In January of 2017, you wrote an article entitled “Refuting the Book ‘Born That Way After All’ and the Compromised Preachers Who Support It.” We tried contacting you privately, but we were unable to reach you. Therefore, we would like to respond to your public article with an open letter.
1. In the opening paragraph of your article you said, “I was surprised today while listening to a sermon by Pastor Steven Anderson (website).”
We are surprised that you listened to Mr. Anderson bear false witness against one of our men with the same accusation for which you fled the country, yet you did not contact us to learn if it were true. When you were accused of the same immoral behavior, did you want everyone to simply accept and spread the accusations without looking for truth? Why would you do that to us?
We are disappointed that you would help spread this false witness against a godly man without seeking to discern the truth first. Considering all that you have been through, your lack of integrity in this matter is sorely disappointing.
2. In the same opening paragraph you said, “There is an ungodly book (published in 2015) titled, “BORN THAT WAY AFTER ALL,” authored by Dr. David J. Nixon and R. G. Hamm.”
We would like to ask which parts of our book are ungodly?
Do you have a page and paragraph number for the ungodly parts?
Did you even pick up the book to read it yourself before claiming it is ungodly?
Or is this accusation based on hearsay from Mr. Anderson’s YouTube video, which deliberately misrepresents what we teach? You said it is ungodly, but how have you proven your accusation?
3. In the same opening paragraph you add, “The book is unscriptural…”
Really?! Again, which page and paragraph was unscriptural?
Did you read the book yourself? Please let us know which parts were unscriptural, and we will gladly discuss them with you.
4. In the same opening paragraph you continue, “and promotes a wicked philosophy of tolerance for sin.”
Assuming you read the book for yourself (which is a generous assumption at this point), on which page did you find us promoting the tolerance of sin? Perhaps you accidentally missed Chapter 10: “Reason is No Excuse,” in which we say, “This is the challenge in dealing with anyone who has chosen to live in sin. They may have legitimate reasons, but they are still without excuse.”
In the same chapter, we list six common “reasons” that some people use to excuse their same-sex fornication—including the “born that way” excuse. We systematically dismantle each “reason” and conclude the chapter by saying “There is no excuse for anyone to continue in sin, no matter how good a reason they think they may have. The choice is yours.”
So again I ask, on which page did we promote the tolerance of sin?
5. In the same opening paragraph you add, “What surprised me is that the website lists Dr. Bob Gray Sr., Pastor Jeff Owens and Pastor Paul Chappell, as being supporters of the book and ministry.”
Interestingly enough, Pastor Paul Chappell was not on our list. Perhaps you heard Mr. Anderson make that accusation and assumed that his statement was accurate. Thus, by repeating hearsay, you wrongly lumped him in as a “compromising preacher” when neither he nor his ministry has any association with us at all. It is utterly untrue, therefore you have borne false witness against Pastor Paul Chappell.
You owe the man a public apology.
6. You then conclude your opening paragraph saying, “The book is an ungodly perversion of the Scriptures!!!”
Once again, which scriptures did we pervert?
On which page numbers did we pervert those Scriptures?
On our website, we have a list of beliefs we hold concerning this topic, and each of these belief statements can be found throughout our book and blog posts, and in audio sermons we have been preaching for the past several years of our ministry: [https://bornthatway.org/what-we-believe/].
So which of these beliefs are perversions of the Scriptures?
On which pages did we pervert them?
What evil are we promoting?
That’s just your opening paragraph. I have 46 more points to cover.
(If you are not interested in reading them all, you can jump to the point.)
7. In the second paragraph you say, “I am trying to understand why Dr. Gray and Pastor Owens would approve of something evil like this.”
Since you have yet to demonstrate any evil or perversion in your article, we are unsure of which evils they have allegedly approved. You are underhandedly leveling an accusation against two godly men without proving your accusation.
Did you call these men? Did you even try?
Did you ask them if Anderson’s accusations were true?
Or did you repeat this accusation before verifying its authenticity?
Your actions lack integrity.
8. “Both of these good men have counseled tens of thousands of people combined throughout their church ministries. So I tread lightly and don’t want to criticize them in my article, this is not my intent.”
You claim that you do not want to criticize these godly men, yet you have already accused them of “approving evil” before pointing out what the evil is. Let’s remember who the accuser of the brethren is and avoid playing for his team.
9. “However, I will voice my opinion of this ungodly book “BORN THAT WAY AFTER ALL” and their ungodly “BORNTHATWAY.ORG” website.”
Here’s where you finally tell us that this is all your opinion. Okay, so there are no sources to cite, there are no phone calls made to the accused brethren. You are simply voicing your opinion, which seems to be based on mere hearsay on YouTube, which you seem not to have researched to discern if it were true, and now you seem to use that ill-informed opinion to falsely accuse several other good men of God, along with your condemnation of us.
Also, your article still hasn’t demonstrated how the book or website is ungodly. So far, your article is pure hearsay and false accusations of the brethren.
10. “The book is clearly a sinful attempt…”
Whoa. Clearly what? What have you clearly shown? …apart from clearly showing that you are quick to accuse brethren without any basis.
11. “The book is clearly a sinful attempt to bridge the gap between the ungodly homosexual community and the New Testament Church.”
Firstly, I am surprised that you so willingly accept a modern, anti-biblical, new age word like “homosexual” (when God’s Word calls the behavior “unnatural”). The new age word “homosexual” was coined in 1869 by a sexual deviant named Karl Kertbeny who sought not only to legalize, but to normalize same sex relationships and beastiality. Having coined that term, along with its variations of heterosexual, monosexual, and heterogenit (man with beast), Kertbeny understood that these new words would infiltrate the culture and help to bring about their normalization.
If you’d like, you can find out more on our blog post, “I Am Not a Heterosexual” or grab our book and read Chapter 8: “Fallacy of Secular Labels.”
Secondly, I’m still waiting to see what you have “clearly” shown everyone…
12. “Dr. David Nixon and his co-author are trying to straddle-the-fence on the issue of homosexuality.”
Remember Chapter 10 that you somehow missed? In the second paragraph we said, “What is the truth? First, it is that the lifestyle in which he was living was a sinful one and unacceptable to God.”
Which part of that was unclear? In what way have we preached tolerance of sin and straddled the fence? I thought it sounded pretty cut and dry, personally.
13. “As far as I’m concerned, they are pulling on the same rope as the Devil.”
I think this really is only as far are you’re concerned. You have failed to validate even one claim so far. This accusation comes from the man who has already falsely accused several godly brethren without citing sources or verifying facts with the accused.
Satan is the accuser of the brethren; we didn’t tug that rope.
14. “David J. Nixon and R. G. Hamm base their strange doctrine…”
Which strange doctrine?
15. “Being a eunuch from a mother’s womb simply means, for one reason or another, that a man is born impotent.”
This is etymologically, historically, and biblically inaccurate. Nothing in the root word itself implies physical deformity, either inborn or man-caused; rather, the word denotes a lack of desire. Your definition also creates a really nasty biblical problem for you, which I’ll highlight in point 17.
Perhaps you missed all of the historical documentation, quotes from early church figures, scripture references, and other sources that we cited in Chapter 4.
16. “Here’s some helpful Bible commentary on the topic, “EUNUCH.”
Herein you cite men who are anti-King James. I am not saying that we share the exact same position on the King James Bible, but I am questioning whether or not YOU share the same position that you say you believe about the King James Bible.
17. “The Bible mentions eunuchs, who are born ‘THAT WAY’ from the womb, which is equivalent to castration.”
Your definition creates a biblical problem:
If eunuchism is intrinsically related to the idea of a man’s stones being damaged or removed, then Jesus is now seen to endorse self-mutilation by religious rite. You see, Matthew 19:12 also describes people making themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. Apparently you believe Jesus endorses self-castration for the Kingdom’s sake, but we would strongly disagree with that idea.
If you read our book, you would have found the etymological roots explained, historical citations throughout early church history, and the biblical uses all put together in one cohesive way. In fact, we are friends with the author of a King James Bible Dictionary from whom we learned much about the history of the word. Our book destroyed the “born that way” excuse for sin and also avoided portraying Jesus as a proponent of self-mutilation.
You DID read the book for yourself, right?
18. “This is not homosexual lust!”
We wholeheartedly agree!
…even though we take issue with your persistent use of the new-age, anti-biblical word. The Bible’s description for the behavior is “against nature.”
19. “And as I will evidence to you later, many people who profess to be ‘heterosexual’ admit to committing homosexual acts at times.”
There’s those new-age words again. You really like these, don’t you?
I think we are a little disappointed that you felt compelled to offer evidence for this, but not compelled to offer evidence of all the earlier accusations against Dr. Bob Gray Sr., Pastor Jeff Owens, and Pastor Paul Chappell. You never did point out the alleged evil in our book that they allegedly endorsed.
20. “This tosses a monkey-wrench into David Nixon’s retarded hypothesis!”
Which retarded hypothesis was that? So far, you haven’t properly represented any of our beliefs.
21. “Homosexuality is a sin,”
Here’s that new-age word again. We’ll pretend that you used the biblical word “fornication” or “unnatural,” and now we wholeheartedly agree with this statement. In fact, we said it all throughout our book. You know—that book of ours that you read for yourself before making all these accusations.
22. “Homosexuality is a sin, and Christians won’t be able to help sodomites unless they address the issue as such.”
Which page number was it where we deny that same-sex fornication is a sin? I found the chapters where we did call it a sin, but I can’t find the part that you’re referring to.
23. “God only saves THE UNGODLY (Romans 4:5-6).”
Amen! I’m thankful that He saves the ungodly. Was this supposed to be a statement against our ministry? False accusations are ungodly, too.
24. “It is evil to tell homosexuals that there’s really no problem, because God made them ‘THAT WAY AFTER ALL,’”
It is evil to tell any sinner that there’s really no problem. Since Chapter 10 of our book completely dismantles the “born that way” excuse, it sounds like we’re on the same page with this concept.
25. “HOMOSEXUALS ARE SINNERS in need of the new birth.”
At least you seem to believe that all sinners are able to be saved. Mr. Anderson tends to disagree with you on this point (why don’t you do an exposé on Anderson’s unscriptural heresy that God will not save “homosexuals”?). All ungodly people are in need of the new birth. How else can one enter the Kingdom?
26. “Unless a homosexual is willing to confess to God, ‘I AM A SINNER,’ they cannot be saved.”
This applies to every sinner, doesn’t it? Okay, just checking.
27. “Although I agree that the gay community is a mission field, from a soul-winning perspective,”
What other perspective is there? Winning souls is the foundational commission of every believer. In which biblical perspective would the “gay” community not be a mission field?
28. “I totally disagree when such reasoning is used to silence Christians about the evils of homosexuality”
So you don’t agree that they’re the mission field?
When did we silence anyone about any sin?
Where did we silence anyone about sin?
The quote you used from our blog is written to people who attack them as enemies (the battlefield mentality), and instead exhorts our readers to give them the truth in love (Christ’s mentality—Luke 7:36-50; Ephesians 4:15). We are in a battle, but it is not against flesh and blood. The people are the mission, and giving them the gospel is our commission.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to disagree with here since we have never silenced the truth.
29. “does that mean preachers and Christians should be silent about such evils? Of course not.”
Again, you still have not shown where we silenced anyone or told anyone to stop calling fornication a sin. We called it a sin many times. We even used Anderson’s favorite Bible word, “abomination.” Should I keep re-quoting our book? I have lots of quotes from it.
30. “Silence is not golden, it is yellow cowardice.”
What color is bearing false witness against the brethren?
31. “The false idea that exposing homosexuality as a filthy sin will hinder reaching the gay community for Christ is a big lie!”
Erp…there’s that word again.
Did we claim that calling it sin would hinder the gospel? No, we claim that verbally abusing sinners is unChrist-like and hateful. We denounce hatred toward a people whom Christ loved enough to die for. Preach the truth, but do it in love.
32. “In eternity, God will hold people accountable for even their words (Matthew 12:36).”
This includes accountability for false accusations against the brethren and handing off hearsay as fact without evidence.
33. “The insane notion that believers will never convert homosexuals to Christianity by calling them ‘perverts’ is totally untrue.”
Did you know that the only “pervert” in the Bible is the one who perverts judgement, perverts the right ways of the Lord, and perverts the gospel of Christ? Sexual sin is never called perversion; it is called adultery, fornication, and abomination. Take care that we do not pervert the words of God by switching out His words for our own new-age words.
Furthermore, this is a poor reason for name-calling sinners. Remember the time in Luke 7 when a prostitute got her face close to Jesus, rubbed her hair across His feet, and then Jesus called her a filthy whore? Me neither. Jesus had some choice words for the religious leaders who piously condemned other sinners, but Jesus never once verbally abused, name-called, or condemned the sinner. He stood firmly against sin, but He demonstrated compassion on the sinner.
You then use the story of the rich man and Lazarus, but you don’t explain how it excuses the verbal abuse of sinners.
34. “The ungodly book effectively attempts to silence Christians to the evils of homosexuality…”
Yet again, which part was ungodly?
The part that called out sin?
Which part told Christians to stop calling out sin?
The part that says to preach truth?
We told people to speak the truth in love (as commanded in Ephesians 4:15). How is that the same thing as silencing the truth? It’s simply what Jesus did.
35. “portraying sodomites as a needy group who ought to be ministered to”
In the words of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Biblically, a sodomite is 1) someone who lived in the city of Sodom, and 2) the male counterpart to a whore:
“There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.” (Deuteronomy 23:17). That’s how God’s Word defines itself. You can use it however you want, just like you have a preference for the new-age word “homosexual.” We prefer to limit our use of the term to how God uses it.
Nevertheless, every group needs the gospel regardless of what word you throw at them. Do you believe that certain people should not be evangelized with the truth of God’s Word? Who gets to make that judgment call?
36. “So while naive preachers are spending the rest of their life reaching out to gays with the Gospel,”
I didn’t realize that preaching the gospel to every creature was a naive use of my God-given life. Here I had been thinking it was my entire purpose as an ambassador of the King!
37. “If churches must become worldly to attract the homosexual community, then they’re coming to apostate religion, not Jesus Christ.”
Why keep it so narrow? We would prefer to say, “If any church becomes worldly to attract any crowd, then that crowd is coming to an apostate church, not to Jesus Christ.” It’s a great statement that fits every church and every crowd.
38. “Although I disagree with Pastor Steve Anderson’s lack of love for the homosexual community”
You don’t seem to disagree with the false accusations he has made against the brethren. Where’s the love for the brethren?
In other news, you appear to believe that we should love the gay community—so do we! But remember to stand strongly against all sin the way we do in Chapter 10 of our book. Don’t allow your love to overshadow the seriousness of sin against God, but preach the truth to them in love.
39. “A fundamentalist preacher ought to be a balance of grace and truth, of strength and beauty!”
So you finally get what we are saying! We call it sin, but we do not lambaste the sinner. We can look at the sinner, recognize that they are condemned already, and show God’s love to them through the cross. Preach the truth, but do it in love.
Is there an echo in here?
40. “The Word of God condemns the sinful world.”
This is exactly why Jesus didn’t waste His time, energy, or breath to condemn the woman caught in adultery—she was condemned already (John 3:18). Why condemn someone who is already condemned? Instead, Jesus showed compassion on her first, and then told her to sin no more.
Sugar coating sin will not help sinners. Telling them it’s okay to keep sinning will not help them. But neither will condemning the one whom God already condemned. Instead, show them the truth from God’s word. “And of some have compassion, making a difference.” Not one time has hatred from a child of God made a positive difference.
…except in this case where Anderson’s hatred has helped us shine brighter to the lost world.
41. “the modern PERversions…completely remove the word ‘sodomite.’ The unscriptural website ‘BORN THAT WAY AFTER ALL’ says they “do not necessarily endorse the term… ‘homosexual’ for several Biblical reasons.”
You complain about modern versions removing one biblical word, yet you persistently use an unscriptural, new-age, anti-biblical word coined by a sexual deviant. Then you complain that we refuse to use that unscriptural term. Where’s the consistency?
We do not shy away from the word sodomite, we simply keep it in biblical context. We do not shy away from calling sin an abomination before God. But we DO avoid using anti-biblical terminology that was coined by sexual deviants.
And which part of our website was unscriptural again? I still haven’t seen any evidence in your article—only empty accusations.
42. “These are wicked people…”
What wickedness have you demonstrated yet? So far, the accusations have lacked proof and been soundly rebutted by quoting the very book you seek to refute. I have 190 more pages of quotes to pull from, if you’re interested.
43. “…who are trying to silence fundamentalist Christians about the evils of homosexuality.”
Really? Repeating a false accusation does not make it true. It will make it believable to others who fail to do their own research, but it still is not true. Who did we silence? Where did we tell them to be silent?
44. “The idea that preaching and standing against open public wickedness, is a form of hate, is as satanic as can be!!!”
Is it possible to stand firmly against sin while still showing compassion to sinners? Yes!
We call it sin, we call it an abomination, we stand firmly on the truth. Yet some Christians still claim we are going soft. Why? Because we refuse to verbally abuse sinners like they do. Because we denounce their hatred and their vulgar language against “gay” people, and because we choose to show grace and compassion to sinners, they claim we are going soft on sin and preaching “false doctrine.”
We stand against the hatred of souls, not against the preaching of truth. If you preach truth with hatred, we will denounce the hatred. We have never denounced the truth.
45. “The ‘BORN THAT WAY AFTER ALL’ ministry is tolerance for sin in the name of loving the sinner, which is sinful compromise.”
Again, where do we tolerate sin? When we dismantled and rejected the “born that way” excuse in Chapter 10, what part of it confused you? When we ended the chapter by reiterating that there is no excuse for sin, which part of that was compromise?
Or did you not actually read the book for yourself? It sounds like you judged our book by it’s cover.
46. “I have no problem with a ministry that addresses homosexuality as a filthy, dirty, sin, while trying to lead homosexuals to Christ with the Gospel.”
If you have no problem with this, then what IS your problem with our ministry? You are being quite contradictory here.
47. “What Dr. David J. Nixon, Johnny Nixon, Joshua Agan and R.G. Hamm are trying to do is convince homosexuals that there’s NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM!”
Which chapter said that there is nothing wrong with sexual sin? Chapter 10 rejects that claim when we said, “What is the truth? First, it is that the lifestyle in which he was living was a sinful one and unacceptable to God.”
Are you sure that you read our book? Or did you simply listen to Steven Anderson and forget to verify his accusations?
48. “The homosexual community even criticizes the book, at TheGaVoice.com website.”
Since you apparently skimmed through the comments on that web page, did you happen to read the comment by Kristin on July 26, 2014? As our secretary at the time, she sharply called out their misrepresentation of what we teach. Did you read where she outlined what we do believe? Here is an online archive of the page for you to check out. Go read the comments.
People criticized the book because it called their actions a sin against God. Imagine that—sinners didn’t like that we called them sinners. Obviously, we are soft on sin, huh?
49. “We’ve got fundamental Baptist pastors meeting the ungodly homosexual community halfway.”
It is sad to see compromising pastors who do such things. We haven’t compromised truth—you just said yourself that they criticized our book, and that was because we call their sin a sin. It’s just that we show grace and compassion to sinners, and certain Christians are not big fans of grace. They prefer vitriolic hatred and name-calling to express their unrighteous indignation toward people they refuse to love.
50. “they say, Christian parents and leaders ought to counsel professed homosexuals…to accept their homosexual feelings.”
Would you mind citing your source for this claim? I helped write the book and I have yet to find this advice in there—this statement is a bold-faced lie.
51. “they are claiming that God makes some people homosexuals”
Would you mind citing your source for this claim, too? I couldn’t find this one in our book, either. Oh, my bad—it was just another lie. We have never claimed this.
52. “That is exactly what the book ‘BORN THAT WAY AFTER ALL’ and the website ‘BORNTHATWAY.ORG’ have done, changing the truth of God into A LIE!!! It is a big lie that God creates anyone with homosexual lusts.”
Also, would you mind citing your source for this claim as well? Not one time have we ever taught that God creates anyone with unnatural affections. In fact, our book says the exact opposite, yet again.
Are you sure you read our book?
I have already listed 52 serious problems with your article from just your first two headings. I haven’t even touched the last four headings yet. Should I keep combing through them, or have we made our point clear enough already?
- You did not hesitate to make accusation after accusation with no basis and no citations.
- You wrongly call out Paul Chappell for “compromising” even though he has nothing to do with our ministry—you owe the man a public apology for your public false accusation.
- You repeatedly bear false witness against us by alleging that we teach things that we have never taught.
- You deceitfully belittle two other men of God for “approving of evil” (which you never actually cite), under the pretense that you do not wish to criticize them—while you are quite literally criticizing them.
You do all of this without ever quoting our book—because our book refutes every false claim you made.
So now I ask you, Mr. Stewart:
- Did you truly read our book for yourself, line it up with Scripture, and then write an honest, spirit-led response to our ministry?
- OR, did you listen to Steven Anderson’s misrepresentation of what he claims we teach, and then draft a long rant based on his talking points?
The content of your article—compared to the testimony of our book—lends itself to the latter.
“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”
“These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: …A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”
Again, I’m disappointed in your lack of research, unscholarly work, and altogether lack of integrity presented in your article, nevertheless, I and my team love you and will pray for you.
Dr. Johnny Nixon