Tim Keller and Side B Revoicers

[Written by an anonymous elder in the PCA.]

In his recent byFaith article, Pastor Tim Keller boldly proclaimed that, if there is any Side B endorsement in the PCA, it’s only incidental. This is good news for the Presbyterian Church in America, the denomination plagued by controversy surrounding the Revoice conference since the summer of 2018.

The problem is that Tim Keller is lying. There are endorsements of Side B (gay, celibate) Christianity across the PCA and there have been for years. Sure, this might not be reflected exactly the way he framed it, saying “no session, presbytery, or agency” has publicly stated an allegiance with Side B. But this is part of the sleight-of-hand Keller is pulling off in his article. He could have said, “I do not know of a single PCA teaching or ruling elder or seminary professor who endorses Side B,” but that’s not what he said. And for good reason. The lie would be too obvious.

A Preliminary Consideration

In a minute, I will get into proving Keller’s lie, but let’s assume for a moment there was a desire to endorse Side B by a PCA church court. How exactly might a session or presbytery or agency endorse it? What would this look like?

Well, considering Side B is not taught in the Bible or Westminster Confession of Faith, it couldn’t be declared Biblical on the basis of these PCA constitutional authorities. Thus adherence to Side B couldn’t be a test of orthodoxy the way infant baptism is, for instance.

Rather, any official endorsement would have to be argued and defended indirectly, appealing to the Bible and the Westminster Standards in connection with what they say and teach concerning sexual morality and the Seventh Commandment. But this is a hill too high given that Scripture and the Standards condemn the very lifestyle and conduct coveted by Side B. Naturally, then, there is no present interest on the part of any PCA church court to formally endorse this position.

But really, endorsing Side B isn’t even necessary. Side B can be practiced and Side B views can be held with impunity as long as those holding them steer clear of trying to marshal institutional and official support for them.

If the desire is to grow Side B support while avoiding raising opposition to it, the strategy should aim at allowing “good men to do nothing.” Let fellow presbyters give tacit approval to Side B without having to cast any votes in support of it. Promote the ideology while avoiding raising the ante in any meeting of a church court. Wink at the “mess” and the “struggle” (ie. pornography use, masturbation, same-sex cuddling, emotionally idolatrous relationships, and the occasional homosexual act) because the poor souls “are paying a lot more than a tithe to follow Jesus.”¹

[Note: If you find that last sentence unjustified and intemperate, I simply alert you to the fact that there are Side B websites that describe these very things in detail. I will not link directly to one such place called “Your Other Brothers,” but just know, these items and more are discussed freely there. Sadly, there are many Side B men and women, plagued by temptation, who are “coping” with their singleness in ways that are outright wicked. But the same goes for our “straight” kids too and it is to our shame that we naively assume the best or simply don’t want to know.  But I digress.]

Let me briefly illustrate the point. If my son can keep his disobedience confined to another room or simply keep it quiet, I don’t have to notice his rebellion. Thus I find it easy to avoid reprimanding him; or worse, punishing him. Plausible deniability is the fortress of cowards. Acting as if we have no knowledge of our son’s disobedience is a sweet spot many of us have grown to appreciate as our sons get older. The spot is sweet because we can stay on the couch watching March Madness, acting as if we’re unaware our son is disobeying us. Then, if our wife calls us out on it, declaring that we are approving of our son’s disobedience, we can get angry with her, responding, “I didn’t know” and “I never said he could do that!”

We know there are elders across the PCA who endorse Side B and Revoice. From the moment Revoice reared its head, it was obvious this mainstreaming of Side B homosexuality had grown under the encouragement, and enjoyed the protection, of leaders across the denomination. We knew this from the fact that Revoice’s Side B promotion wasn’t immediately squelched. We knew it from the fact that there were defenders of Revoice who immediately painted any opposition as slanderous, mean-spirited, homophobic, and legalistic.

Scott Sauls’ endorsement on the Revoice home page, 2018.

Some men have been open about their allegiance to Revoice—like Keller’s protege Scott Sauls², like gay PCA pastor Greg Johnson³, like ruling elder Kyle Keating (who served with Keller on the AIC study committee on human sexuality)⁴, like teaching elder and RUF pastor Kevin Twit⁵, like ruling elder Luke Calvin⁶, like teaching elder Derek Radney⁷.

What is less clear are those who are supportive and have the good sense to keep quiet about it. Their endorsements are not plastered across social media or in public blog posts, but revealed instead in closed Facebook groups, private meetings, phone calls, personal conversations, and individual correspondence. If nothing else, we know how broadly shared support for Side B homosexuality is among PCA pastors, specifically, when we view the over 200 PCA teaching elders who signed their protest against a conservative teaching elder for speaking “intemperately” against Revoice. Watch the video: Pastor Steve Warhurst’s words were calm, quiet, and biblical.

PCA pastor Derek Radney critiques Steven Wedgeworth’s statement that the AIC report offered a clear critique of Wesley Hill and Nate Collins, May 2020

I should explain that I link Side B and Revoice together because they are inextricably linked, both historically and ideologically—and this despite Keller not mentioning Revoice AT ALL in his entire 2,100 word essay on the future of the PCA. He has precedent for this: the AIC Committee Report that Keller claims “clearly rejected” Side B does not mention Revoice either (or Side B, for that matter). Revoice is the current iteration and public expression of the Side B movement. This is a fact. Revoice promotes Side B ideology. This, also, is a fact. If the PCA is opposed to Side B homosexuality, then it should stand heartily opposed to Revoice and those who endorse it. I won’t be holding my breath.

Keller’s Side B Endorsement

Tim Keller endorses Side B. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who has been watching these things play out over the last few years. Perhaps it is news for some readers, though?

Sure, Keller might use a different label or no label at all in order to avoid whatever baggage is potentially trafficked by the label (he says in the article that he doesn’t like labels because they are not nuanced enough). But I say again, Tim Keller endorses Side B Christianity.

Gay activist David Eisenbach asks Tim Keller, “Are committing homosexual acts sin against God?”

2008 Veritas Forum

We know that Keller has been embarrassed to speak clearly and boldly against homosexuality, like when he hemmed and hawed at the Veritas Forum in 2008. He gave a circuitous answer to a straightforward question, shifting the focus to the self-righteousness of Christians as quickly as he could so as to remove the impression that sodomy sends anyone to Hell. Although it wasn’t a Side B endorsement, his answer did bely an awareness that he did not want to condemn homosexual orientation publicly (especially while being interviewed by a gay activist) and he did his best to quickly move beyond his “for the record” statement that, yes, committing homosexual acts is a sin (but so is greed). [NOTE: Here is the full transcript of his answer. Here is the video of his answer.]

Sam Allberry and Wesley Hill

In October 2013, Keller reviewed two books he had recently read by Sam Allberry and Wesley Hill. Allberry had just published his book Is God Anti-Gay? (The Good Book Company, 2013) and it was on its way to becoming the new Christian gold standard for the sexuality debate. It offered a defense of the historic Christian position on homosexuality, but presented itself as more empathetic since it came from the pen of a gay pastor who had embraced celibacy. In a world marked by identity politics, a gay pastor talking about refraining from sodomy is more agreeable than a straight pastor saying the same thing (although, let’s be clear, Allberry doesn’t use the word “sodomy.” Not that the average evangelical pastor would either).

The problems with Allberry are many. Too, his errors are precious, but that’s a discussion for another day. However, some of his errors should be plain simply from the book title that places God on the witness stand before a God-hating culture: Is God Anti-Gay?

Is this really the question we want the watching world to hear us asking, today? [Spoiler alert: Allberry barely interacts with that question at all in the book.]

Wesley Hill’s book, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality (Zondervan, 2010), had already been out for several years by this point, but was finally beginning to get some traction in the evangelical mainstream. It is the memoir of a theology student describing growing up in a conservative household and coming to terms with being both gay and a conservative Christian. Hill’s primary interest is in describing his struggle to accept his homosexuality as immutable, and the daily struggle of keeping himself from being overwhelmed by his desires for men.

Naturally, the book was beloved as something that put into words what numerous other “gay Christians” were experiencing, also. The only point of criticism Keller offers is Hill calling himself “gay” as opposed to “same-sex attracted”:

Allberry thinks that calling oneself “gay” hints that homosexual desires are one’s essential identity, rather than who you are in Christ. Hill, I think, doesn’t want to give the impression to either people inside or outside the church that the feelings are superficial or will just go away on their own. Both make good points, though ultimately I think Allberry’s approach is probably better.

Keller’s point of disagreement is very mild. “Allberry’s approach is probably better.” The bigger takeaway from the review is Keller’s excitement over this new movement just emerging:

But even with this disagreement, I’m glad to see the beginning of something crucial here. These two writers are beginning to describe a particular pathway of Christian discipleship. A literature is going to get started. Others who share their experience and stance are beginning to write about it, too. But this ‘movement’ is still very embryonic. Ironically, we live in a time in which it takes more courage for authors to publicly take this position than it is now to embrace homosexual practice as compatible with Christianity.

Notice that he did not see these books as isolated examples of Christian faithfulness, but representative of the early stages of a crucial movement that would grow and influence the Christian church (presumably for the better). This movement Keller is giddy in anticipation of is Side B.

Someone may claim Keller can’t be responsible for everything that has come through the influence of Sam Allberry and Wesley Hill simply because he recommended their books back in 2013, but that is completely beside the point. He may not be responsible for everything they teach but is he responsible for anything they have taught? Exactly why do people recommend Christian books if not to promote teaching on certain subjects? And what are Sam Allberry and Wesley Hill other than Side B?

Keller helped bring these authors to greater visibility, legitimizing their arguments and endorsing their views on sexuality, without offering any warning to Christians who might be misled by them. Even his slight caveat about Wesley Hill has no weight. He commended these books to his congregation, to the hundreds of PCA elders and lay people eagerly paying attention to his ministry, and the thousands of evangelicals who would see his endorsements on his The Gospel Coalition (TGC) website.⁸

Living Out

Lest we think that was then and this is now, Keller has reaffirmed his appreciation for these authors. He did this in 2014 on TGC when he critiqued affirming authors Matthew Vines and Ken Wilson while mentioning his favorable review of Allberry and Hill.⁹ He did it when he invited Wesley Hill to speak about singleness at Redeemer Presbyterian in 2014.¹⁰ He reaffirmed their Side B commitments when he and Kathy flew over to the United Kingdom to join Sam Allberry and Ed Shaw on stage at the “Identity in Christ” conference hosted by Living Out.¹¹

Mind you, that was June 21, 2018—a month before the first Revoice conference would happen in July back in the States (hosted at Memorial PCA church; featuring Wesley Hill and others). The controversy over Revoice was already elevated by this point.

The “Identity in Christ” event is worthy of a little detail, since it was the same conference where Living Out released their new “church audit”—specially designed questionnaires whereby conservative churches can check to see how “biblically inclusive” they are. The church audit includes these true/false question: “A godly Christian’s sexual orientation would never prevent them from exercising their spiritual gifts or serving in leadership in your church,” and “No-one would be pressurised into expecting or seeking any ‘healing’ or change that God has not promised any of us until the renewal of all things.”

Kathy Keller commending the Living Out church audit, June 2018.

Here was Tim’s wife, Kathy Keller’s, statement about the church audit [found in the video at 1:40]:

I wish I had seen this before I designed my talk. This is brilliant. I’m going to take it back to Redeemer and make copies and give them to all the church leaders. I recommend that you do the same.

Living Out’s endorsement of the first Revoice conference, 2018.

In March 2019, Living Out endured some heavy public criticism when Southern Baptist pastor Tom Buck wrote a four-part series examining a number of Living Out’s most troubling statements. It was around this time that a couple of problematic Living Out articles were pulled and later re-posted with revisions. A brief example of one such tweaking can be found in an article by Ed Shaw. [Here is the original version, and here the revised version. This revision happened after it had been available online since at least 2013 and as a direct result of Tom Buck’s series.] It also seems that, during this time, Sam Allberry distanced himself from the organization, and later was no longer listed as a trustee—although no announcement was made about his stepping down. There was no stated repentance for Living Out’s errors.

It was also during this time that Russell Moore quietly removed his endorsement of Living Out.

Meanwhile, Tim Keller’s endorsement of Living Out remains on the website, sitting right below Wesley Hill’s endorsement. It reads:

‘Ironically, we live in a time in which it takes more courage for people to take this position publicly than to embrace homosexual practice as compatible with Christianity. But the people whose stories are on this site are not experiencing their lives as impoverished or sub-human. Their commitment to chastity within the lives God has given them is one of finding fulfilment and identity in their relationship to Christ. They show that the biblical view of homosexuality makes great sense and is even liberating when viewed from within joyful belief of the gospel story.’
Timothy Keller, Founder, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, New York.

The Deafening Silence

It’s worth noting that, throughout the entire controversy, Tim Keller has offered no public statement about the Revoice conference or the Side B movement. That’s nearly four years of silence. As has been shown, that doesn’t mean he is without allegiance—he just manages the public face of it. To our knowledge, Keller has never used the term “Side B” publicly until March 21, 2022 in byFaith Magazine.

So now, Keller assures us Side B is not a problem in the PCA. Further, he asserts the failure of the overtures that were crafted explicitly to prevent Side B actually proves there is no Side B in the PCA.

If Keller opposes Revoice’s Side B, we should know what it is about it he opposes? Who are the authors that are a problem? What have they said that we should be cautious of? What is the “meat” we should be eating and the “bones” we should be spitting out? This goes for other PCA men who are promoting Revoice, publicly and privately.

What PCA Revoice advocate has offered a substantial public analysis of the major Side B thinkers? If Revoice is a danger, where are their warnings? If Side B is full of errors that should be rejected, when these errors are being embraced and promoted, where do Tim and his fellow study committee warnists sound their alarm?

“Anti-overtures” PCA pastor David Cassidy has been the only one to admit that “his side” has not offered any serious engagement on the problems of Revoice, Greg Johnson, and Side B. Conveniently, this is years after the battle was engaged and has been raging, and now the overtures have lost. He acknowledges it.

Sadly, though, he then goes on to blame this lack of criticism of Side B’s Revoice on those who have criticized Greg Johnson. Yes, seriously.¹²

Truth is, it has been the conservatives that have written extensive and detailed warnings about Revoice. These warnings have come from men inside, men recently departed from, and men outside the PCA. It is these men who have done the hard work of interaction with the key voices of Side B’s Revoice movement, documenting the presentations of the Revoice conferences and the social media presences of Revoice’s spokesmen and spokeswomen. For instance:

• Read dozens of Warhorn articles by Tim Bayly, Andrew Dionne, and Andrew Halsey.
• Read the multipart series by Jared Moore on Monergism.
• Read the work of Peter Jones and Josh Gielow at TruthXChange.
• Read the articles by David H. Linden.
• Read the critique of Living Out by Tom Buck.
• Read the paper titled, A Little Leaven: Confronting the Ideology of the Revoice Movement.

Openly gay pastor Matt Nightingale, acknowledging Side B was a step on his Side A journey

Hundreds of thousands of words have been spilled warning about the dangers of Side B, the slippery and often vague language of its adherents, the queer theory subtly interwoven, the implications of wicked homosexualist theology, the profane worldliness of their cultural contextualization, the concupiscence of their same-sex attraction, and the damage that will be done to souls who embrace and encourage their seductive propaganda. None of these authors have ever said “Side B always leads to Side A,” as Keller caricatures them. But neither do these authors declare Side B to be static. The shifts both in theological content and practical application are obvious to all.

A good example of this is how Wesley Hill rethought a statement he made in his first book, Washed and Waiting. In the 2010 book, Hill wrote, “I expect to stand with Henri Nouwen at the resurrection and marvel that neither of us is homosexual anymore.”

In 2016, Hill had come to the opinion that he will likely still be gay in the resurrection because being gay is a sensibility that has shaped his entire personality. So, for him no longer to be gay would mean he would no longer be himself.¹³

Wesley Hill hasn’t become Side A, but neither has he become more theologically sound or sanctified or Biblical. Do the PCA’s soft Side B promoters have any discernment issuing in warnings to the sheep of errors like this?

Of course not.

Rather, they say, “It’s misleading to paint Revoice as monolithic & to take anything said by any speakers as indicative of the views of PCA TEs [teaching elders].”¹⁴ Note carefully that the person this reproof is directed towards is the Revoice critic—never the Side B Revoice fanboy or girl.

Tim Keller’s “Nate Collins Problem”

Keller’s byFaith article has stirred up anger and hostility among Side B proponents, which is understandable. To them it is hurtful that, after years of public support, Keller has now distanced himself from his former friends on Side B.

According to Side B homosexualists, this makes Keller complicit in homophobia and legalism.

But not all Side B proponents are as strident in their assessment of Keller. In the aftermath of these overtures’ defeat, time will tell whether the anger of former Keller allies on Side B will dispel, remain, or metastasize. No one has any difficulty understanding and sympathizing with Side B proponents who fully expected Keller to continue to promote Side B ideology.

Their consternation is vividly expressed by Revoice speaker and Side B podcaster, Grant Hartley. He complained Keller’s book Center Church (Zondervan, 2012) had been instrumental in shaping his “Queer Treasure” presentations at the 2018 and 2019 Revoice conferences, so now what was he to do:

[The Grant Hartley thread appears below in its entirety, cleaned up for clarity and readability]

Bekah Mason (Executive Director of Revoice), echoing Hartley’s sentiments

Reading Tim Keller’s Center Church was a large reason why I began to think of the LGBTQ+ community as a distinct cultural group—which is the foundation of much of my work (especially at the first two Revoice conferences) and a significant theme of my life. His discussion of contextualization and missiology is, perhaps surprisingly, one of the biggest reasons why I call myself gay, why I began to consider my sexuality to be an aspect of my identity, why I feel such a strong connection to LGBTQ+ people, culture, and history.

I quoted him [Tim Keller] extensively throughout those breakout sessions at the first two Revoice conferences, and his work has irrevocably shaped me as I continue to write and speak about faith LGBTQ+ experience now. So it is especially painful (and perhaps a bit ironic) to [see] him publicly and harshly distance himself from the Side B community, because his work has been the catalyst for so much Side B thought and cultural formation over the past several years.

Revoice founder Nate Collins does not acknowledge the same indebtedness to Keller ideologically, but his seething bitterness toward the PCA is obvious, with Keller as the PCA’s formal representative. Taking to Twitter, Collins writes:

[The Nate Collins thread appears below in its entirety, cleaned up for clarity and readability]

Well, at least it’s explicit now. Tim Keller now says that the PCA sexuality report was intended to reject “side B Christianity.” [link to byFaith] I don’t know of a single Side B gay Christian who has ever used the phrase “Side B Christianity.” This makes me wonder if the use of the phrase “Side B Christianity” by straight Christian leaders is a form of “othering” of those of us who use LGBT terminology, to cast us as different (but more importantly, wrong) Christians.

As a gay man who believes in Jesus and is living by faith according to a biblical sexual ethic that prohibits all forms of sexual intimacy between members of the same sex, I reject the idea that my “Christianity” is fundamentally different from that of my straight siblings. It’s worth noting that neither this article by Keller nor the PCA report actually engages with anything written by someone who would claim to represent the Side B perspective. Side B is a fairly broad tent, but this lack of engagement is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

Keller’s article also neglects to address the incipient homophobia and legalism that animates a significant portion of the PCA. While not receiving the necessary 2/3 majority to amend the BCO, Overtures 23 and 37 did pass by a clear majority of the denominational leadership. The tolerance of homophobia and legalism towards gay people in the PCA is pastoral malpractice and enables the systematic spiritual abuse of sexual minorities. With this article, Keller joins the ranks of moderates whose efforts at “peace-keeping” are doing spiritual harm.

As a thought experiment, imagine that the far right wing of the PCA is the drunk (GRN) dad, inebriated on legalism, while the PCA moderates are the mom who keeps hiding the liquor bottles and pleading with the (gay) kids to not make daddy mad. My advice to the PCA moderates: for the sake of your own safety and the safety of your (gay) children, either confront your spouse and demand change, or leave.

Collins expected something very different from Tim Keller. As Collins sees it, Keller has “joined the ranks of the moderates,” and this is a reversal. Where did Collins believe Keller was before the article?

As a promoter of Wesley Hill, Sam Allberry, and Living Out, Collins surely thought Keller was a lot closer to Side B than he was “the far right.”

Yet note that Nate Collins has never been placed on the implied “approved list” alongside Hill and Allberry.¹⁵

Keller’s AIC report lists several Side B-approving books in its recommended reading lists—books by Sam Allberry (Living Out co-founder), Wesley Hill (Revoice speaker), Preston Sprinkle (Revoice advisor), Mark Yarhouse (Revoice speaker), Ed Shaw (Living Out co-founder), and Rachel Gilson (Revoice speaker). Collins is not on that list, and now he finds out there is a distinction being drawn by “PCA moderates” between certain Side B names and his Revoice organization/conference.

Nate Collins’ book All but Invisible (Zondervan, 2017) was endorsed by Scott Sauls, but the book has not featured very heavily in this debate despite doing a lot to frame Side B’s theological underpinnings.

The hypocrisy is justifiably upsetting, and thus Nate Collins tweeted:

Things I would have never imagined seeing: Tim Keller providing cover for legalism.

Tim Keller’s protege, Scott Sauls, responded directly to Collins:

Nate, this is terribly unfair.

Sara Collins (Nate’s wife) stepped in to say:

It really isn’t, Scott. It’s uncomfortable truth to sit with.¹⁶

RUF godfather Kevin Twit thinks there’s more to Keller’s view on sexuality than what is expressed in the article. In an effort at conciliation, Twit interacted with Collins, seeking to calm down the reeling Side B advocate:

Kevin Twit: Excellent article about Presbyterian Church in America, Beautiful Orthodoxy PCA, Tim Keller [link to byFaith article]

Nate Collins: This makes me sad.

Sam DeSocio: What part?

Kevin Twit: I suspect the lack of nuance about Side B for starters. But I know his view is more nuanced than expressed in this piece.

Nate Collins: Yes, for starters. The lack of constructive public engagement of side B thinkers is at best intellectually neglectful, and probably (at this point) even disrespectful. As for TK’s nuance… [gif of Jerry Maguire shouting “Show Me the Money!!!”]

Kevin Twit: It took a study committee report to explain some of the nuance and I read this article with that in my mind as far as his fuller view. (I know the legitimate concern about the lack of an apology to the gay community in the report too, but you can’t say everything all at once)

Doug Moore: It is not nuance. The contradiction in the AIC report show the lack of unity in the PCA and TKs article is the final nail in the coffin. Also, if the report stands at 62 pages, you can absolutely say it all at once when it comes to a call for repentance… Presbys like words.

With Nate Collins offended that Keller is not supportive, Kevin Twit swoops in, assuring him Keller’s views are, in fact, “more nuanced.”

Yes.

Nuance (noun): a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound.

Nuance (verb): to give nuances to.

Keller’s views on Side B are given to subtle differences in or shades of meaning, expression, or sound. They are so nuanced that his views can be held out as hope to the founder of Revoice not to bail on him just yet. Those in the know assure him Keller is actually an ally.

Conclusion

Tim Keller is not concerned about the rise of Side B, whether within or without the Presbyterian Church in America. He promotes it.

He has proven it by his endorsements. He has proven it by his silence. He knows how volatile Revoice is among Southern conservatives of the PCA. Now that the overtures opposing Side B have lost, he is eager to pacify conservatives concerned that the Side B leaven remains deeply rooted in the denomination.

He hopes that hundreds of PCA elders he dismisses as fundamentalists are now reassuring each other with the thought that Tim Keller up North in liberal ole Manhattan heartily rejects Side B right alongside them.

I wish it were so. Truly, I do.

Yet Keller’s byFaith article is not, actually, reassuring. It’s just dishonest.

Who knows if Keller will ever make his “fuller view” public.

I doubt it. There is too much political maneuvering to be done.

But if he does make it public, should we expect something resembling the Westminster Larger Catechism on the Seventh Commandment? Or will we find something more closely resembling the moral and doctrinal errors Side B has been promoting, teaching, and spreading?

Any impartial observer of the record of the case presented above knows the answer to that question.

* * *

NOTE: For more help on how the church is being misled by conservative church leaders desperate to make peace with our gay culture, pick up a copy of our book, The Grace of Shame: 7 Ways the Church Has Failed To Love Homosexuals, available on Amazon.

Tags: Homosexuality, PCA, Revoice, Side B, Tim Keller