There I was, July 10 2017, and across my feed came an unbelievable sight. Dancing on stage during the Sunday worship service at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan were three Sugar Plum Fairies. Prancing for Jesus, in some kind of interpretive dance or whatever else my uncultured soul couldn’t contemplate, Tim Keller’s church had male ballerinas in stretchy pants worshipping Jesus in some pretty light loafers.
Gay.
What else was there to say? The three-letter epithet came to mind immediately, and to this day, it still does. When I wrote up the article about that, I felt obliged back then to stop short of the term. Instead, I used words like ‘fabulous’ as code for “gay.”
I wrote…
…during the offertory portion of worship, Redeemer offers up an effeminate dance routine with three men…prancing around on stage dressed in tight, white clothing and acting in such a manner that is, well, let’s say, less than appropriate for a Christian church.
I’m sure Keller justified this by Manhattan’s superior and sophisticated appreciation for culture, one of many different ways that “the city brings the gospel to us” or some such thing. But we were all thinking it. That was gay.
In the last decade or so, it seems that few words characterize better what has come out of leftwing evangelicalism than that simple, three-letter word. But for most of this era, it was taboo to say it. One might even say fabulous, or effeminate, but our hands would have been slapped by a thousand hall-monitors and conversational chaperones for daring to use the term. But, why is that?
Yesterday, Tom Ascol of Founders Ministries QT’d a post from Christianity Today’s Mike Cosper, in which Cosper used a single word - coward - to refer to Navy veteran and Florida governor, Ron DeSantis. DeSantis had tweeted support for President Donald Trump relating to his confrontation of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, after Zelenskyy had decided to go full-toddler mode in the Oval Office.
Cosper, who has never been known to show a patriotic bone in his body when it comes to America, has been an outspoken proponent of more senseless killing in Ukraine. One wonders if this is because both Ukraine and Christianity Today are the recipients of millions of dollars of USAID cash. Either way, more dead Ukrainians is something Cosper has been insisting on as way to signal his virtue, and stopping the bloodshed really makes him angry.
Ascol then quoted Cosper and used the word ‘Malakoi” as a response. Malakoi, or μαλακοὶ, is Greek for “effeminate,” but the Scripture uses this in context to refer to homosexuals. Ascol has acknowledged this fact in past tweets, which makes it pretty gay of him to try to distance himself from that definition in subsequent tweets, in which he argued that it only meant ‘soft’ or ‘effeminate.’
It was evident to me, and most readers, that Ascol used the Greek word to avoid the taboo of outright calling someone gay, in the same way that TheoBros have a tendency to use the Greek σκύβαλον (which they find in the Bible) instead of the English rendering of sh**. Should he have only meant the lighter “effeminate,” one wonders why he didn’t just say it. Cosper is probably called effeminate four or five times a day anyway (mostly by me).
Throughout the day yesterday, a plethora of the usual suspects chimed in to shame Ascol. Some alleged he had ‘denounced the faith’ by his epithet. Others claimed it was definitive proof that Ascol had taken up with the ‘Woke Right,’ which is an insult that the Woke Left uses to describe people who make no apologies for believing the Bible. A gaggle of men, most of whom could also justifiably be called gay, took up with characteristically militant women to angrily deride Ascol for this breach of evangelical protocol.
THE CONTEXT OF ‘GAY’ IN 2025
The use of "gay" as an insult, detached from implying homosexuality, emerged prominently in the late 20th century, particularly among English-speaking youth. Originally meaning "cheerful" or "happy" in Middle English (from Old French "gai"), "gay" shifted by the early 1900s to describe homosexual men, a usage solidified in mainstream culture by the mid-20th century. Its transformation into a broader pejorative—think "that’s so gay" for something lame or uncool—took off in the 1980s and 1990s, driven by social dynamics rather than a single event.
The shift began in playgrounds and schoolyards, where kids repurposed "gay" as a catch-all slur for anything deemed weak. Linguistic studies, like those from the American Dialect Society, peg its rise to the 1980s, coinciding with heightened visibility of gay rights movements—e.g., post-Stonewall (1969) activism and the AIDS crisis. Paradoxically, as "gay" became a proud identity for some, it turned into an insult for others, stripped of its sexual connotation. By the 1990s, pop culture amplified it.
Why? Psychologists point to adolescent tribalism—insults bond groups by targeting "outsiders," and "gay" was handy ammo amid lingering cultural stigma. Sociolinguist Robin Lakoff notes it became a "floating signifier," vague enough to hit anything disliked without precision. “Gay” morphed into a versatile jab, reflecting less about sexuality and more about social power. Campaigns like GLSEN’s "Think Before You Speak" (2000s) later pushed back, because - like use of the term ‘retard’ - it implies there’s something wrong with those who have the condition.
And it’s precisely that fact - the reason why pushback exists at all toward the slur - that makes the pear-clutching from evangelicals today so curious. Unlike those who suffer from mental retardation, there actually is something wrong with those who have “the gay condition.” You know, because they’re gay. And there’s something wrong with it.
THE TERM IS A FITTING DESCRIPTION FOR LEFTIST EVANGELICALS
Let’s be honest about this fact. Leftist evangelicals are super-gay. And by that, I don’t mean homosexual, although there’s plenty of that, too. For clarity, when I’m implying someone is a homosexual, I refer to them as a ‘sodomite.’ When I refer to someone being weak, effeminate, dainty, liberal, or stupid, I call them gay.
David Morrill, of Protestia, uses the term, “gayjacent” to describe this. But let’s be clear, there’s lots of actual homosexuality in Cosper’s circles, and in the circles of leftist evangelicalism.
Homosexual journalist, Jonathan Merritt, has been a treasured asset of evangelical leftists for many years. The son of a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and megachurch pastor, James Merritt, has never found his out-and-proud homosexuality to bring him any disfavor among the biggest names of evangelicalism. Ed Stetzer, Russell Moore, Mike Cosper - in fact, almost anybody associated with Christianity Today - has treated him almost like a gay mascot of leftist evangelicalism. Jonathan Merritt has been their ally in the press, and they have been his protector in the church, giving him a place of honor, and never questioning his penchant for sodomy while allowing him to throw stones at conservative evangelicals without ever hinting that maybe a lost homosexual shouldn’t be throwing stones at Christians with a cheer-squad of leftist evangelicals applauding him all the while.
Evangelicals like Cosper or Russell Moore - again, especially those associated with Christianity Today and The Gospel Coalition - run in a gaggle of homosexuals who they’ve lifted up as a special Eunuch Class of evangelicals. There’s literally a whole gay posse that follows them around, and who they regularly platform, ranging from celebrated gay priest, Sam Allberry, to Rachel Gilson, Jackie Hill Perry, Rebecca McLaughlin and many more. What role do these homosexuals have in the church? They’re usually trotted out to talk about marriage to married couples, offering us relationship advice.
And let’s not forget, this is the same crowd of evangelicals that supported, defended, and applauded the Revoice Conference, which gathered homosexuals together behind locked doors to denounce the doctrine of repentance. Reports came out afterward that the conference after party turned into a literal gay orgy. Nonetheless, it was defended, supported, and applauded by Mike Cosper.
Cosper, who characterizes those who question the Post-War Consensus as “Nazis,” thinks fellowship should be more quickly broken by those who fail to venerate Winston Churchill than those who take part in gay orgies masquerading as Christian events.
Cosper, and those like him, support the “softening tone” on homosexuality promoted by Russell Moore, and agree with JD Greear that the Bible “only whispers” about the sin of homosexuality. If you aren’t familiar with these scandals, good for you. You’re blessed. But it suffices to say that support for actual sodomy runs deep with Cosper and his acolytes.
But again, they’re not accurately characterized as “gay” because they support homosexuality in some pretty overt ways, or routinely criticize actual Christians for denouncing sodomy with the same level of contempt and honesty with which the Scripture does it. They’re gay because of the anti-masculine vibe they put out into the world.
Whatever the position is that’s held by masculine Christians or conservative women, is whatever position Cosper and his merry band of effeminates support. Lady preachers? Yup, they’re all in. Using the #ChurchToo movement as a political bludgeon to throw out complementarian ecclesiology? Yup. Environmentalism, animal rights, abortion-coddling, voting for Kamala Harris? Yup, they’re down with all that. They are the Longhouse of American Evangelicalism.
There is obviously a certain effeminate metrosexuality exuded in this branch of evangelicalism that’s apparent to almost everyone. It could be their affinity for scarves and other needless accessories that serve no point but style, or the way they carry themselves, or the way they responded to Donald Trump’s campaign victory that was identical to that of the blue-haired, nose-ringed leftists melting down on Libs of TikTok. Sometimes, it’s hard to put your finger on exactly why gay seems to fit them so perfectly. But, it does. Almost everyone recognizes this.
BUT DOES ‘GAY’ OFFEND CHRISTIAN SENSIBILITIES?
The assumption of the Biblically-illiterate left is that there’s no sin in effeminate aesthetics or behavior, short of actual sodomy. And therefore, alleging that Cosper (or any of the other masculine-challenged evangelicals) are gay, without accusing them of sodomy, is some kind of 9th Commandment violation. After all, just because Cosper has tons of gay friends and tons of gay beliefs and tons of gay political positions, doesn’t mean he’s gay. Right?
But this overlooks the colloquial use of the term that we all understand in 21st Century America. If we call skinny jeans “gay” it’s not implying that the jeans themselves engage in sodomy. The adjective is applied to others things, that resemble or are obviously associated with homosexual vibing.
The Greek word malakos, used by Ascol, literally means "soft" or "delicate" and, in ancient Greek culture, refers to a lack of masculine fortitude or moral weakness. In the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9, malakos is paired with arsenokoitēs (often translated as "homosexuals" or "men who practice homosexuality"), suggesting a connection to sexual immorality or exploitative relationships, such as those involving male prostitution or pederasty, which were common in the Greco-Roman world. But make no mistake, effeminate behavior is a separate and different sin than sodomy.
Cosper is guilty on the first, and the jury is still out on the second. We’ll see.
Malakos refers to men who adopt feminine traits or behaviors, which were seen as deviating from the societal norms of masculinity, because the Bible condemns effeminate behavior in men. In terms of the political positions of Mike Cosper and the other leftist evangelicals, it’s unmistakable that they are the same positions ordinarily held by single, unmarried women.
Just as women, especially those without a strong male influence (like a husband), lean heavily toward “empathy” rather than logic, facts, or reason, Cosper and his leftist evangelical friends more highly value bleeding-heart liberalisms over a proper estimation of facts or reality. It doesn’t matter if Ukraine can’t win. It doesn’t matter if Ukrainians are dying. It doesn’t matter if continued or even increased support from the U.S. wouldn’t make a difference. To Cosper, the only thing that matters is that “the bad guys” lose, and the bad guys are whoever mainstream media tells you the bad guys are. And that’s why his views are effeminate.
And this isn’t just a New Testament thing. Isaiah 19:16 describes nations or groups becoming "like women" in a state of weakness or fear. And repeatedly, people in the Bible are told to stand up and dress “like a man,” implying that men and women indeed carry themselves differently. But Cosper and the evangelical leftists carry themselves no differently than the typical female gender studies professor. There’s really nothing masculine about them, whether in appearance, mindset, or opinion.
BIBLICAL NAME-CALLING
Jesus used strong, metaphorical language to rebuke people, particularly the Pharisees. In Matthew 23, He repeatedly called them "hypocrites" (Matthew 23:13-29) for their pretense, "blind guides" (Matthew 15:14; 23:16, 24) for their misguided leadership, "fools" (Matthew 23:17, 19) for their lack of understanding, and "serpents" or "brood of vipers" (Matthew 12:34; 23:33) for their deceitful nature. He also described them as "whitewashed tombs" (Matthew 23:27) to highlight their outward righteousness masking inner corruption. Additionally, He labeled an unbelieving generation "evil and adulterous" (Matthew 12:39; 16:4) for demanding signs, and called Peter "Satan" (Matthew 16:23) when Peter opposed God’s plan. These terms, rooted in spiritual critique, aimed to properly mark and identify those to whom he spoke.
Paul, for instance, confronted Elymas in Acts 13:9-10, calling him a "son of the devil" and an "enemy of everything that is right" for opposing his ministry, exposing the sorcerer’s deceitful intent. Paul also labeled false teachers in 2 Corinthians 11:13 as "false apostles" and "deceitful workers" for misleading the Corinthians, and in Philippians 3:2, he warned against Judaizers as "dogs," "evildoers," and "mutilators of the flesh," using culturally derogatory terms to critique their legalism. Additionally, both Peter (2 Peter 2:1) and Paul (Acts 20:29) described false teachers as "false prophets" and "savage wolves," respectively, to highlight their destructive influence on the church.
GAY, THE ULTIMATE DISMISSIVE TERM
Let’s be honest; Christians have spent far too much time interacting with leftist evangelicals. They are, as I like to call them, the “devil’s rodeo clowns.” I highlighted this in the article, Neil Shenvi and the Stubborn Demons Only Removed By Prayer and Fasting. I also covered the concept of the Devil’s Rodeo Clowns in the article, Pass the Gas Lighting. In the latter, I wrote…
I’ve been referring to them as “the devil’s rodeo clowns.” A rodeo clown, in case you were unaware, isn’t there primarily to entertain the crowd. The rodeo clown is there to distract the bull when he’s about to kick the cowboy in the face and send him to Jesus. I feel myself an expert, although less so lately, at arguing with evangelical leftists. And let me tell you, they are not serious. They are not sincere. They are playing interference with the big boys to keep them from landing on punch on the devil…What I’m suggesting is, the most prolific afflicters of conservative evangelical influencers, their proverbial thorns in the flesh (Mike Cosper and Dwight McKissic are two that come to mind) are devilish. I’m suggesting that every metric by which such things can be judged, strongly suggests they work for the other team. By that, I mean Satan.
The concept is genius, but ironically so. Their arguments are so pathetically stupid, it makes you want to reach out and “help them” come to the right conclusions. It’s a ruse, people. Satan always uses Christians’ virtue against them. Whatever virtue you have, for example, wanting to help someone avail themselves of woeful ignorance, is what the devil uses to put his barbs in you. He uses your moral strength to attack your weaknesses.
In this case, Tom Ascol’s moral strength is that he’s a nice guy, and today they used it against him. He was just brutally honest, and said what we all know…Cosper’s gay. And so, for 24 or 48 hours, he’ll be brow-beaten by the literal sons of satan for the faux pas of being honest. They’ll virtue-shame him until he denounces himself, or they move on to argue about why abortion is not that bad anyway, maybe in a day or two. In the meantime, they will hope Ascol bends or breaks from the moral shaming conducted by the most godless, perverse liberals who dare identify themselves by the name of Christ.
The reason I’m quite fond of just saying, ‘gay,’ and walking away, is that it is a term of dismissal. That’s because if someone is gay, they need not be listened to any more. If we’re being literal, and we’re talking about an actual sodomy, there’s really nothing further we need to hear from them to dismiss their perspective. Why? They use their anus as a phallic entrance. That pretty well rules out me ever caring about your point of view.
Designating someone ‘gay’ is a simple, three-letter way of denoting that their opinions aren’t worthy of our consideration, because they are characteristically backwards of nature and common sense. It’s our way of saying that their worldview is completely upside down. They are illogical. They are perverse. They are disordered.
The term ‘marks’ the one its used against as, in our opinion, not worthy of considering.
Once upon a time, I had a worship leader - a young man - who liked to be stylish. It always bothered me, but one Sunday, with his jeans way too skinny, donning a scarf, and a stylish hat that matched his outfit, I cornered him in rebuke. My explanation was simple; in a church full of men, they will not respect a boy dressed like you, and I cannot blame them. Men are led by men, not boys, so dress like a man. He was not gay, but his outfit was, and that was the last of that.
And finally, using the term ‘gay’ to describe someone like Cosper or other evangelical leftists is a giant dismissal of any concern we have to be well-thought of by our own critics. We don’t care how they might shame us over it. We don’t care they might be characterized as bigots or one kind of ‘phobe’ or another. It’s our way of saying that the days of us caring about your accusations are over; we will say what we are thinking, because they day for diplomacy ended the day you started acting so gay.
Far from being a juvenile epithet, it’s actually one of wisdom and maturity. It’s a mature man who realizes that you can’t argue with women, and you sure can’t argue with men who act like women. And I, for one, am glad to see the term come into popular use.
If you appreciate my work, please grab a paid subscription for $8 a month or $80 a year to access exclusive content (like the full archives, access to the Protesta Insider Round Table via Zoom each week, and more).
If you don’t want a paid subscription, considering a one-time gift of your choosing by clicking the ‘coffee link’ below. This is one of the things I do to provide for my small farm and big family, so I sure appreciate it.
Share this post