysphoria are still pursuing Christ—in the face of ridicule, misunderstanding, or deafening silence about their
existence—should send non-trans* Christians to their knees asking God for the same spiritual power and resilience. Jesus wants more trans* and dysphoric people in His church, not less. So should we” (7).d
My response:
Again, this clearly sounds like Preston is saying that trans* people are godly examples to follow, even arguing that Jesus wants more of them in His church, not less. This, at the very least, implies exactly what Rosaria said. Preston teaches that "God doesn't care if men live as men or if women live as women, because all you need to do is grow in the fruit of the Spirit, as if the fruit of the Holy Spirit can grow from sin."
Quote from Preston:
“Experiencing gender dysphoria is not a sin. That is, feeling an unwanted sense of distress over your biological sex is not a sin; it is not a sin to suffer from a psychological condition. What we do with this experience could lead to sin, but the experience itself is not sin. I see no biblical reason for withholding membership, baptism, or other church practices from someone simply because they experience gender dysphoria. If someone is suffering from severe dysphoria, it may not be wise for them to serve in a leadership position, both for their own health and for the health of the congregation. (This goes for any aspiring leader, trans* or otherwise, who is suffering from severe psychological distress.) However, this kind of decision should never be made on ethical grounds. We should never give the impression that a person with dysphoria is morally unfit for leadership merely by virtue of their dysphoria” (7).d
My response:
Preston confuses medical with moral. If gender dysphoria is merely a psychological condition, then it is not morally culpable in either desire or action. It's like Alzheimer's in that way. And it's not a sin to act on one's Alzheimer's. But that's not what Preston says. He wants Christians to treat gender dysphoria in one's heart like a disease or birth defect but then tells the Christians they can't act on it, which reveals that it's not a disease, sickness, or birth defect. Again, he's directly saying that God doesn't care if you desire to be the opposite sex in your heart.
Quote from Preston:
“If Jesus were a pastor today, I suspect he’d have loads of trans* people attending his church. Do they want to attend yours” (13)?d
My response:
No. Jesus wouldn't have "loads of trans* people" attending His church because the unrepentant did not continue following Jesus. The unrepentant crucified Him.
Quote from Preston:
“Pronouns. Godly Christians dispute whether Christians should use the pronouns that trans* people choose for themselves. For instance, some say that calling a biological male “she” (or vice versa) is lying and affirming a person’s inaccurate view of themselves. Others, however, say that using a person’s pronouns can be an act of Christian hospitality and love.__ Having wrestled with this issue, our church leaders believe that using someone’s pronouns can be hospitable. For some people with gender dysphoria, hearing certain pronouns can trigger their dysphoria and ignite feelings of self-hatred, even leading to self-harm or suicidal thoughts. While one goal of discipleship for a person with gender dysphoria is learning to accept their biological sex, this can be a prolonged and imperfect journey. We believe using someone’s pronouns can be an act of relational love that opens up opportunities for other believers to come alongside trans* people in their journey” (26).d
My Response:
In order to use someone's preferred pronouns, you have to accept their separation of sex from gender, which is what Rosaria said Preston's ministry argued.
Quote from Preston:
“Identities. People identify as trans* (including transgender, nonbinary, and other identities) for various reasons, and we do not feel that using these terms is intrinsically sinful. Our family believes that our primary, ultimate, and all-controlling identity is “in Christ.” We are followers of Jesus, forgiven sinners deemed saints, adopted children of God who are lovers of neighbor and enemy alike. And yet, as diverse children of God, we all have various experiences in life, and sometimes terms can act as shorthand descriptors of our unique experiences. Consider this imperfect analogy: Going through a divorce can significantly shape a person’s life. If this person says, “I am divorced,” they don’t necessarily see their entire existence and identity as centered on their divorce. This label is a shorthand descriptor of a significant aspect of their life. Similarly, someone might say, “I am trans*” and mean simply, “I experience gender dysphoria” or “I don’t resonate with gender stereotypes of masculinity and femininity.” In short, we believe that someone could use a trans* identity label and still believe that Jesus reigns supreme in their life” (26).d
My Response:
No. You cannot use a "trans identity label" and also believe that Jesus reigns supreme in your life. A trans-identity label is inherently sinful. It's a result of the Fall. It would not exist without sin entering the world, and it would not exist in the new heavens and new earth. It cannot be justified. It's sin for a Christian to use a "trans identity label."
My Final Response:
By Preston arguing that "being gay" is not a sin, and by saying that he is "pro-gay," he is telling men and women that they do not have to live according to God, making them male or female in their hearts. Because about the most effeminate thing a man can do is to "be attracted to another man." For a man to be attracted to another man, he has to look at men the way that Eve looked at Adam. And Eve is a woman. Therefore, in teaching that men and women do not have to live according to their God-designed sexuality, as male or female in their hearts, that they can actually desire the same sex in their hearts. It's not sin; Preston teaches exactly what Rosaria said he is, "God doesn't care if men live as men or if women live as women, because all you need to do is grow in the fruit of the Spirit as if the fruit of the Holy Spirit can grow from sin."
Preston Sprinkle, not Rosaria, should publicly repent. For Preston, his ministry, The Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, and his conference, Exiles in Babylon, are teaching heresy.
SOURCES:
Sources:
1) Preston Sprinkle, "Grace//Truth 1.0: Five Conversations Every Thoughtful Christian Should Have About Faith, Sexuality, and Gender," centerforfaith.com/sites/default/…
2) Preston Sprinkle, "What is a Mixed-Orientation Marriage?" theologyintheraw.com/what-is-a-mixe…
3) Preston Sprinkle, "GUIDANCE FOR CHURCHES ON MEMBERSHIP, BAPTISM, COMMUNION, SERVICE, AND LEADERSHIP FOR TRANS* PEOPLE," centerforfaith.com/sites/default/…
4) centerforfaith.com/blog/a-respons…@PrestonSprinkle
a) Preston Sprinkle, "Grace//Truth 1.0: Five Conversations Every Thoughtful Christian Should Have About Faith, Sexuality, and Gender,"
b) Nate Collins & Gregory Coles, "IS SAME-SEX ATTRACTION (OR “BEING GAY”) A SIN?,"
c) Preston Sprinkle, "What is a Mixed-Orientation Marriage?"
d) Preston Sprinkle, "GUIDANCE FOR CHURCHES ON MEMBERSHIP, BAPTISM, COMMUNION, SERVICE, AND LEADERSHIP FOR TRANS* PEOPLE,"
