Preston Sprinkle and Jared Moore
A critique regarding their dialogue on gender and sexuality
Recently, Rosaria Butterfield spoke at Liberty University regarding same sex attraction, homosexual marriage and sexual identity. In her speech she called out Preston Sprinkle, ReVoice, CRU (originally Campus Crusades for Christ) and Sprinkle’s conference titled Exiles in Babylon.
Sprinkle, who admittedly doesn’t normally interact with disagreements on social media made the exception to discuss the critiques and accusations made by Pastor Jared Moore via Twitter/X, and had him on his podcast to talk about Moore’s claims that Sprinkle is a heretic or at best teaches heresy. The following are some critiques from listening that I think be beneficial for any future conversation. Take it for what it’s worth.
-Preston was too quick to move from question to question. He didn't allow very much room for conversation and once Jared started to make headway with his points he was told "we'll come back to that". It was like driving the clutch on a manual and stifled any good dialogue. I think Jared could have stood firmer on keeping on track.
-Preston’s pot shot about Jared's hermeneutic professor was far below the the belt and totally set the tone for the rest of the interview. He admitted that his comment was not appropriate but it essentially said more about his character and did more damage toward the rest of the conversation. If someone uses an ad hominem toward you, it’s usually to shut you up and it seemed to do that.
-Jared was completely unprepared for this conversation which was strikingly frustrating. His inability to clarify his points and bring receipts to his very valid claims against Preston, allowed Preston to walk all over him. The arguing about definitions takes up a majority of the discussion. For Preston I get why he wants certain terms defined so he doesn't get caught in someone assuming he's saying one thing and meaning another, at the same time Jared’s lack of clarity over the definitions only causes Preston to divert the issue from the topic, back to defining terms. Jared should have had more ammunition going into this, he admitted to not reading Preston’s books, and much of his claims were based on third party views that Preston admits he doesn’t hold himself. Again, if Moore had come in with receipts, he would have made a significant impact.
-Although church history and their view on sin is good and valid, it's a tough thing to appeal to guys like Preston and his audience. Biblical rebukes with specific scripture will hold far more weight in correction. Jared could have argued scripturally with proofs about fellowshipping with unbelievers, speaking truth, loving your neighbors by not lying to them etc... appealing to the church fathers unfortunately doesn't work. Preston remarks over and over again that he was “perfectly comfortable” with being considered a heretic by the standards of what Jared references. I don’t think he meant that he was alright being a heretic, but that because he disagrees with their view, he’s ok to be considered that by that specific audience. I wish he'd have explained more why he was comfortable with those views, and not so easily dismiss them because some of those accusations are problematic at best and damnable sin at worst.
-In the case of repentance, Jared could have been more graceful with Preston in that Preston openly states what he believes and that many of Jared's claims were addressed on the spot by Preston and he was unwilling to concede. Jared should have dug in on Preston’s platforming of wicked and apostate people, but needed to make a biblical case for it before calling them out. In other words, "the Bible says this and you do this, so here's the issue". There’s even a moment where Preston almost says he “endorses” the folks who speak at his conference, but instead says platforming. I think this was a moment that should have been capitalized on. The fact that Preston gives a voice to some of these folks, does translate to some sense of approval. The scriptures do make clear that darkness and light cannot fellowship together. That we should mark and avoid people who say damnable things. This is the main point I had hoped Jared would have focused and articulated better.
-So much of the conversation was centered around definitions that I think in hindsight, defining terms like “gender” and “sex” from the jump would have benefitted everyone.
-I think Jared’s concern about people using pro-nouns in their bio speaking at the conference is a weak argument and is not the main concern with Sprinkle’s stance. Though I think people listing their pronouns is silly and unnecessary, it’s like boxing with a ghost. It’s also not the most concerning of what Sprinkle has been accused of. I have read all of Jared’s comments regarding his concern with Preston, there is a lot that is justifiably concerning, but the pro-nouns in bio is so minute that it detracts from the larger issues and that is all that a casual listener is going to take away from the talk.
-Jared makes a valid point that Preston admitted he would never let Jared speak at one of his conferences, because he does in fact police the people he has speak. Yet he tries to say he doesn’t police the people, in regard to pronouns in their bio. This does seem hypocritical on Preston’s part. He should have just said that pro-nouns in bio is not something they specifically police for their speakers. The argument kept coming back to this, which I felt detracted from the main points.
-The conversation would have gone better with a mediator to clarify for both sides the real disagreements, because Preston dominated the discussion while Jared kept reverting back to "pronouns in bio" as his main frustration, there should have been receipts and further clarification from Jared.
Preston is immersed in the world of sexuality and gender. He is surrounded by people with different voices all the time. I do imagine that can impact your world view. Preston’s desire is for compassion toward people primarily, while Jared’s desire is adherence to biblical standards over people’s responses. This sets the tone for both men in their disagreement with each other. In other words, they both live in different worlds as they communicate with each other.
This conversation only paints Jared out to be a narrow minded fundamentalist. I think Preston saw him as an easy target and his audience is not likely to hear Pastor Moore’s concern, while Jared didn’t seem willing to hear Preston out even as he stated he didn’t hold the views he was accused of holding. I do hope both men can reflect on their conversation and that clarity can be made to each of them. Repentance shouldn’t be looked at in the negative, we GET to repent, which is a blessing that the Lord does not owe us. If the men are able to repent for either erroneous views or false accusations, it would be a net positive.