Lmst

Guided By Your Light (Christian Music) = Let this new Christian song bring you closer to God ✝️ - #God #Jesus #TheLord #Praise #ChristianMusic #Bible #Music #Song #YoungChristians #FaithJourney #ChristianCommunity #SpiritualGuidance #EmbracingFaith #GodsLight #BibleStudy #PrayerTime #ChristianWorship #HolySpirit #JesusSaves #ModernWorship #ChristianDiscipleship #PraiseAndWorship #YouthMinistry #DivinePresence #SalvationMessage #SpiritualAwakening - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Theodidacti by Prayer

https://youtu.be/xZuSYi0fENQ

“‘Dear Lord God, I wish to preach in your honor. I wish to speak about you, glorify you, praise your name. Although I can’t do this well of myself, I pray that you may make it good.’”[1]

Introduction

“Thoughts and prayers.” Any day of the week, on any social media website you will see people sending “thoughts and prayers” into tragic situations—either global or local. The sentiment is kind and hints at “emotional solidarity.” As our world becomes increasingly more violent—violence seeming to be our primary form of communication—the sending of “thoughts and prayers” increases. What else can we do but say: hey, I’m praying for and thinking about you during this time. There’s nothing wrong with it.

Until there is. Typing (and speaking) “thoughts and prayer” to those who are suffering and grieving makes us feel like we’ve done something. To some extent, we have; we spoke to and someone’s pain. And even though that dopamine surge feels good, it doesn’t do anything for their pain, and it certainly doesn’t do anything to address the issue. Now, to be gentle here, many of us feel like we can’t do much to overhaul a violent, polarized, and death dealing atmosphere and landscape. Many of us may feel that God needs to step in and set it all straight. Some may feel that our socio-political activity has nothing to do with our faith and so, to be faithful, we opt out of action and lean in to prayer.

Is everything really that helpless and hopeless? I don’t think so. Without jettisoning our orientation toward “thoughts and prayers” we can (maybe!) see that our prayers and thoughts are just the beginning of our socio-political activity in the world to make this place better for our neighbor who is grieving because they have experienced its trauma firsthand. In other words, when we shift our perspective and see prayer as our first step and not our last (ditch) effort, we might find a way to push our activity beyond uttering “thoughts and prayers” and living it in the world to the wellbeing of the neighbor and to the glory of God.

1 Timothy 2:1-7

In Paul’s first letter to Timothy,[2] he begins with an exhortation to prayer (in all its forms), Therefore, first of all things I urge petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings to be made on behalf of all people, on behalf of kings and all the ones being in authority so that we might pass time with a quiet and peaceable life in all piety and respectability (v1-2). Paul centers the life of prayer within the life of the believer. Why is this important[3] for Paul? A few reasons.

First, Paul understands that both Timothy and his flock will come under pressure not only from the opposition of the false teachers in Ephesus (who are antagonistic to Paul’s mission[4]), but that they will also come under fire by the local culture who will demand conformity to its status quo.[5] For Paul, prayer—the whole kit and kaboodle—will help to ground the believers and form and shape their lives, strengthening and uniting them together against these oppositional forces.

Second, the church, for Paul, is to be both missiological and present in their community (despite the opposition). Rather than being compliant to the surrounding socio-political realities by either playing nice through their “thoughts and prayers” for those others in their society[6] or living quietly off the radar bringing no attention to themselves by being good and obedient citizens,[7] Paul sees prayer as a feature of their corporate and private life of worship that will position these believers in the world by bringing the gospel in word and deed and serving their society by means of living out the gospel and it’s law of love.[8] This includes praying for all people; thus the believers cannot pick and choose subjecting themselves to an insular mindset.[9]

Third, prayer is to promote and provoke the believer in conformity to God’s will (which happens in the event of prayer) to be those who are Christ’s representatives and who participate in God’s mission in the world.[10] This means that as they pray for others and (especially) the rulers and those in authority they are praying for a specific outcome that will align with God’s mission in the world in which they participate. This is more than just nice thoughts and kind prayers for these leaders, it’s requesting God’s intervention by power of the Holy Spirit to change the hearts of these leaders and authorities.[11] The believers are to pray that their leaders are able to bring forth such a quiet and peaceable life, respectable and able to be godly; this is not that the believers are to live quietly while falling in with the demands of society and its leaders,[12] it’s about their being able to live according to the ethics of the reign of God within the kingdom of humanity with an eye to overhaul it where needed.[13],[14] This form of prayer, resulting in robust space to participate in God’s mission in the world to the glory of God and the well-being of the neighbor, is vital for the life and praxis of the church in the world and conforms to God’s will for the church’s life and praxis in the world.[15] This is doing church.

And fourth, thanksgiving helps to form those who recall God’s wonderful work in the world and in this way they find their hope in what God will do, giving assurance to their prayers that the God to whom they pray in the name of Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit is the same God who is oriented toward love, life, and liberation, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.[16]

Paul then affirms, This is good and acceptable in the presence of God our savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come into the knowledge of truth (vv3-4). Through prayer and thanksgiving, the believers become formed to the will and mission of God. In this way they can go into the world as Christ’s representatives and bring Christ (thus God) to those in their society.[17] Prayer is so closely linked to God’s mission of salvation that we can see that it’s crucial to the believer’s discipleship formation and causation. Through the humble posture of prayer, the will of the one who prays is conformed to the will of the one to whom they pray. As believers pray for God’s will to be done on earth as in heaven, they are also praying for their will not to be done and to be replaced with God’s will so that they can be active participants in God’s reign coming and God’s name being hallowed. As the believers in Ephesus are conformed to God’s will and move out and work in the world, God’s mission of salvation goes forward in and through them and truth (real truth) is knowable.

Paul then says, For God [is] one, and one mediator [between] God and humanity the person Christ Jesus, the one who gave himself [as a] ransom on behalf of all people, a testimony for the due season, into which I, I was placed [as a] herald and apostle—I speak the truth, I do not lie—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth (vv5-7). According to Paul, all have access to God because God is one,[18] and this one God has a mediator who is Jesus Christ through whom all have access to God.[19] Jesus Christ is the one who liberated (all!) humanity from death by means of his death and resurrection. This is the good news and the very thing believers not only believe but through which they are conformed to God’s will and mission in the world. For Paul, the church is responsible[20] to this person, Jesus Christ, who identified with humanity in its plight; it is also for this person they are to be his representatives in the world and the foundation of their faith and love for God and for others.

Conclusion

[21]Dorothee Sölle’s and Fulbert Steffensky write, in Not Just Yes & Amen, “[God] stands on the side of life and especially on the side of those to whom life in its wholeness is denied and who do not reach the point of real living. He is not on the side of the rulers, the powerful, the rich, the affluent, the victorious. God takes sides with those who need him. He sides with the victims.”[22] Where God sides is the location—the starting point, the continuing point, and the end point—of Christian existence and praxis in the world toward the neighbor to the glory and in the will of God. Thus, Christians are exhorted by their life of Christ and by their own faith to dare to move beyond the deafening silence of “thoughts and prayers,” extend their voices and hands beyond the heartless “yes and amen,” and lay claim to the long dormant divine “No!” This is done not by the believer’s own strength or alone, but by and in the strength of Christ and in the witness of the community witnessing to Christ in the world.

In Romans 13:14, Paul exhorts his audience to “to put on [as clothes] the Lord Jesus Christ and do not allow the flesh provision toward inordinate desires.” Christians are to clothe themselves in Christ, to shed the cloaks and covers of the kingdom of humanity, to shrug off the mythologies of power and privilege peddled by church clerics and state councils aimed toward inoculating Christians against active participation in the world as Christ for the well-being and benefit of the neighbor. To put on Christ is to participate in Christ’s life in this world now as Christ did in his own witness to the love and will of God more than 2000 years ago. This exhortation is echoed in Philippians 2:5, “Let the same mind be in you that is in Christ Jesus…” The believer is to be clothed in and have the same mind as Christ. The inner and outer person is to be aligned to the image of Christ who witnessed to God’s life affirming and liberative love in the world for the oppressed, for the victims. To be as Christ, to be formed—inwardly and outwardly—to the image of Christ comes with comfort and liberty in God by faith, but it also comes with a great burden to be as Christ to the neighbor. As theodidacti[23] through prayer, Christians are summoned to hear the silent cry and to respond by joining the divine revolution of life, love, and liberation for the beloved. Beloved, we pray first, and then we act for the wellbeing of the neighbor and to the glory of God.

[1] LW 54:157-158; Table Talk 1590.

[2] I’m using traditional language for the author of this letter so I can just keep it simple for the audience. I am aware of the debates of authorship and dating.

[3] Towner, Timothy, 165. “If the church has discerned the mandate character of this letter, it understands that Timothy’s task is to ensure that these instructions be implemented.”

[4] Philip Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, TNICNT, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 162. “The context throughout will continue to be that of false teaching and opposition to the Pauline missions.”

[5] Towner, Timothy, 162. “…the church will often still feel the presence of opponents and their teaching activities, and the latter will come up for specific treatment in several place…the local culture is also exerting pressure on community life in a way that causes Paul to intervene forcefully.”

[6] Towner, Timothy, 163. Misconception 1 needing to be addressed, “…the church has often understood the text to lay down a broad commission to pray for all people and for government leaders without really stipulating what direction such prayer ought to take. But the real concern, as close attention to the argument wills how, is for the prayer that supports the church’s universal mission to the world. That is, Paul urges Timothy to instruct the Ephesian church to reengage in an activity it had apparently been neglecting—prayer in support Paul’s own mandate to take the gospel to the whole world.”

[7] Towner, Timothy, 163. Misconception 2: “Dibelius saw this text as introducing the new shape that Christian existence took following the departure of the apostles and as a result of the disappointment over the delay of Christ’s return. In his estimation, prayer for all and for those in authority sought the goal of the quiet and peaceful life—that is, a Christian existence characterized by outward behavior conforming to secular notions of ‘good citizenship.’”

[8] Towner, Timothy, 163. Solution: in Romans 23 (and 1 Peter 2) “There Paul lays down a theology of the church-world dialectical reality in which the church is to find itself in a position of missiological service to society.”

[9] Towner, Timothy, 167. For all people, “to counter a tendency toward insular thinking in the Ephesian Church brought on by an elitist outlook or theology.”

[10] Towner, Timothy, 165. “The theological interests and the universal theme reveal that the prayer practice Paul sought to reinstate in Ephesus had the evangelistic mission to the Gentiles as its target.”

[11] Towner, Timothy, 1623-164 “In our text with its specific evangelistic focus, it may be argued that the church’s commitment to acknowledge the secular power structure and society’s expectations is to be expressed in its payer for salvation and effective political leadership.”

[12] Towner, Timothy, 169. “The two terms (‘quiet and peaceful’) that initially describe this life express the Hellenistic ideal (conveyed variously) of a tranquil life free form the hassles of a turbulent society It is obvious enough that Paul envisions the state with God’ help, as being capable of ensuring the conditions that would make such a life possible.”

[13] Towner, Timothy, 169. “The next phrase, ‘in all godliness and holiness,’ describes this life’s character and observable shape. …Yet when the theological reshaping of these concepts is taken into account, it becomes clear that Paul had others aims—namely, to express the theology of a dynamic Christian ethics by means of the language of the day. This technique would of course ensure intelligibility. But Paul almost certainly intended also to reinvent the language and subvert alternative claims about the nature and source of godliness associated with politics and religious cults in the empire.”

[14] Towner, Timothy, 170. “Prayer for the tranquil setting is prayer for an ideal set of social circumstances in which Christians might give unfettered expression to their faith in observable living. This distinction allows us to place the second prayer (for leaders) into the missiological grid of the passage: the church is to pray for the salvation of ‘all,’ and it participates in that mission by making God present in society in its genuine expression of the new life for all to see.”

[15] Towner, Timothy, 177. “Thus Paul explains that prayer for the salvation of all people, and specific prayer for the effectiveness of the civic powers, conforms to the will of God. It is not simply an optional church practice that pleases God, but a practice as integral to the church’s life with God as was sacrifice in the time before Christ.”

[16] Towner, Timothy, 167. “…thanksgiving not only bolstered confidence by focusing reflection on God’s past responsiveness to petition, but also was an expression of confidence in anticipation of God’s future response…”

[17] Towner, Timothy, 179. “In the Ephesian context of false teaching Paul emphasize that salvation and adherence to the apostolic message are inseparable. God’s will is that all people will commit themselves in faith to the truth about Christ.”

[18] Towner, Timothy, 180.

[19] Towner, Timothy, 180.

[20] Towner, Timothy, 183. “Paul invites the church of Ephesus to view its own location within God’s redemptive story and its responsibilities in relation to the appearance of this ‘human.’”

[21] This portion is taken from my unpublished dissertation (University of Aberdeen, 2024), Leaving Heaven Behind: Paradoxical Identity as the Anchor of Dorothee Sölle’s Theology of Political Resistance.

[22] Soelle and Steffensky, Not Just Yes & Amen, 82.

[23] Martin Luther, Freedom of a Christian

#1Timothy #ChristianDiscipleship #ChristianLife #ChristianPraxis #Church #ChurchInTheWorld #DivineMission #DorotheeSölle #FreedomOfAChristian #FulbertSteffensky #Jesus #Liberation #Life #Love #MartinLuther #PhilipTowner #Prayer #Praying #Thanksgiving #TheDivineMission #Theodidacti #ThoughtsAndPrayers #YesAndAmen

Rev. Brandan Robertson on Queer Theology, Christian Discipleship

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/15

Rev. Brandan Robertson is a queer Christian author, activist, and pastor with a Master of Theological Studies from Iliff School of Theology. A former evangelical, he is now a leading voice in progressive Christianity and inclusive theology. In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Robertson discusses his dual definition of queerness—as identity and resistance—and critiques the misuse of scripture by conservative movements. He advocates for queer hermeneutics, spiritual authenticity, and building “new tables of grace” beyond institutional church walls. Robertson’s theology challenges binary norms and invites LGBTQ+ individuals to reclaim their place within the Christian story.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Rev. Brandan Robertson is a queer Christian author, activist, and pastor known for his work at the intersection of faith, sexuality, and social justice. A former evangelical, he is a prominent advocate for inclusive theology. He has built a significant platform and has been referred to as a leading voice in progressive Christianity. He is the author of several books, including True Inclusion, The Gospel of Inclusion, and Queer and Christian: No Contradiction.

He holds a Master of Theological Studies from Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Colorado, and serves as a spiritual leader, public theologian, and advocate for LGBTQ+ inclusion in the Church. For those reading this internationally or from a United Nations perspective—such as the LGBTI Core Group—it may be useful to note that “LGBTQ+” is the most commonly used terminology in the United States, whereas “LGBTI” is more typical in UN documents.

Through preaching and pastoral work, Robertson seeks to reclaim Christianity as a force for radical love, justice, and liberation—especially for those historically marginalized or excluded by religious institutions. First question: I’ll begin with a spontaneous question, and then move on to the prepared list. How does your dual definition of queer identity and resistance reshape an understanding of Christian discipleship?

Rev. Brandan Robertson: Yes. The way I use the word queer in this book—and the way I’ve used it to describe my own identity for over a decade—is twofold. First, it refers to the umbrella term for the LGBTQ+ community. But second, I draw from thinkers like bell hooks, who describe queerness as a position of resistance to systems of domination and conformity.

We live in a society where we are conditioned to perform certain identities, to wear social masks, and to conform in order to be accepted. But I believe the gospel of Jesus—the core message of the New Testament—is inherently subversive. It challenges political, cultural, and religious pressures to conform and instead invites each person to live authentically, as their true, God-created self.

To follow Jesus, in my understanding, is to die to the false self and rise to new life—to the true self that reflects divine intention. Tragically, the institutional Church in many modern contexts has become the opposite of that vision. As a queer person raised in the Church, I was told I had to repress my sexuality, attempt to become straight, or remain celibate for life. But there is no solid biblical basis for such a mandate, and my book addresses this directly.

More than that, such teachings contradict the very essence of Jesus’s message—one of authenticity, honesty, and what he calls “abundant life.” So to be queer, in a theological sense, is not just an invitation for LGBTQ+ people, but for everyone—to reject imposed conformity, shed societal masks, and live into the fullness of who we are, just as God created us, in all our diversity.

Jacobsen: The Church has a long and varied history of scriptural interpretation. Are there any early or historical Christian movements that reflect the kind of inclusive and liberating vision you are advocating for today? So people do not take this as, “Oh, this is just a modern Christian reconciling their faith with LGBTQ+ concerns,” right?

Robertson: Yes. In one sense, it is absolutely true that this is a modern reconciliation—because the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity, as we understand them today, did not emerge until the late 1800s, when modern psychology began to articulate these as distinct aspects of human identity. It was only then that we began to recognize that people have innate characteristics related to sexuality and gender.

So it is true that for the first fifteen hundred—or perhaps even more—years of Christianity, there was no direct conversation about homosexuality or gender identity in the way we speak about them today.

What did exist were conversations about exploitative sexual acts, such as pederasty or coercive relationships between men, which were common in the ancient world. There were also discussions on prostitution, adultery, and other elements of sexual ethics.

One key point I make in the book—and one that is supported by my PhD-level research in sexuality and theology—is that there has never been a singular, consistent Christian sexual ethic throughout Church history. That in itself is quite fascinating.

Jacobsen: So Christianity has not always maintained a consistent stance on premarital sex?

Robertson: Christianity has not always been anti–premarital sex. As I note in the book, there is not a single verse from Genesis to Revelation that clearly and explicitly condemns all sex outside of marriage. Likewise, when it comes to non-heteronormative sexualities and gender identities, Christianity simply did not address these topics until the modern era.

My historical theory—based on substantial evidence—is that in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, particularly in the United States, there was a deliberate effort by conservative religious and political leaders to mobilize a new political movement. They needed cultural flashpoints to galvanize support, and they chose two highly emotive issues: homosexuality and abortion.

These became defining issues for what would eventually be known as the Religious Right and the modern Republican Party. This emphasis on homosexuality, then, was politically motivated—it did not emerge from serious biblical scholarship or theological inquiry.

In fact, the scholarly consensus is now quite clear: the Bible does not speak about homosexuality as we understand it today. The term itself did not exist. The biblical references often cited are addressing forms of sex that were either exploitative, transactional, or ritualistic—not loving, consensual, same-sex relationships.

So, the larger purpose of the book is to expose this distortion—to show that the emphasis on condemning LGBTQ+ people was a political strategy, not a biblically grounded or theologically sound position.

Jacobsen: As an olive branch, what does the Religious Right—or traditional Christianity—get right?

Robertson: That’s a great question. First, I want to distinguish between the Religious Right and conservative or traditional Christianity. They are not always the same thing.

I do believe that traditional Christianity gets something right in its emphasis on self-control and the ethical boundaries around sexuality—an emphasis rooted in the teachings of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. Paul warns against excess, lust, and indulgence, and while those teachings have often been weaponized, they also offer valuable psychological and ethical insights.

The idea that sexual expression should involve mindfulness, responsibility, and respect is something I affirm in the book. What we saw during the sexual revolution, for instance, was in some cases a complete rejection of any boundaries. But I argue that a healthy sexual ethic—one grounded in self-awareness, integrity, and respect—can coexist with a queer-affirming theology.

We should be mindful and ask ourselves: Is what I am doing loving to myself? Loving to the person I am engaging with? Is it beneficial to us in a meaningful way? Or is this an expression of excessive lust, or an attempt to satisfy a psychological need that could be more appropriately addressed outside of sexual behavior?

In that sense, I will say traditional Christianity gets self-control right. The problem arises when that general biblical principle is extrapolated into an elaborate, rigid system of sexual rules that have no real biblical basis and are often objectively harmful. Many young people leave conservative churches as teenagers or college students precisely because they discover that what they were taught about sex and sexuality does not align with their lived experiences or the realities affirmed by science and psychology.

There is a better way—one where Christian sexual ethics are grounded in compassion, evidence-based insights, and space for discovery and growth. In that model, people are not shamed into conformity but are given grace to explore what a healthy, ethical sexuality looks like for them, free from the burden of unrealistic or harmful dogma.

Jacobsen: How does historical-critical exegesis challenge the so-called “clobber passages” of Genesis and Leviticus?

Robertson: Yes. I address all six of the commonly cited clobber passages—both Old and New Testament—in the book. This is perhaps the most frequent topic I discuss online as well, because most people simply do not understand how radically different sex functioned in the ancient world compared to today.

In antiquity, sex was not primarily about intimacy or mutual love; it was a social act and a marker of hierarchy and status. For instance, if you were a Roman citizen, you could have sex with almost anyone—slaves, women, boys—and it had nothing to do with your sexual orientation. The key factor was dominance and status. Roman men would often have sex with male slaves, not out of desire or love, but as a display of power. These acts were non-consensual, exploitative, and rooted in domination.

This framework is critical to understanding Leviticus. The same goes for the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as references in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy. What is being condemned in all of these passages is not loving, consensual same-sex relationships, but abusive, exploitative sexual behavior—typically between men—within a patriarchal framework.

In such a world, the person who was sexually passive—the one who was penetrated—was seen as being feminized, and thus degraded. This was considered deeply shameful in a society that equated power and masculinity with dominance. So, the moral objection was not against same-sex love—it was against being seen as effeminate or weak, which was abhorrent in patriarchal culture.

From a historical-critical standpoint, I believe the scholarship clearly shows that the Bible is condemning exploitative sex—not loving, equal partnerships. And I agree with those condemnations. I do not believe exploitative or abusive sex is ever moral or good.

But modern readers often lack that historical and cultural context. When they read, for example, “A man shall not lie with a man as with a woman—it is an abomination” in English, they interpret that as a blanket prohibition on gay sex. They do not realize that the original context reflects a vastly different world. That misunderstanding leads many well-meaning Christians to adopt a non-affirming view, simply because they have not had access to this broader, more nuanced understanding.

Jacobsen: How do the biblical figures Ruth and Naomi or David and Jonathan resonate with your own experience?

Robertson: David and Jonathan resonate with me more closely.

On the one hand, I used to resist the idea that we should read queerness into ancient texts. It is, admittedly, a historically complicated thing to do. But when I sat down and read the story of David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel, I realized that there is no way anyone can read the entirety of that story and not at least come away with some suspicion that there is something more intimate happening there.

David and Jonathan speak about each other in ways that are clearly homoerotic. David even says, after Jonathan’s death, “Your love for me was greater than that of women.” When Jonathan is killed, David weeps with a broken heart. At the beginning of their relationship, Jonathan strips off his clothes and armor and gives them to David—an act of deep vulnerability and intimacy—and tells him, essentially, “I want you to be protected because I love you.”

Yes, it is there in the text. What is even more fascinating is that this is not a new interpretation. If you go back and look at Jewish writings from thousands of years ago, there are rabbis who were already wrestling with this story—wondering what exactly is going on between David and Jonathan.

When it comes to Ruth and Naomi, I would not go so far as to say that they were lesbian lovers. The text does not support a definitive claim like that. But what I can say is that the purpose of the Book of Ruth—as even conservative scholars acknowledge—is to emphasize God’s radical inclusivity. Ruth is a Moabite, an outsider. She chooses to leave her own people after her husband dies, and stays with her mother-in-law, Naomi, saying: “Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God.” She makes a covenantal statement of loyalty, love, and belonging to Naomi.

I highlight this story in the book primarily because, over the past fifty years, many lesbian women have found deep meaning in this passage. They see themselves reflected in that relationship, in that devotion. Ultimately, what I want to say about these stories is this: it is historically impossible to prove that anyone in the Bible was straight or gay. Many of these stories are mythic in nature or did not happen in the way they appear in the text.

But the purpose of the Bible is not to be a forensic historical document. It is a sacred text that invites people—of every background—to find themselves in its pages. That’s what conservative churches often preach: “This book is for you.” But queer people have long been denied that same invitation.

There is now a growing lineage of people doing what I have done—reinterpreting Scripture through a queer lens. I wrote this book for a new generation, to say: you are allowed to be creative with the Bible. It is not a static, inerrant rulebook. It is a diverse library of stories filled with wisdom, metaphor, and mystery. You are invited to see yourself reflected in the faces of the saints and prophets of Scripture.

I see myself in David and Jonathan. I invite lesbians to see themselves in Ruth and Naomi. I invite transgender people to see themselves in Jacob, whose identity shifts over the course of his life. There are countless doorways into the text.

And I have seen firsthand how healing it is for queer people to be given permission to interpret the Bible from our perspective.

Jacobsen: Yes. That leads us into the next area. You mentioned queerness, and while you did not explicitly use the term, you were speaking about hermeneutics. So let me pose a neologism: queermeneutics—a fusion of “queer” and “hermeneutics.”

How might this kind of interpretive lens not only help people see themselves within their sacred tradition—especially in Christian scripture—but also enrich the broader field of theological discourse?

Say someone is in graduate school for theological studies. They are looking for tools to generate fresh wisdom in a contemporary context. How does this kind of hermeneutic add to the depth and vitality of Christian interpretive tradition, rather than detract from it?

Robertson: Here’s the thing. When I was an evangelical, I was taught there was only one valid hermeneutic—a literalist hermeneutic. That meant reading the Bible as historically and scientifically true in every detail, forever.

But that rigid, literalist approach is a relatively recent innovation. It has only really taken hold in the last few centuries. Even five hundred years after the Reformation, we can see how theological language and interpretive strategies have continued to evolve.

If you look at how the Church Fathers engaged with Scripture, they approached it allegorically. Early Jewish rabbinic traditions also embraced multilayered readings of sacred texts. There was no single hermeneutical lens that believers were required to use. Rather, Scripture was understood as a rich, dynamic text with many dimensions of meaning.

The queer hermeneutic I explore in my new book is not unprecedented—it is deeply rooted in liberation theology. We see how Black hermeneutics transformed Scripture during the Civil Rights Movement. Many Black leaders in the U.S.—Dr. King being one of them—read the Bible through the lens of the Black experience and persecution in America. For them, the Bible became a subversive document—a source of hope and liberation for the oppressed.

Queer hermeneutics follows in that tradition. It asks: What if this sacred text can speak to us? What if we, too, can find ourselves within it? And more radically, What if the very tools that have been weaponized against us can become tools of our liberation?

Take Paul’s words, for example: “Do not be conformed to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Conservatives interpret that as a call to moral separation from secular culture, even as a justification for marginalizing queer people. But what if Paul is actually inviting us to resist the world’s conformist systems—gender binaries, rigid social roles, and performative identities—and instead embrace the transformation into our authentic selves?

That is what a queer hermeneutic does. It does not assume that the Bible holds some static, inerrant authority on its own. It acknowledges that every reader brings their own experiences, identities, and questions to the text. The authority lies, in part, with the interpreter. And whether people admit it or not, everyone reads the Bible subjectively.

Queer hermeneutics simply makes that process explicit. I am reading the Bible as a queer person—with a clear, unapologetic agenda of liberation. Not just liberation for LGBTQ+ people, but liberation for everyone from the oppressive systems we’ve all inherited.

So I hope that this book will not only affirm queer readers but also invite heterosexual, cisgender readers to approach the Bible more playfully and creatively. That is how many of our ancestors in faith engaged with Scripture. It is only this modern inerrantist lens that has flattened the Bible into a lifeless, rigid text.

Jacobsen: Now, there is a movement—particularly visible in the United States—of people who claim to have “renounced” their homosexuality. It is sometimes labeled the “ex-gay” movement. While versions of it exist in Hispanic and other global contexts, it seems to be especially acute in American religious subcultures.

These individuals often become active expositors and advocates for a conservative, Religious Right agenda. But within that movement, there have also been high-profile cases where people later admitted they were essentially pretending. Would you speak to that?

Robertson: It was a strange kind of business model—essentially, a way of gaining acceptance and even making a career within Religious Right circles. Many of those individuals who were once publicly “ex-gay” have now renounced their renouncing. They’ve come to accept their sexual orientation after years of inner turmoil and public denial.

Jacobsen: What is your commentary on the ex-gay movement?

Robertson: I take a pretty clear—and honestly, probably the only black-and-white—stance in the book on this issue, because I believe it is dangerous. Over the last decade in ministry, I’ve spent a lot of time with individuals who identified as “ex-gay.” I went through conversion therapy myself. I tried to be “ex-gay.”

Every single person I have ever spoken to—no matter how conservative, no matter how deeply embedded in ex-gay rhetoric—has admitted, at some point, that they still experience same-sex attraction or gender-related conflict. Even those who’ve built platforms on their “deliverance” will quietly say, “I still struggle.” To me, that means you’re not ex-gay. You’re just suppressing or denying something intrinsic to your being.

That said, I support personal autonomy. If someone believes, based on their convictions, that the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior, and they choose celibacy or a mixed-orientation marriage, that is their decision. I may not recommend it, but I won’t deny them the right to make that choice or to share their journey.

What I am firmly against is the message that people have been “healed.” That is where real harm begins—especially for LGBTQ+ youth. When they hear these messages and enter conversion therapy, or pray relentlessly for change, and nothing happens—because sexual orientation is largely innate and unchangeable for most people—it leads to deep psychological distress, depression, and even suicidality. That is horrific. It is immoral. It is unethical.

So I state it clearly in the book: I do not believe “ex-gay” people exist in the way that term is used. If someone chooses celibacy or a heterosexual life while still experiencing same-sex attraction, they should say exactly that. Do not say, “God healed me.” Do not say, “Therapy healed me.” Because, based on both anecdotal experience and the research available, that is simply not how sexuality works for the vast majority of people.

Jacobsen: The only nuance is the fluidity of sexuality, which you touched on briefly.

Robertson: That is the one caveat. Sexuality is fluid for some people. So yes, someone might have once lived what we call a “gay lifestyle” and later find themselves in a heterosexual relationship. But from a psychological perspective, that is not evidence of healing or change. It is simply an expression of a broader spectrum of attraction—something more common for bisexual people.

We must acknowledge that without misrepresenting it. So yes, if someone identifies somewhere along the bisexual spectrum, their relational patterns may shift. But that is not a “cure.” That is human fluidity.

God does not want to “heal” you from your sexual orientation or gender identity. Psychology cannot “heal” you either—because I firmly believe these are innate identities, created by God. Any attempt to change them is, in my view, an affront to the Creator who made us as we are.

Jacobsen: I have interviewed one individual who has gone through conversion therapy—an author who underwent it. Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spearheaded legislation to ban conversion therapy in Canada in 2022. It is a discredited pseudoscientific practice that seeks to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The practice has been banned in several countries: Malta (2016), Germany (2020), France (2022), Canada (2022), New Zealand (2022), Iceland (2023), Spain (2023), Mexico (2024), Greece (2024), and Belgium (2024). As of 2025, other nations are expected to follow suit. So—policy, legislation, legality, and psychological science all align with your critique and analysis.

Shifting gears—what do you mean by “new tables of grace” in the context of church reform and community building? As a non-Christian who is sometimes invited into Christian spaces, I recognize this is not my faith tradition to reform. But when issues affect broader culture—such as the ex-gay movement—they become fair ground for critique. Still, internally, this is a Christian matter. So, within that context, how do you define “new tables of grace,” and what is your vision for church reform and queer-led community building?

Robertson: Yes, thank you. This really highlights a division in the broader queer Christian movement in the United States right now. There is a sizable portion of the movement that is focused on reforming traditional Christian denominations—working to make them fully affirming, inclusive, and welcoming of LGBTQ+ people. I was part of that effort for a long time, and I continue to bless and respect that work.

But after a decade of doing this work, both through my experience and what I’ve seen in the lives of others, I came to a realization: queer people are not obligated to squeeze ourselves into existing structures that were never built with us in mind. We have the freedom to innovate—to create new expressions of faith that are authentic to queer experience and queer culture.

We already see this kind of innovation happening across many traditions. For example, there are cultural and ethnic expressions of Christianity—Black churches, Latinx churches, Korean churches—each of which reflects the lived experience of its community. There are also countless denominational variations. What I am advocating is not the creation of “gay churches,” per se—though they do exist, and I love and respect them deeply.

Jacobsen: The reviews do tend to say they’re fabulous.

Robertson: [Laughing] Truly! They are. And that joy and celebration are part of the spiritual power of those spaces.

But what I’m saying is this: many queer people—and many deconstructed people more broadly—are tired of fighting for a seat at a table that was not built for us. We are not interested in begging to be accepted anymore. We’re not here to argue theology every day just to prove our worth. We are ready to build new tables—what I call “new tables of grace”—where we decide the terms, where radical welcome is foundational, not aspirational.

These tables are not just for queer folks. They’re for anyone who has been cast out, burned out, or disillusioned by institutional religion. The vision is expansive: spiritual communities that are inclusive, justice-centered, rooted in love, and unafraid of creativity. They are sacred spaces where we gather not to debate our worth, but to celebrate it.

That is not what our faith is about. So, in the book, my invitation is this: yes, you can go to progressive Christian communities today. The majority of mainline denominations in the United States now affirm LGBTQ+ people. There are churches and spaces—virtually in every city—where queer people can walk in and be fully seen, embraced, and invited to show up in their fullness. These communities are often experimental. They are actively exploring what Christian spirituality might look like in new, vibrant, inclusive ways.

But I also say this: maybe the institution of the Church is not where you will flourish. And that is okay. You do not need to belong to the institutional Church in order to follow Jesus or live a meaningful spiritual life.

I want queer people to know they have permission to step outside of the Church and still live rich spiritual lives. There are new forms of spiritual community taking shape all around us—in culture, in art, in chosen families. For me, literally dancing in a queer bar on a Saturday night can be a transcendent spiritual experience—if I bring that lens to it. In fact, it can be as sacred as any evangelical worship service I attended in my past.

What I am trying to emphasize is this: let’s stop begging for a seat at a table that was never built for us. Let’s build our own table—the one God has already prepared for us. Because the Church does not get to decide who is welcome at God’s table. That table belongs to God, and God alone. And God has already invited all of us.

Jacobsen: We’ll be kicking off in three minutes. Last question—this is probably one you’ve been asked many times. What are your favorite Bible passages? Also, which version do you prefer?

Robertson: I would say the New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition (NRSVue), which came out recently, is currently the most accurate and inclusive English translation. I love it. It also removes language that was inaccurately translated as referring to homosexuality in older versions.

My favorite passage is the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in the Book of Acts. One of the first people baptized into the Christian Church was a first-century sexual and gender minority—an Ethiopian eunuch, a dark-skinned person from a different culture. That was a profound realization for me.

Though it is a brief passage, the story is incredibly powerful. The author of Acts clearly intended to demonstrate that God’s love—through the Jesus movement—was always meant to transcend boundaries. It was meant to dismantle divisions between clean and unclean, insider and outsider. According to the Hebrew Bible, eunuchs were not allowed in the temple. And yet, the Ethiopian eunuch becomes the first person baptized into the Christian Church.

He has traditionally been referred to as Simeon. I like to think of Simeon—the Ethiopian eunuch—as the first queer saint. He represents the radical inclusivity of God’s kingdom. His identity encompasses differences in race, language, culture, gender, and sexuality. It is a stunning and profoundly beautiful moment in Scripture. And, unsurprisingly, I never heard it preached on in any conservative church I attended growing up.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Brandan, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it. It was a real pleasure to meet you—and thank you for sharing your insights.

Robertson: Thank you so much. I appreciate the conversation.

Jacobsen: Wishing you a wonderful day down there in your American whatever-you-want-to-call-it—I’ll be here in my soul-fresh paradise show.

Robertson: [Laughing] I love it. Enjoy it up there.

Jacobsen: Cheers. Bye.

Robertson: See you!

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

#ChristianDiscipleship #inclusiveTheology #LGBTQChristians #progressiveChristianity #QueerTheology

This video delves into prioritizing faith, navigating disagreements, and the sacrifices required to follow Jesus. Learn about unity in Christ, adapting to obstacles, and the importance of helping others understand. Discover the path to true commitment and understanding. #Christianity #ChristianDiscipleship #FaithJourney #UnityInChrist #FollowingJesus #SermonSeries #BiblicalTeachings #SpiritualGrowth #PrioritiesOfFaith #OvercomingObstacles #ChristianLiving

Explore Jesus' profound question to Peter about his love and commitment. Delve into the meaning behind 'more than these' - disciples, worldly pursuits, or personal desires. Join us as we examine Peter's heartfelt affirmation and what it means to truly love Jesus. #JesusAndPeter #LoveOfJesus #BiblicalQuestions #FaithAndLove #ChristianDiscipleship #PeterAffirmsJesus #MoreThanThese #SpiritualMeaning #DevotionToChrist #BiblicalTeachings

#ChristianFaith #ChristianBaptism #ChristianDiscipleship #universities #colleges #youngAdults #REVIVAL #Jesus ☦

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2025/march/god-was-exalted-4-500-students-seek-jesus-at-purdue-university-thousands-saved

Faith for Clout? The Rise of Meme Pastors and the Danger of Superficial Christianity

1,408 words, 7 minutes read time.

Introduction

Faith has always adapted to new ways of communication. From the printing press spreading the Bible to televangelists taking sermons to TV screens, Christianity has found ways to reach people where they are. Today, the frontier isn’t television or radio—it’s social media. Platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok are filled with Christian influencers, some of whom call themselves pastors, leading what looks like digital congregations. But instead of sermons or in-depth Bible studies, their content is mostly memes, short inspirational quotes, or quick, catchy videos.

These so-called “meme pastors” are booming in popularity, gathering millions of followers with content that is funny, relatable, and easy to share. Their influence is undeniable. But the real question is: Are they actually leading people to Christ, or are they just farming likes and shares? More importantly, is faith turning into entertainment instead of a life-changing commitment?

While some Christian content creators use social media responsibly, pointing people toward deeper faith, others seem to focus more on clout than discipleship. The rise of meme pastors raises serious concerns: Is online Christianity becoming just another form of digital escapism? Are people replacing real-world faith with passive scrolling? And perhaps most importantly, is this honoring to God, or is it turning faith into a shallow, feel-good trend?

The Appeal of Meme-Based Christianity

It’s easy to see why meme pastors and digital Christian influencers are so popular. Memes are quick, relatable, and perfect for the short attention spans that social media encourages. In just a few seconds, a meme can deliver encouragement, humor, or a simplified theological idea. Compared to reading the Bible, attending church, or engaging in theological discussions, consuming faith-based memes requires no effort.

Christian meme culture isn’t entirely bad. Many people find encouragement from a well-timed verse or a funny, faith-related joke that reminds them of God’s presence in their lives. Some influencers genuinely use their platforms to spark deeper discussions. For example, platforms like The Gospel Coalition (www.thegospelcoalition.org) and Desiring God (www.desiringgod.org) use social media effectively by combining short-form content with links to more in-depth articles, encouraging users to go beyond surface-level engagement.

The problem arises when memes replace actual faith rather than supplement it. If the only spiritual nourishment someone receives is scrolling through Christian Instagram posts, their faith may not be growing—it may just be sitting in place, stagnant.

When Faith Becomes Entertainment

Social media thrives on engagement, not depth. Platforms reward content that gets likes, shares, and comments, often favoring quick, emotional responses over deep, thoughtful discussions. Meme pastors, knowingly or not, are playing into this system. The result? Christianity is often reduced to bite-sized, feel-good messages that lack the depth and challenge of real discipleship.

Take, for example, the way complex theological topics get reduced to slogans. A meme might say, “God gives His toughest battles to His strongest soldiers,” but is that actually biblical? Nowhere in Scripture does it say this. In fact, the Bible frequently emphasizes that God works through human weakness, not strength (2 Corinthians 12:9-10). But a phrase like that is catchy, easy to remember, and makes people feel good—so it spreads.

This kind of shallow theology can be dangerous. It creates a faith built on slogans rather than Scripture. People begin to think that following Jesus is just about feeling inspired rather than being transformed. And if faith is just another form of entertainment, what happens when real struggles come? Memes won’t sustain anyone through hardship. Real faith—rooted in Scripture, prayer, and community—will.

Do Meme Pastors Replace Real-World Faith?

A major concern with meme pastors is that they can encourage passive Christianity. Instead of actually engaging with their faith through prayer, study, or service, some people might feel that liking a post is enough. It’s a problem that extends beyond Christianity. Social media in general creates the illusion of engagement. People feel like they’re “doing something” when they share a post about an issue, but in reality, no real action has been taken.

The Bible repeatedly emphasizes that faith is more than words—it requires action. James 2:17 makes this clear: “Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” The Christian life isn’t meant to be lived from behind a screen. It’s about serving others, being in community, and living out the teachings of Jesus. If meme pastors aren’t encouraging people to move beyond passive consumption, are they really helping?

Some online influencers do take steps to guide their audience toward real action. Groups like The Bible Project (www.bibleproject.com) use engaging content to lead people into deep biblical study. But many meme pastors do not. Their pages thrive on engagement, not transformation.

Evangelism or Self-Promotion?

Not all Christian influencers are in it for the right reasons. Some may genuinely seek to spread the Gospel, but many are clearly focused on building their personal brand.

The question is: Are they pointing people toward Jesus, or are they just growing their own platform?

One red flag is when an influencer’s content is all about themselves rather than God. A true pastor’s job is to shepherd people toward Christ, not toward themselves. In contrast, many digital Christian influencers seem more concerned with their follower count than with making real disciples.

Another issue is monetization. While there’s nothing wrong with making a living, some meme pastors treat faith as a business first, a ministry second. When every post includes a plug for merch, a Patreon link, or paid partnerships, it raises the question: Is this about evangelism, or is it just another online hustle?

Jesus warned against practicing faith for public recognition. Matthew 6:1 says, “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them.” This verse is particularly relevant in the age of social media, where it’s easy to post something “Christian” for the sake of clout rather than true faith.

The Fine Line: When Meme-Based Faith Is Good

Despite these concerns, meme-based faith content isn’t always bad. Some digital Christian influencers use their platforms responsibly, balancing entertainment with substance. When done right, memes and social media posts can:

Provide encouragement to people struggling with their faith.
Introduce biblical ideas in an engaging way, leading to deeper study.
Help build online Christian communities where people can ask questions and grow.

The key difference is whether the content is leading people to take real action. Some influencers, like Jackie Hill Perry (@jackiehillperry) or Tim Keller (@timkellernyc), use social media effectively to spark conversations while encouraging people to go deeper. The best digital faith leaders use social media as a starting point—not the final destination.

The Future of Faith in the Digital Age

The rise of meme pastors forces Christians to ask some hard questions. Can digital faith replace the church? Should it? While social media can be a tool for evangelism, it should never replace in-person worship, discipleship, and service.

Churches and Christian leaders need to think carefully about how they use digital platforms. There’s a way to use social media without cheapening faith—but it requires intentionality. Encouraging people to move beyond memes and into real discipleship should be the goal.

Christians consuming online faith content should also be discerning. It’s easy to mistake a viral post for truth, but real spiritual growth happens beyond the screen. The best way to avoid the pitfalls of meme-based Christianity is to stay rooted in Scripture, engage in real community, and seek faith that is deeper than a like or share.

Conclusion

Meme pastors and Christian influencers aren’t going away. They are shaping the way faith is shared in the digital age. But the question remains: Are they helping or harming the Church?

While some use their platforms to lead people into deeper faith, many risk turning Christianity into a form of entertainment rather than a call to discipleship. If faith becomes just another part of someone’s social media feed—consumed, liked, and forgotten—then it’s missing the depth that Christ calls us to.

The challenge for believers is clear: Don’t settle for a faith that fits into an Instagram post. Seek something real. Something transformative. Something more.

D. Bryan King

Sources

Disclaimer:

The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author. The information provided is based on personal research, experience, and understanding of the subject matter at the time of writing. Readers should consult relevant experts or authorities for specific guidance related to their unique situations.

Related Posts

Rate this:

#biblicalDiscernment #biblicalTeaching #biblicalTruth #biblicalTruthVsMemes #ChristianClickbait #ChristianContentCreators #ChristianDiscipleship #ChristianInfluencers #ChristianInfluencersControversy #ChristianInfluencersVsPastors #ChristianMemeCulture #ChristianMemes #ChristianSocialMedia #ChristianTikTok #ChristianityAndAlgorithms #ChristianityAndMonetization #ChristianityInTheDigitalAge #churchVsSocialMedia #dangersOfMemePastors #depthVsEngagement #digitalChristianity #digitalDiscipleship #digitalSpirituality #faithAndEngagement #faithAndEntertainment #faithAndSocialMedia #faithEngagement #faithEngagementOnline #faithForLikes #faithInfluencers #faithOrClout #faithWithoutWorks #faithBasedMemes #gospelMemes #InstagramChristianity #InstagramPastors #internetChristianity #memePastors #memeTheology #memeBasedFaith #modernChristianity #onlineChurch #onlineEvangelism #onlineFaithLeaders #onlinePastors #shallowFaith #socialMediaChurch #socialMediaDiscipleship #socialMediaFaith #socialMediaPreachers #SpiritualDepth #superficialChristianity #theologyInMemes #TikTokEvangelism #TikTokPastors #viralChristianity #YouTubeChristianity

Abiding in a close relationship with our lord #JesusChrist is worth reaching out for with EVERYTHING that we've got!!

Everyone has acquaintances, friends and close friends ... I don't know about you but I definitely want/seek a close, forever friendship with #Jesus for ETERNALLY, **He** is:

▪ THE King of kings & Lord of lords 👑
▪ the ONLY way to The Father 🙌
▪ the ONLY savior of All humankind ☦

#ChristJesus #ChristianDiscipleship #FollowJesus #FollowJesusStepByStep #FollowTheGoodShepherd 🐏🐑

#BodyOfChrist #BornAgainChristians #ChosenOnes

🚩🚩worldly, #selfreliance is overrated and may lead to #independencefromGod ... True #ChristianDiscipleship is a yielding, surrender to the gentle whispers from #HolySpirit that help guide us to:

🍃🌸🍃🌸🍃🌸🍃🌸🍃🌸🍃🌸🍃🌸🍃🌸🍃
🍃 #LifeONtheVine 🌸 #DependencyOnGod 🍃
🍃🌸🍃🌸🍃🌸🍃🌸🍃🌸🍃🌸🍃🌸🍃🌸🍃

#ABIDEwithGod #ABIDEinGod #GODsWill #TheTruthWillSetYouFree #inJesusname 🙏

Jesus is the light....#Jesusisthelight, #christiandiscipleship
https://steemit.com/light/@bernardo69/jesus-is-the-light-if-we-claim-to-have-fellowship-with-him-and-yet-walk-in-the-darkness-we-lie-and-do-not-live-out-the-truth-1

#ChristianDiscipleship

Client Info