I would like to point out how your words are hyperbolic and unreasonable. Points are roughly in order as they appear in your response.
- Hyperbole. When you write things like the “entire” community, that I am “flooding” community pages, that is hyperbole, or exaggeration. There are around a half a dozen people who complain to me. I get some likes and positive comments or comments (some on the post, some on Messenger). That is hardly the “entire” community, and is not even widespread. Most people just ignore me, like most people with most content that appears on their Facebook feeds.
As for “flooding”, I post once a month (this month being the first exception due to something I thought was timely), and by my count of where you pop up you are probably on around 6 or 7 of the pages I post on. Maybe eight. Seeing me 6–8 times a month is more of a steady trickle than a flood. If that is too much for you, you are free to use the Facebook settings to snooze or block me.
2. Defending Slavery. I haven’t and don’t defend slavery. You once asked me when I started or stopped beating my slaves (because someone outed me as not being socially progressive on a hot-button issue). That was around April 2025. I wasn’t really upset, although I was surprised and a little shocked at your sudden turn from being polite-but-critical to quite nasty. Rather than taking the time to write a big essay about slavery in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, throughout Christian history, and the implications of the biblical texts for today, I decided to outsource my efforts to the internet. I think this was the article I posted: What is the Bible’s stance on slavery? I am glad I did not take the time to write it myself, because nothing you said afterwards showed any engagement with the content! For instance, you could have said why the content didn’t convince you as to why I do not in fact support slavery (you are still free to clarify why you think I support slavery despite the BibleHub essay). The slavery issue is just one of those textbook issues, albeit a multi-faceted one. If you haven’t read a textbook on the issue, it might surprise or concern modern readers of the Bible.
3. Disrespecting LGBTQ+ Community. I’ve never raised the issue. I have been asked about it by one person, who wouldn’t let me get away with not answering her question with one of the two answers that I was allowed to give. My position is that same-sex sex is wrong, but that is mitigated by two things. First, I understand how fraught a topic this is, so I don’t invite discussion on it online—that is a poor format for sensitive and polarised issues between strangers. Second, it is an area that needs significant pastoral care for those who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria but wish they did not—this is an area that the church has failed in. Because of this, I have in the past spoken at Christian leaders’ gatherings to say how important it is to be both faithful to the biblical teaching on anthropology AND be pastorally caring for those who are within that camp (Christian or otherwise). An approach I endorse is given by a “Gay Christian” pastor named Greg Johnson. You can read a summary/review of his book here: Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality. A important point I raised in that is the following:
“The third chapter [of part three] tackles the question of whether the biblical sexual ethic is inherently dangerous to gay people, and argues that ‘to the degree in which it is immersed in a biblical culture of radical grace, it is not … [and] to the degree that it is removed from that biblical gospel culture, however, it becomes weaponized and cannot help but do violence to gay people’ (p. 186).”
Another important book I have written about comes from a counsellor: Homosexuality and the Christian: A Guide for Parents, Pastors, and Friends. In light of what I have publicly written, you might be able to say I am mistaken, or reckless, but you cannot say I disrespect gay people. I’ve known enough people who have been hurt, and that’s why I care and have done the work I have done in this area. Christians do navigate a tricky space in the current climate, but that does not mean we hate.
4. Defending Blood sacrifice. I’m not sure where I have done this. Probably you are just referring to me posting something about Easter. I responded to you on that in the post A Response to An Atheist (mis)representation of Easter in May, which touched on the atonement as a facet of Jesus’s death on the cross—but I didn’t hear a response to that. If you want to discuss the atonement of Christ, we can, but to my memory it is not really something I have brought up in detail. I presume by your label “blood sacrifice” that you want to connote its offensiveness to modern western culture. One part of the conversation might require you to give a case for what qualifies modern western tastes and sensibilities as a basis for critique. We live in a post-modern age—an age without epistemological foundations. Plenty to talk about, but on what grounds do you critique?
5. “Get really upset”. How would you know this? I outsourced some work to the above-mentioned BibleHub essay. I can be terse, and I have been exasperated and a little queasy at how nasty some strangers can be to me, but I haven’t been upset.
6. “Preach” and “Spam” and “Don’t Care”. It’s not that I don’t care, but I don’t see how people getting upset at me for sharing content should silence me in a public space once a month. It’s not exactly preaching either. It’s a post, usually aiming at an informative and invitational tone, that people can choose to engage with or ignore. As I have noted, you are free to block me. I don’t aim to offend, and typically aim to avoid offending, but I can’t help it if people are offended by Christians saying something in a public space. The values of secular nationalism are not my values.
7. “How about being honest?”. Not sure what I’ve not been honest about, unless you are wanting me to foreground the things you have gotten mad at me about. But like I said, these things are either things I don’t actually hold, or things that are difficult do discuss reasonably online.
8. “Allowing non-Christians… to just carry on”. No one is obliged to read my posts, including you, and I don’t think anyone assiduously reads every item that appears on their Facebook feed. If they read mine, that is their choice and they can deal with that. My aim is to connect with people who are open to talk, in the hope that I can invite them toward what God has offered in Jesus Christ. Plenty of people don’t want that, and that is their prerogative—I’m not chasing anyone, or stopping anyone getting on with their day.
9. “And if you insist on spamming preachy nonesense, don’t act so surprised when people who have actually read your scriptures call you out for spreading a doctrine based on blood and fear that teaches divisive messages and supports slavery, the subjugation of women, and the persecution of the LGBTQ+ community?”. Erm, what? This sounds like reader-response theory getting seriously out of hand more than a careful engagement with the shape and content of Christian doctrine.
10. “If you dont like being called out, then stop it”. I can manage, but I would rather engagements be more polite and constructive, and stick more closely to the topics I have actually raised. If you want to bring up other topics, we can go there, but how about just one at a time? It is a bit hard when you bring up a string of issues all at once when they require lengthy responses. As I have demonstrated, you don’t “literally read the words [I] post and respond to them”.
Leave a Reply