Wheaton College Hosts Revoice Speaker Who Calls Marriage an Idol and Says "Gay Celibacy" is Superior

Wheaton College, a school that was once known for its firm stance on biblical orthodoxy, now serves as an all-you-can-eat buffet for theological drift. The latest spectacle? David Bennett, a Revoice speaker, prancing onto the stage in an exaggerated, overtly feminine tone to lecture evangelicals on the alleged superiority of "gay celibacy" as though biblical chastity needed a “queer” rebranding to be legitimate.

Bennett, ever the performance artist, declared that "gay celibacy" is a "deeply queer phenomenon," because apparently, even the virtue of self-denial must now be reinterpreted through the lens of LGBTQ identity politics.

This is the Revoice movement distilled to its essence: nothing—not even biblical chastity—escapes the gravitational pull of their obsession with sexuality. The message is clear. Faithfulness to Christ isn't enough unless it comes packaged with the language of queer theory and the approval of the rainbow clergy.

But Bennett wasn't content with just queering celibacy, he had to take a jab at marriage itself. With a smug smile and exaggerated lisp, he boasted, "us gay people, we did take the idol of marriage pretty fabulously off the heterosexuals."

And there it is. The mask slips. This isn’t about holiness, obedience, or submission to Christ’s lordship. This is about dismantling the faith from within, mocking biblical marriage while insisting on its redefinition. The goal isn’t to honor God with chastity and sexual purity but to force the church into a hostage negotiation with the spirit of the age.

And Wheaton—supposedly one of evangelicalism’s "trusted institutions"—handed this man a microphone.

For those unfamiliar with Revoice, this movement claims to promote a celibate gay Christianity, but in practice, it offers a theological scheme pushing "Side B Christianity," which insists that same-sex attraction is an immutable identity rather than a sinful distortion of God’s created order.

Under this framework, homosexuals are encouraged to form intimate, co-dependent relationships that mimic marriage—so long as they technically avoid sex. It’s like telling a pyromaniac he can pour gasoline and strike a match, just so long as he promises not to start a fire.

The result? A celebration of homosexual unions under the guise of celibacy, all while sneering at the very institution of marriage as “idolatry.”

Wheaton’s decline is no accident. It’s the fruit of years of soft-peddling compromise, made evident by its cozy relationship with Ed Stetzer, a man whose tenure at Wheaton’s Billy Graham Center did little to preserve any semblance of doctrinal integrity.

Now at Biola, Stetzer is still one of the evangelical elite’s favorite voices—despite his habit of platforming progressives, equivocating on biblical sexuality, and playing the role of a self-important thought leader for the Evangelical Intelligentsia.

His fingerprints are all over the downward spiral. Case in point, he and other TGC types held an "evangelical conference" at Amy Grant’s venue—the same Amy Grant who hosted a same-sex "wedding" for her lesbian niece there.

You have to admit, though. It’s clever. Nothing screams "commitment to biblical sexual ethics" like gathering in a space that is used to mock biblical marriage. It’s the theological equivalent of hosting a revival in a strip club. But of course, when you’re more interested in cultural currency than biblical conviction, you don’t think twice.

The larger issue here isn’t just Wheaton. It’s the broader trend of evangelical institutions bending the knee to the idols of the age while pretending they haven’t moved an inch. They want the vocabulary of Christian virtue while embracing the ideology of the sexual revolution.

And if you dare to point it out? You’re the problem.

Bennett’s presence at Wheaton is really just a symptom of the terminal disease that’s plaguing Evangelicalism. The infiltration of Revoice ideology into historically Christian institutions isn’t something to just gloss over—it’s an open rebellion dressed up as nuanced discussion.

Bennett’s rhetoric is the equivalent of a wolf complaining that the sheepfold has too many fences while licking his chops in anticipation.

So, once again, here we are. The self-proclaimed guardians of biblical orthodoxy invite speakers who openly mock marriage, reframe celibacy as a “queer virtue,” and insist that the church must reimagine sexuality to remain relevant.

Watch: