On June 29, 2025, the Rev. Gabriel Lawrence preached a Pride Sunday sermon at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Cleveland Heights, Ohio. He began with Harvey Milk, quoted Milk’s words about “tasting freedom,” and then connected those words directly to Paul’s teaching in Galatians 5. Galatians 5:1 begins, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.” Lawrence said he liked to think Milk’s statement was another way of expressing what the apostle Paul was trying to communicate.

Then the sermon moved from comparison to commemoration. Lawrence told the congregation, “I’ve set up a shrine here to honor two such folks.” He identified the first image as an icon of Harvey Milk and the second as an icon of Matthew Shepard. He described Shepard as someone who “embodied his calling to live into the freedom of Christ” and presented both men as examples of living courageously in the freedom to which Christ calls us.

Those are not accusations supplied by an angry critic. They come from the church’s own published sermon manuscript and recording.

The point of this article is not to deny that Milk and Shepard suffered injustice. Harvey Milk was assassinated. Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered. Christians should condemn murder, hatred, cruelty, and every form of unjust violence. Human dignity does not depend on whether we approve of someone’s beliefs or behavior. Every person bears the image of God.

And suffering, however real, does not by itself make someone an example of Christian holiness.

That is the issue before us.

Compassion is not the same thing as canonization.
Sympathy is not the same thing as sanctification.

Before going further, an important clarification is necessary: every Christian saint is a sinner.

Peter denied Christ. Paul persecuted the Church. The Corinthians had histories filled with sexual immorality, idolatry, greed, drunkenness, and other sins. Yet Paul could write to them as those who had been washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9–11).

So the problem is not that sinful people are being called saints. If sin disqualified a person from grace, there would be no saints at all.

The biblical question is different: What makes a sinner a saint?

In the New Testament, the saints are not people whom the surrounding culture finds courageous, authentic, oppressed, inspiring, or historically important. They are those who belong to Christ. They have been called by the gospel, united to Christ by faith, forgiven, set apart for God, and called to lives of repentance and holiness.

The Church does not create saints by changing the definition of holiness. Christ saves sinners and makes them His own.

That distinction matters because a church can honor courage without calling it holiness. It can mourn an injustice without turning its victim into an example of Christian holiness. It can defend a neighbor's civil rights without presenting that neighbor to the congregation as a model of life in Christ.

The shrine at St. Paul’s is not an isolated example of Christian language being applied to a new set of cultural figures.

DignityHouston, part of the Dignity Catholic LGBTQ movement, publishes a “Litany of LGBTQ+ Saints.” The prayer names Harvey Milk as a “martyred gay rights pioneer” and Matthew Shepard as a “modern gay martyr,” followed by the traditional response, “Pray for us.” The page says the list includes saints “canonized or otherwise.”

New Ways Ministry, a Catholic LGBTQ advocacy organization, published a 2022 prayer service that explicitly invokes “Saint Harvey Milk” and “Saint Matthew Shepard” and asks them to “pray for us.” The document says the litany was adapted from Kittredge Cherry’s “Litany of Queer Saints.”

Kittredge Cherry’s Q Spirit has promoted a “Litany of Queer Saints” that explicitly invokes Harvey Milk and Matthew Shepard in saint-and-martyr language. The litany includes the traditional appeal “pray for us,” and New Ways Ministry identifies Cherry’s litany as the source it adapted for its own 2022 prayer service. This matters because it shows that the language did not originate with one local congregation; it is part of an identifiable devotional project that deliberately recasts LGBTQ historical figures within Christian categories of sainthood and martyrdom.

Dreams & Visions, an LGBTQ-focused ministry in Baltimore affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, has gone further still. In 2026, it advertised recurring “Queer Saint” services, including one celebrating Harvey Milk. Its own description said that every third Sunday the congregation would honor a favorite “Queer Saint.”

And at Metropolitan Community Church of San Francisco, an All Saints observance displayed an “Altar Cross of LGBTQ Martyrs” containing photographs of both Harvey Milk and Matthew Shepard.

These examples are not the same thing as official canonization by the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, or the ELCA. Accuracy matters. But the distinction should not hide what is happening. Christian categories — saint, martyr, icon, shrine, litany, intercession — are being deliberately applied to figures chosen according to a moral framework different from Christ’s.

It would be easy to spend the rest of this article arguing over the word "saint". That would miss the deeper problem.

The changing definitions are a symptom. The disease is a change in authority.

Who has the right to tell the Church what holiness means? Who defines sin? Who defines repentance? Who tells us what Christian freedom is? Who gets to decide whether something Scripture calls sin should instead be celebrated as identity, authenticity, or liberation?

If Scripture is the final authority, then the Church receives its categories from God. We do not get to reverse them because the surrounding culture has changed its moral vocabulary.

But when Scripture is no longer final, something else must become final. It may be personal experience. It may be the moral judgment of the age. It may be political ideology. It may be institutional consensus. It may be a denominational resolution. It may even be a tradition treated as beyond biblical correction.

Whatever it is, something other than God will sit in the judge’s chair.

A church does not abandon Scripture only when it stops quoting Scripture.

It abandons Scripture when something else gains the authority
to tell Scripture what it is permitted to mean.

And once another authority is allowed to overrule Scripture, the pattern becomes predictable.

Lawrence’s sermon is especially revealing because the text he used — Galatians 5 — contains its own guardrails.

Paul absolutely teaches Christian freedom. But Paul does not define freedom as the unrestricted expression of whatever identity or desire feels most authentic. In the same chapter, he warns against using freedom as an opportunity for the flesh (Galatians 5:13). He contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:16–24). And he says that those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Galatians 5:24).

Christian freedom is not freedom from God’s moral authority. It is freedom from condemnation, from slavery to sin, and from the hopeless attempt to justify ourselves by law. That freedom produces a new life under the leadership of the Spirit.

That is why it is dangerous to take Paul’s language of freedom, separate it from Paul’s teaching on holiness, and then refill the word freedom with the modern culture’s assumptions about identity and self-expression.

The Bible is still being quoted. The vocabulary still sounds Christian. But the meaning is now being controlled by something outside Scripture.

Scripture warned us that moral inversion would happen.

Isaiah pronounced judgment on those who reverse God’s moral categories: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20). That warning was given to Judah in Isaiah’s own historical setting, but the principle is timeless: God does not surrender to our culture the right to decide what is good and evil.

The New Testament adds an explicitly last-days warning. Paul told Timothy, “There will be terrible times in the last days” and described people who would be lovers of themselves and lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, while “having a form of godliness but denying its power” (2 Timothy 3:1–5). He later warned, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.” Instead, they would gather teachers “to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Timothy 4:3–4).

That combination should sober the Church: moral rebellion does not always arrive carrying a sign that says, “We reject Christianity.” Sometimes it arrives wearing church vestments, standing behind a pulpit, quoting the apostle Paul, using the language of love, freedom, justice, and inclusion.

The danger is not merely that the church will stop talking about Jesus.
It is that the church will keep talking about Jesus while presenting a
Jesus whose words have been twisted to fit our ungodly culture.

Christians can differ on many secondary matters without breaking fellowship. We may disagree about the timing of Christ’s return, the mode of baptism, the forms of church government, the styles of worship, the spiritual gifts, and many other questions of interpretation and practice.

But the authority of Scripture, the nature of sin, the necessity of repentance, and the meaning of the gospel are not decorative pieces around the edge of Christianity. They are structural.

If sin can be redefined whenever biblical teaching conflicts with contemporary moral consensus, then repentance must also be redefined. If repentance is redefined, salvation itself will eventually be explained differently. And if the Church can assure people that what God calls them to repent of is actually something God celebrates, the consequences are not academic.

Souls are at stake.

Jesus warned, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing” (Matthew 7:15). Paul warned that even if an angel from heaven preached a gospel contrary to the one the apostles proclaimed, that messenger was to be “under God’s curse” (Galatians 1:8–9). James added, “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1).

False teaching is not harmless because it sounds compassionate. A physician who lovingly tells a patient that a deadly disease is actually healthy has not loved the patient. In the same way, teaching that blesses what God calls sin and removes the call to repentance can leave people walking toward judgment and hell while assuring them that they are spiritually safe. That is not inclusion. It is spiritual malpractice. It is a corruption of the gospel.

Christians are called to love sinners. That is not optional. Jesus welcomed sinners, ate with sinners, showed compassion to sinners, and gave Himself for sinners.

But He never confused love with affirmation.

Jesus said, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32). His message was, “Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15). Grace does not mean pretending sin is no longer sin. Grace means that sinners can be forgiven, cleansed, and made new through Christ.

If we truly love people, we must love them enough to tell them the truth. That includes the truth that all of us are sinners. It includes the truth that sin separates us from God. And it includes the truth that following Jesus means more than identifying with Him — it means turning from sin and submitting our lives to Him.

A church that tells people they can follow Christ without repentance is not loving them. It may sound compassionate. It may feel welcoming. But if it assures people that they can remain comfortably in what God calls sin while still being right with Him, it is giving them a false assurance.

That is not love.

Love tells the truth because souls are at stake.

We do not call sinners to repentance because we hate them. We call sinners to repentance because Christ loves them — and because there is forgiveness, mercy, and new life for everyone who turns to Him.

The Christian message is not, “Clean yourself up so that God might love you.” Nor is it, “Whatever you desire must already be holy because God loves you.” The gospel is better than either message: Christ receives repentant sinners and makes them new.

Biblical Christianity can say two things at once without contradiction: “Come exactly as you are” and “Do not expect Christ to leave you exactly as you are.” The Church betrays both truth and love when it removes either half.

First, do not confuse love for people with allegiance to institutions.

Christians should love people in churches like these. Pray for them. Eat with them. Listen to them. Speak with them. Open the Scriptures with them. Defend them from cruelty and violence. Tell them the truth about sin and the greater truth about the Savior who receives repentant sinners.

But loving people does not require placing yourself under teachers who have rejected biblical authority.

If careful comparison with Scripture shows that your church has abandoned biblical authority on the gospel, sin, repentance, or holiness, do not stay simply because you have history there, friends there, or affection for the building. Your loyalty belongs first to Christ and His Word.

If a church, denomination, ministry, school, or Christian organization consistently places contemporary moral intuition, political ideology, personal experience, institutional tradition, or cultural approval above Scripture, do not give that institution your spiritual allegiance.

Do not place yourself or your family under its teaching. Do not fund teaching you believe contradicts the gospel. Do not lend your name or credibility to it as though the disagreement were merely secondary. Churches committed to biblical authority should also be cautious about formal ministry partnerships that blur the difference between faithfulness to Scripture and revising doctrine to fit the culture.

That does not mean Christians should isolate themselves from everyone who disagrees. Paul did not tell believers to leave the world. Jesus ate with sinners. The apostles preached in hostile cities. Christian mission requires contact.

But there is a difference between loving a neighbor and choosing a pastor. There is a difference between having a conversation and placing yourself under spiritual authority. There is a difference between showing hospitality and financing a ministry. There is a difference between friendship and fellowship in teaching.

Romans 16:17 says, “Watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.” Second John 9–11 warns that anyone who does not continue in the teaching of Christ “does not have God” and cautions believers not to share in such work. Those texts should not be weaponized to excuse cruelty, but neither should they be emptied of meaning because discernment makes us uncomfortable.

Second, test teachers by Scripture — including teachers you already agree with.

The Berean Jews were commended because “they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). If an apostle’s preaching was tested against Scripture, no bishop, priest, pastor, professor, denomination, seminary, ministry, or publication should be exempt from the same test.

Be a Berean. Do not take my word for it, nor your pastor’s merely because you trust him. Open the Bible. Compare what your church teaches with what Scripture actually says. Read the passages in context. Ask whether the Word of God is shaping the sermon, denominational statement, curriculum, or ministry position — or whether the Word of God is being reshaped to fit the position. If your church will not tolerate that kind of examination, that itself should tell you something.

Third, refuse the false choice between truth and love.

Biblical love “does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6). Speaking truth without love can become cruelty. Claiming love while suppressing truth becomes mere sentiment. Christians are commanded to be “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).

Finally, remember what is at stake. We are not trying to win a culture-war argument. We are talking about the gospel, repentance, forgiveness, holiness, judgment, and eternal life. If we truly believe those things, silence is not kindness.

So return to the question raised by the shrine at St. Paul’s.

Who may be held before the Church as an example of Christian faithfulness?

Is courage enough? Is suffering enough? Is political importance enough? Is authenticity enough? Is being hated by others enough?

Or must the Christian understanding of sainthood begin where the New Testament begins — with belonging to Jesus Christ?

The answer depends on a prior question:

Who has authority to decide?

If Scripture provides the answer, then every Christian doctrine — sin, repentance, holiness, identity, salvation, marriage, sexuality, justice, love, freedom, and sainthood — remains accountable to the Word of God.

If some other authority has the final word, then Scripture will eventually be made to agree with it.

The sequence is not complicated:

Authority shifts. Interpretation shifts. Definitions shift. Doctrine shifts. Practice shifts.

Eventually the old Christian words can remain while their biblical meanings disappear.

That is why Christians must watch carefully. The danger is not always an empty church with a closed Bible. Sometimes the Bible is open. Sometimes Paul is quoted. Sometimes Christ is named. Sometimes there are icons, prayers, vestments, candles, and Communion.

And yet another authority has quietly taken the throne from God.

Love the people. Pray for the churches. Call them back to Christ and His Word.

Be a Berean. Test everything by the Word of God — including this article. Compare what your church teaches with Scripture. If an institution has placed another authority above God’s Word, do not place yourself or your family under its teaching.

St. Paul’s Episcopal Church — official sermon page, Gabriel Lawrence, June 29, 2025

St. Paul’s — published sermon manuscript (PDF)

DignityHouston — Litany of LGBTQ+ Saints

New Ways Ministry — 2022 prayer service containing “Saint Harvey Milk” and “Saint Matthew Shepard”

Q Spirit / Kittredge Cherry — Litany of Queer Saints

Dreams & Visions — schedule including “Queer Saint Service: Harvey Milk”

Jesus in Love / Kittredge Cherry — report on MCC San Francisco “Altar Cross of LGBTQ Martyrs”