"I don't read it that way," was the response in a recent online YouTube interview on homosexuality with Rob Bell (See http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/videos-for-pastors/167776-andrew-wilson-and-rob-bell-discuss-homosexuality.html). The interviewer plied him with a number of questions on the text of the Bible, the nature of God, and the obvious moral statements made in the Scriptures by Jesus and Paul on the subject of sexual deviation and homosexuality. Bell said Jesus made no statements per se on homosexuality, and that Paul must be read in the context of idolatry of his day, especially the rampant homosexual environment of men and boys at pagan temples. And, as far as Leviticus and its obvious prohibitions, Bell discounted those as "particularized" instances for Israel in a pagan environment. In other words, Bell summarily dismissed most of what Scripture says against homosexuality.
However, he still insisted on being called a Christian, being held as a Christian minister of the gospel, and having fellowship with other Christians, even though and in spite of the fact they disagree with him on this and other issues. He discounted the label "liberal" as narrowly centered on a few issues, such as this one, and stated that should never bar Christian fellowship. 'We must get on with life as it is today," he insisted in accepting homosexual Christian couples into full church fellowship and communion. "Life as it is today" includes faithful, caring homosexual couples. The main issue with him was "unfaithfulness" either in regular marriage or homosexual unions. His response to his debater was, "I don't read the Scriptures that way."
So, let's recap. A person's private interpretation of Scripture, seen through his own lenses, takes precedent and is biblically warranted in spite of the fact that hundreds of Christian orthodox writers and theologians and commentators and churches have said otherwise. "Me and my spectacles" is the post-modern way of understanding the Bible and its prohibitions. This is dangerous self-sufficiency and proud obstructionism against centuries of recognized Christian evangelical scholarship.
Most theologians and church people who AGREE with Rob Bell DO take a more "liberal" view of the Scriptures. That means they question whole sections and parts of it being the very Word of God written. They wonder if this or that is simply Jesus or Paul or whoever "contextualizing" his words "for their time" or a special "situation." It is not the declarative, propositional Word of the Living God that crosses all time and all cultures for all people. So, whether or not Bell sees himself on the "liberal" side of the equation, he is certainly there by his bedfellows. This in no way takes away from the humanity or situation of the writer of Scripture. But I am affirming that the Holy Spirit spoke with all authority divine revelation, not just "current advice."
I say again, as I have elsewhere, that much of the modern evangelical church, especially the mega-churches, will no doubt rationalize their way through the challenge of gay marriage and homosexuality to somehow "affirm" people who practice such lifestyles. They will accept Rob Bell's premise that "this is just life the way it is" and we better get on board with life the way it is to effectively minister. This is a watershed issue and moment for the Christian, evangelical church. Make no mistake. What we say and do in the homosexual arena will mark us for years to come as to whether or not we have been faithful to God and the Scriptures. It does not matter if we are, at the end of the day, "relevant" or "up to date" or "seeker sensitive" or whatever. What matters is what GOD thinks and says.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Christians, Homosexual Marriage & Marginalization
In a very compelling article from Colson's Ekklesia:Worldview Church, March 28, 2013, Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes on the Supreme Court battle going on now about same-sex marriage and how those decisions will impact the nation and the church. (See http://www.worldviewchurch.org/wvc-digest/featured-articles/19473-marriage-in-the-dock-the-supreme-court-considers-same-sex-marriage spMailingID=5854420&spUserID= NTYxMzk4NTc4NwS2&spJobID=69711057&spReportId=Njk3MTEwNTcS1)
In another article referenced by the same source, Joel Rainey makes the point we just need to put our politics at the door and get on with the reality of ministry to same-sex couples and their adopted children (SEE http://www.worldviewchurch.org/wvc-digest/featured-articles/19476-the-future-of-pastoral-ministry-are-we-really-up-to-this?spMailingID=5854420&spUserID= NTYxMzk4NTc4NwS2&spJobID= 69711057&spReportId=Njk3MTEwNTcS1). These are just two more evangelical writers commenting on one of the most socially divisive and yet profoundly disturbing realities for evangelicals and churches seeking to remain true to biblical standards and revelation.
And this week a relatively new person to our church, who is heavily involved in community activities, indicated he has a lot of Facebook friends in support of same-sex marriage. One of his friends put it this way: "I am glad my daughter will grow up in a much more accepting atmosphere." And then he writes: "I don't hear the church saying much about it either . . . I don't even know how to respond to them." Much of the nation's media have accepted same-sex marriage as fait accompli. Obviously, churches and ministries should follow suit, according to many.
Biblical churches can attempt to ignore the issue, side-step the issue or tackle it directly. My own denomination, which forbids ministers to perform same-sex unions and upholds the biblical definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, also takes a non-political viewpoint of the proceedings. To tackle the issue directly would imply confrontation and all the mess involved in such direct involvement. To side-step the issue or ignore it does not answer my friend's dilemma in his witness and outreach to his friends. The problem becomes one of marginalization in these choices. Right now in the national media and growing national consciousness, maintaining a biblical standard of marriage and excluding same-sex unions as marriages, isolates "white, evangelical fundamentalists" and pushes them into a minority fringe in this country. What we say and how we respond to this new openness and direct challenge to biblical standards and morality determines our ongoing impact on our society.
Here are a few of my thoughts on the fray. First, this is one of many "watershed" issues of our century in ministry and church work. It's not the only issue, but certainly a major one. The issue is not merely one of state's rights versus the federal government, or equal access according to the law, or constitutional guarantees. This is what our President and others would have us believe. It is part of an aggressive agenda of moving societal standards away from long-held Judaeo-Christian beliefs and practices. It is an anti-biblical redefinition of right and wrong. Whatever one says about same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general, it clearly violates the marriage standard and definition put forth in Scripture. Saying nothing or trying to ignore it can be read as silent agreement with it.
Second, same-sex marriage therefore is at root a moral issue, not of political and social correctness, but of right and wrong, of sinful behavior against that approved and promoted in the Bible. A number of conservatives and evangelicals maintain that this issue and its aftermath will destroy the American family. It will thwart the normal psychological growth and maturation of boys raised in lesbian homes. It will result in family fragmentation and create many more youth problems than what we have now. It will blur the lines of right behavior versus wrong behavior. While social statisticians will and have been debating these conclusions, there is no doubt that what is "acceptable" behavior will change in a number of areas.
Third, the church must make a critical decision. Will it be the church, devoted to God's defined standards and codes of conduct, or will it devolve into another social agency with minimally defined boundaries? Have we forgotten our mission and history of always being "aliens and strangers" (1 Peter 2:11) in a world-order set against God and His will? Our calling is to be "in" the world but never "of" the world. Why can't we radically separate from the world-order yet be radically involved with that order? We are to be "witnesses" to a world fleeing from God. Does this mean we will be marginalized by our world? The attempt to do so is already there. God is still God, however, and He will use devoted people to challenge, to confront, to show a different way to a world going its own destructive way. We need to make this choice!
Fourth, we have to clean up our own "house" in the church. For way too long we have danced with sinful behavior of various types and have failed to discipline, to confront, to rebuke and to be what God has called us to be and do. Homosexual sinful behavior is no worse or no better than unmarried couples living together, or wrongly divorced people happily and without remorse attending the same church, or people addicted to alcohol or drugs or food or whatever.
Fifth, we must really start believing in both the grace and power of God to change lives and habits and thoughts. I believe Jesus' words to his disciples "O ye of little faith" apply to much of the church and ministry today. We don't trust God enough to transform hearts and minds of same-sex couples. We think we must somehow "win" them by avoiding dealing with their lifestyle. Cannot God change their hearts and minds?
"For me and my house, we will serve the Lord." This continues to be my standard, my commitment, my challenge and my calling in a society where same-sex unions will be held up by many as normal, as the new order of marriage. What about you?
In another article referenced by the same source, Joel Rainey makes the point we just need to put our politics at the door and get on with the reality of ministry to same-sex couples and their adopted children (SEE http://www.worldviewchurch.org/wvc-digest/featured-articles/19476-the-future-of-pastoral-ministry-are-we-really-up-to-this?spMailingID=5854420&spUserID= NTYxMzk4NTc4NwS2&spJobID= 69711057&spReportId=Njk3MTEwNTcS1). These are just two more evangelical writers commenting on one of the most socially divisive and yet profoundly disturbing realities for evangelicals and churches seeking to remain true to biblical standards and revelation.
And this week a relatively new person to our church, who is heavily involved in community activities, indicated he has a lot of Facebook friends in support of same-sex marriage. One of his friends put it this way: "I am glad my daughter will grow up in a much more accepting atmosphere." And then he writes: "I don't hear the church saying much about it either . . . I don't even know how to respond to them." Much of the nation's media have accepted same-sex marriage as fait accompli. Obviously, churches and ministries should follow suit, according to many.
Biblical churches can attempt to ignore the issue, side-step the issue or tackle it directly. My own denomination, which forbids ministers to perform same-sex unions and upholds the biblical definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, also takes a non-political viewpoint of the proceedings. To tackle the issue directly would imply confrontation and all the mess involved in such direct involvement. To side-step the issue or ignore it does not answer my friend's dilemma in his witness and outreach to his friends. The problem becomes one of marginalization in these choices. Right now in the national media and growing national consciousness, maintaining a biblical standard of marriage and excluding same-sex unions as marriages, isolates "white, evangelical fundamentalists" and pushes them into a minority fringe in this country. What we say and how we respond to this new openness and direct challenge to biblical standards and morality determines our ongoing impact on our society.
Here are a few of my thoughts on the fray. First, this is one of many "watershed" issues of our century in ministry and church work. It's not the only issue, but certainly a major one. The issue is not merely one of state's rights versus the federal government, or equal access according to the law, or constitutional guarantees. This is what our President and others would have us believe. It is part of an aggressive agenda of moving societal standards away from long-held Judaeo-Christian beliefs and practices. It is an anti-biblical redefinition of right and wrong. Whatever one says about same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general, it clearly violates the marriage standard and definition put forth in Scripture. Saying nothing or trying to ignore it can be read as silent agreement with it.
Second, same-sex marriage therefore is at root a moral issue, not of political and social correctness, but of right and wrong, of sinful behavior against that approved and promoted in the Bible. A number of conservatives and evangelicals maintain that this issue and its aftermath will destroy the American family. It will thwart the normal psychological growth and maturation of boys raised in lesbian homes. It will result in family fragmentation and create many more youth problems than what we have now. It will blur the lines of right behavior versus wrong behavior. While social statisticians will and have been debating these conclusions, there is no doubt that what is "acceptable" behavior will change in a number of areas.
Third, the church must make a critical decision. Will it be the church, devoted to God's defined standards and codes of conduct, or will it devolve into another social agency with minimally defined boundaries? Have we forgotten our mission and history of always being "aliens and strangers" (1 Peter 2:11) in a world-order set against God and His will? Our calling is to be "in" the world but never "of" the world. Why can't we radically separate from the world-order yet be radically involved with that order? We are to be "witnesses" to a world fleeing from God. Does this mean we will be marginalized by our world? The attempt to do so is already there. God is still God, however, and He will use devoted people to challenge, to confront, to show a different way to a world going its own destructive way. We need to make this choice!
Fourth, we have to clean up our own "house" in the church. For way too long we have danced with sinful behavior of various types and have failed to discipline, to confront, to rebuke and to be what God has called us to be and do. Homosexual sinful behavior is no worse or no better than unmarried couples living together, or wrongly divorced people happily and without remorse attending the same church, or people addicted to alcohol or drugs or food or whatever.
Fifth, we must really start believing in both the grace and power of God to change lives and habits and thoughts. I believe Jesus' words to his disciples "O ye of little faith" apply to much of the church and ministry today. We don't trust God enough to transform hearts and minds of same-sex couples. We think we must somehow "win" them by avoiding dealing with their lifestyle. Cannot God change their hearts and minds?
"For me and my house, we will serve the Lord." This continues to be my standard, my commitment, my challenge and my calling in a society where same-sex unions will be held up by many as normal, as the new order of marriage. What about you?
Friday, January 25, 2013
Who Is Right? A Discussion About Louis Giglio's Dis-invite from the Inauguration
Commenting on the dis-invite of Louis Giglio as a participant in the inauguration, Robert George writes: "Christians
shouldn’t panic or cower when culture
or political power shifts into the hands of those who hold our moral
convictions in contempt. Christians shouldn’t seek to silence our
opponents. But calling for fairness and justice, as the Apostle Paul did for
himself (Acts 16:37-39), is none of those things. When it comes to our public
witness, we are our brothers’ keepers." This was a directed response to Matthew Anderson's blog comment that evangelicals need to "shrug it off." (SEE Robert George and Russell Moore, First Things First post at http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/ 2013/01/shrug-not commenting on
(NOTE: Robert P.
George is a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and McCormick Professor of
Jurisprudence at Princeton University; Russell D. Moore is the provost and dean
of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in
Louisville, Kentucky.
-------------------------
O.K. who
is right? Anderson or George? What SHOULD be the Christian's response to the
dis-invite of Louis Giglio in the inauguration? I think there are actually a
number of responses. First, a bit of background. I have marched in Right to
Life rallies, served on a city-wide pro-life board, written letters and spoken
to Washington, DC insiders. I have also, on the other hand, written letters and
notes against Jim Dobson and other
"activist" politically-minded evangelicals. I have been a Baptist, a
Presbyterian and a Brethren in Christ pastor and church leader. So, I come from
a wide perspective and with a breadth of interaction and experience in dealing
with both non-conformity and, on the other hand, involvement with the culture.
I believe in a God-centered, Bible-based, world-and-life viewpoint.
To begin with,
you cannot have it both ways. Either we SHOULD seek to silence our opponents,
OR we should PANIC and be VERY concerned. Not to silence our opponents means
accepting more and more of a worldview at violent and inescapable odds against
Christianity. The current homosexual agenda is very militant, very focused, and
is saturating every aspect of our society. If we don't defeat this evidence of
atheistic secularism, we will never be able to define marriage biblically. This
may require severe means for Christians who take a stand against such agendas.
On the
other hand, what does "silencing" our opponents mean and involve?
Some would call for radical protests, marches, demonstrations, sit-ins (remember
the 60s?), jail time, fines and so forth. A few would even propose more
radically minded revolt. But I see this option as unbiblical and unworthy of
what God finally wants of us. Jesus as a sheep was led to slaughter. He calls
his disciples to turn the other cheek, to pray for enemies, to submit to even
ungodly governments.
This
brings me to my second point. The Apostle Paul DID plead for justice and his
rights as a Roman citizen, BUT ONLY to be able to get the Gospel across and
fulfill his calling from God. The key was the Gospel, because it is the Gospel
which changes lives and minds and positions. It is the Gospel driven to the
heart by the Holy Spirit which conquers anti-God secularism. It is the Gospel
which turns it on its head. His purpose was never politically motivated. He
could have complained against the Roman prison system and pleaded his case
against the harsh treatment to the governor. His purpose was the Gospel, not to
change the system in which the Gospel lived.
Third,
and I have said this for years, it is the one-by-one internal, radical,
God-given change in the heart that finally wins the day against secularism and
atheistic movements. That is why I am a minister of the Gospel. That is why I
believe in sharing the Gospel near and far. That is why I must at the end of
the day trust God to change legislation and the minds and hearts behind it.
The
objection would be that if my rights and liberties and means are taken away,
the Gospel cannot get out. This is nonsense. The Gospel cannot be muzzled nor
defeated! The fantastic underground growth of Christianity across the world in
countries where it is officially outlawed is the witness for that. God always
will find a way to get His eternal message and plan across. It doesn't matter
how evil, how bad, how secular, how atheistic humankind gets. God will win. And
that does NOT depend on us or our efforts at the end of the day. God will win
because He is God. He is sovereign. He holds the rulers in His hands. He
controls history. He has determined the means and the end.
Fourth,
evangelical Christians must LIVE OUT the Gospel message. Judgment rightly must
begin at the house of God, at the local and national and global level in our
churches. We have generally failed to live out the Gospel message. We have
imbibed secularism and then fight against it when it crosses our views and
comfort zones. Unless we become what John R.W. Stott called "radical
disciples," unless we live what we say and teach, unless we choose
lifestyles that are Christ-centered and others oriented, we cannot and will not
defeat the homosexual agenda or any other unbiblical agenda for that matter.
So, I am
fully ready to do whatever I need to do to preach and teach and share the
Gospel. That might even be from a prison cell. God will at the end of the day
win. Both Anderson and George are right and both are wrong! Giglio did the
right thing--he redirected the conversation back to the Gospel and to Gospel
work. Unless we teach and preach and live out the Gospel and its demands, we
will never be able to move forward.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Prescription for Christian Renovation
I have written beforehand on the Three R's needed in modern church life and habit--Revival, Reformation and Revolution (Postscript in The Two-Talent Church: Truths for Health and Growth, Second Edition, 2010). Other writers have noted concern for revival (e.g. David Mains, 1990s; www.glotorch.org by The Sentinel Group outlining great city-wide revival movements and needs), reformation (John Piper, Mark Dever, but see Barna's work in http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/447-reformed-movement-in-american-churches) and revolution (a term coined by Christian Schwarz in Paradigm Shift in the Church: How Natural Church Development can Transform Theological Thinking; Frank Viola, Reimagining the Church: Pursuing the Dream of Organic Christianity).
May I say, however, all to little or no avail! The latest Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life in America notes an overall decline in Protestantism in America and a rise in the "Nones" -- those who say they have no religion (now one in five Americans). We are becoming a nation of "heretics" (See Ross Douthat in Bad Religion: How We Became A Nation of Heretics). Don Sweeting of Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL notes that "spirituality and religious pluralism in America are on the rise" in http://www.worldviewchurch.org/wvc-digest/reasoning-together/18585-reflecting-on-the-protestant-decline-in-america. Yes, there are individual churches doing individual things for the gospel and the glory of God (See latest issues of Outreach Magazine at www.outreach.com), and we are thankful for them and their efforts. But the truth is we are fast losing the battle for souls and for the soul of this nation. Christian churches and institutions are becoming more and more marginalized. One example is that my wife and I were on a recent vacation and decided to walk this small town we were in on a Sunday morning. The restaurants were packed. On another trip, the malls were packed on a Sunday morning. Our hometown restaurant, long closed on Sundays, has recently opened its doors for business on Sunday--especially for the church crowd!! And then there is the whole homosexuality battle with traditional Christian viewpoints being blasted, even by some in supposedly evangelical ranks. No longer is the Christian church the sounding board for morality and right thinking in America.
So, I propose a fourth "R" to my previous mix -- Renovation. The term means restore, refresh, reinvigorate, bring to a state of repair. We need a breath of "fresh wind, fresh fire" as Jim Cymbala would say. We need to start seeing things once again from God's point of view and not our homogenized, refined, American-laced Christian point of view. We need to repent, individually and corporately, as churches and as the Church in America. We need to own our spiritual poverty and desperate state. And we need some new champions of the faith, some Joshua's and some Paul's, to give us new challenges from God's Word.
Long gone is the Puritan hope of a "city on a hill" or America being a beacon of gospel light for the world. In many places we need the gospel to be freshly brought to us, along with the rest of the world. So, here's a five-point suggestion for renovation:
1. Stop kidding ourselves!! We need to own the sad and poor state of the church and evangelical Christianity in America. We need to stop "pumping ourselves up" and waving our fading banners. We need to own our failure to really influence society around us. This has to be done church by church and movement by movement. We need to admit our need, to God especially, for major repair.
2. Repent! Individually, corporately, nationally, denominationally, large and small churches and movements, parachurch organizations and everyone who wears the mantle of evangelical. We must repent of our pride, our insulation from this society and world, our puffed up sense of "having it together." We must repent of our failure to impact our own people who fill our pews Sunday by Sunday. We must repent of making converts but not disciples. We must repent of our laziness as ministers of the gospel and minister the gospel!! We must repent of building our own empires, our own churches, our own movements while ignoring the world going to hell in a handbasket.
3. Reframe the gospel message for a new day! Not change the message, or massage the message, or dumb down the message. We must bravely and courageously make the gospel message relevant and pointed to our people and our society. This requires more study, more prayer, more sweat by preachers and teachers today. We need to stop preaching each other's sermons or one another's packaging. God has called us if we are preachers and teachers of the Word of God to labor with God in prayer and with His Word until renovation begins in our own contexts.
4. Seek to work together for God! We have ineffective ministeriums in many towns and cities across this nation. We have fundamentalists refusing to work with evangelical Catholics. We are splintered, and this needs to stop. We must answer the call for "oneness" that Jesus wanted in John 17. We must join forces, work together for God's glory and the good of everyone around us.
5. Get involved in our communities for the sake of the gospel! We need to return to the older model of being ministers to the town or city or area God has called us to. We need to see our parish as everyone in that place where God has called us to labor. We need to serve as police chaplains, as hospital aides and prayer partners, as Chamber of Commerce board members and influencers. We need to pray for and with our business leaders and political representatives. We need to stop preaching AT them and start bringing Christ's love and Word TO them in meaningful service.
There are most likely many more points to make. But enough for now. Renovate!!
May I say, however, all to little or no avail! The latest Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life in America notes an overall decline in Protestantism in America and a rise in the "Nones" -- those who say they have no religion (now one in five Americans). We are becoming a nation of "heretics" (See Ross Douthat in Bad Religion: How We Became A Nation of Heretics). Don Sweeting of Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL notes that "spirituality and religious pluralism in America are on the rise" in http://www.worldviewchurch.org/wvc-digest/reasoning-together/18585-reflecting-on-the-protestant-decline-in-america. Yes, there are individual churches doing individual things for the gospel and the glory of God (See latest issues of Outreach Magazine at www.outreach.com), and we are thankful for them and their efforts. But the truth is we are fast losing the battle for souls and for the soul of this nation. Christian churches and institutions are becoming more and more marginalized. One example is that my wife and I were on a recent vacation and decided to walk this small town we were in on a Sunday morning. The restaurants were packed. On another trip, the malls were packed on a Sunday morning. Our hometown restaurant, long closed on Sundays, has recently opened its doors for business on Sunday--especially for the church crowd!! And then there is the whole homosexuality battle with traditional Christian viewpoints being blasted, even by some in supposedly evangelical ranks. No longer is the Christian church the sounding board for morality and right thinking in America.
So, I propose a fourth "R" to my previous mix -- Renovation. The term means restore, refresh, reinvigorate, bring to a state of repair. We need a breath of "fresh wind, fresh fire" as Jim Cymbala would say. We need to start seeing things once again from God's point of view and not our homogenized, refined, American-laced Christian point of view. We need to repent, individually and corporately, as churches and as the Church in America. We need to own our spiritual poverty and desperate state. And we need some new champions of the faith, some Joshua's and some Paul's, to give us new challenges from God's Word.
Long gone is the Puritan hope of a "city on a hill" or America being a beacon of gospel light for the world. In many places we need the gospel to be freshly brought to us, along with the rest of the world. So, here's a five-point suggestion for renovation:
1. Stop kidding ourselves!! We need to own the sad and poor state of the church and evangelical Christianity in America. We need to stop "pumping ourselves up" and waving our fading banners. We need to own our failure to really influence society around us. This has to be done church by church and movement by movement. We need to admit our need, to God especially, for major repair.
2. Repent! Individually, corporately, nationally, denominationally, large and small churches and movements, parachurch organizations and everyone who wears the mantle of evangelical. We must repent of our pride, our insulation from this society and world, our puffed up sense of "having it together." We must repent of our failure to impact our own people who fill our pews Sunday by Sunday. We must repent of making converts but not disciples. We must repent of our laziness as ministers of the gospel and minister the gospel!! We must repent of building our own empires, our own churches, our own movements while ignoring the world going to hell in a handbasket.
3. Reframe the gospel message for a new day! Not change the message, or massage the message, or dumb down the message. We must bravely and courageously make the gospel message relevant and pointed to our people and our society. This requires more study, more prayer, more sweat by preachers and teachers today. We need to stop preaching each other's sermons or one another's packaging. God has called us if we are preachers and teachers of the Word of God to labor with God in prayer and with His Word until renovation begins in our own contexts.
4. Seek to work together for God! We have ineffective ministeriums in many towns and cities across this nation. We have fundamentalists refusing to work with evangelical Catholics. We are splintered, and this needs to stop. We must answer the call for "oneness" that Jesus wanted in John 17. We must join forces, work together for God's glory and the good of everyone around us.
5. Get involved in our communities for the sake of the gospel! We need to return to the older model of being ministers to the town or city or area God has called us to. We need to see our parish as everyone in that place where God has called us to labor. We need to serve as police chaplains, as hospital aides and prayer partners, as Chamber of Commerce board members and influencers. We need to pray for and with our business leaders and political representatives. We need to stop preaching AT them and start bringing Christ's love and Word TO them in meaningful service.
There are most likely many more points to make. But enough for now. Renovate!!
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The Gay Debate: Critique of Matthew Vines
This post is an objective critique of Matthew Vines presentation on March 8, 2012 on "The Bible and Homosexuality" that has been posted on YouTube. Let me say first of all, that the critique is not meant to be derogatory or out of rash responsiveness. We have had too much of that kind of response from the non-homosexual community. So, I write out of Christian concern and love, but also concern for the veracity and authority of Scripture on the subject. Readers can listen to Matthew's presentation at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY&feature=player_embedded.
First, this is a well-constructed and seemingly persuasive argument for loving, caring and faithful homosexual relationships in a Christian context. Matthew appeals to caring for God's creation, and part of that is to respect and honor one another, including faithful, committed homosexuals and their relationships. He maintains that the few selective passages in the Bible that specifically address homosexual, or supposed homosexual, behavior have not been understood in context or biblical theological honesty. He appeals to the Christian community to take another look at homosexuality from a positive and affirming perspective.
But he makes a presumptive argument here that can be debated. He assumes that homosexual orientation is God-given and always good. He never critiques or questions homosexual orientation, but affirms it as part of God's intended purpose and creation. He buttresses this assumption with the argument that since "aloneness" is not "good" (from Genesis), and Jesus wants what is "good" for us (from Mathew 7), that "forcing" homosexuals to be "alone" deprives them of what God and Jesus want for them and for all human beings. He would also say that heterosexuals don't "understand" this "good" orientation and thus cannot appreciate it as a "natural" orientation, just like their heterosexual orientation. However, has homosexuality been proven or demonstrated to be a normal orientation? What is normalcy in sexuality? And, it is gratuitous to assume I can simply affirm my orientation as part of God's "good" creation.
This is especially the case in bestiality. If I am "naturally" sexually attracted to dogs, and after all a dog is man's best friend, then having sex with my dog is "good!" Few people would say so. But I could argue that I am committed and faithful to my dog, that my dog fulfills me and cures my loneliness, that I am committed to only this one dog and not others. And, that I cannot help myself since that is my "natural" orientation. Do we really want to go there??!
The other problem here is the definition of "goodness" in God's sight. What is "good" to me may not be good to God. God's goodness is built on His character, His definitions, His revelation of goodness in the Bible. Just assuming or saying something is "good" does not make it so to God. For instance, many people assume humankind is essentially "good" and that is their natural or normal state. Sin comes into being when they violate that natural state of goodness. But that is not what the Bible proclaims or describes. Humankind is essentially flawed, essentially sinful and depraved. It needs redeemed and delivered, and that is what Jesus came to do. This teaching or doctrine of "total depravity" is biblically pervasive and must not be ignored in the discussion of homosexuality. This is not to say that homosexuals are by nature and desire "bad" because of their homosexuality. EVERYONE is by nature, temperament and desire essentially bad. It is only by God's restraining grace or redeeming grace that any "good" can come from us.
So, to argue from what is "good" is to assume a whole lot about human nature and God that Matthew Vines does, incorrectly, I believe.
Second, to say that the Old Testament (OT) passages in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do not apply to anyone, especially believers in Christ today is a bit premature. It is declaring that the Old Testament no longer applies to Christians today, especially the legal code of the OT. If so, then the ten commandments should no longer apply. And, scholars have noted that the ten basic commandments really give the basis for all of the OT law code. So, the commandment not to commit adultery applies across the board to all sorts of sexual sin, not merely the narrow act of adultery by a spouse of a heterosexual couple. Is sex before marriage O.K. because I am in a loving, committed, faithful relationship? No it is not O.K.
True, there are many portions of the Levitical law code that do not apply today, but the PRINCIPLES behind that code certainly do apply for all time. Or, maybe Vines would say God made a mistake with the people of Israel and gave them restrictive and extraneous laws to subjugate them and their "natural" and normal sexual orientation, which must have included homosexuality?? To say that Christ fulfilled the Law and we are free from the Law is a blanket statement that must be qualified biblically. Older commentators have noted the threefold use of the Law in the OT--ceremonial, civil and moral. Matthew Vines has not taken this into account at all.
Third, his understanding of Romans 1-3 is flawed, I believe. Paul IS talking about the universality of sin in these chapters, not just about idolatry, unless we broaden the concept of idolatry to define the essence of sin. It is a unique interpretation to say that Rom. 1:18ff refer to select people who willfully choose idolatry and thus engage in unnatural sexual relationships, AS IF he is not referring to ALL humanity in their rejection of God as God. ALL humans choose idolatry in some form apart from God's grace in the gospel in Christ. This is a condemnation of all people without Jesus Christ, and thus the great need of Romans 3 and 4 and redemption in Christ for those who live by faith.
Fourth, his treatment of what is commonly translated "homosexuality" in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:9-10 as "economic exploitation through sexual coercion" is wanting. It is not a done deal exegetically or linguistically. Just looking at the massive literature on the terminology Paul uses does not at all rule out what we would consider normal, homosexual behavior. "Whatever the specific meaning of [the term] in 1 Tim 1:10, it denotes a type of illicit sexual activity that breaks the seventh commandment" and "homosexuality was especially common in Ephesus." (Word Biblical Commentary, William Mounce) The point is that the modern translation of "homosexual offenders" or "perverts" is not out of line linguistically, biblically or theologically. To say, as Vines does, that this does not refer to "loving, committed, faithful homosexual relationships" cannot be sustained. It is his opinion against many substantial New Testament scholars and writers.
I do feel saddened by those who experience rejection by the Christian community, no matter what their sin may be. This should not be among those who claim the love of God and the power of the gospel in their midst. However, to move into a blanket affirmation of homosexuality as a "normal" or "natural" practice and habit for those "so oriented" goes beyond the Scriptures. It becomes a humanistic argument, feelings based, human-centered and not God-centered.
First, this is a well-constructed and seemingly persuasive argument for loving, caring and faithful homosexual relationships in a Christian context. Matthew appeals to caring for God's creation, and part of that is to respect and honor one another, including faithful, committed homosexuals and their relationships. He maintains that the few selective passages in the Bible that specifically address homosexual, or supposed homosexual, behavior have not been understood in context or biblical theological honesty. He appeals to the Christian community to take another look at homosexuality from a positive and affirming perspective.
But he makes a presumptive argument here that can be debated. He assumes that homosexual orientation is God-given and always good. He never critiques or questions homosexual orientation, but affirms it as part of God's intended purpose and creation. He buttresses this assumption with the argument that since "aloneness" is not "good" (from Genesis), and Jesus wants what is "good" for us (from Mathew 7), that "forcing" homosexuals to be "alone" deprives them of what God and Jesus want for them and for all human beings. He would also say that heterosexuals don't "understand" this "good" orientation and thus cannot appreciate it as a "natural" orientation, just like their heterosexual orientation. However, has homosexuality been proven or demonstrated to be a normal orientation? What is normalcy in sexuality? And, it is gratuitous to assume I can simply affirm my orientation as part of God's "good" creation.
This is especially the case in bestiality. If I am "naturally" sexually attracted to dogs, and after all a dog is man's best friend, then having sex with my dog is "good!" Few people would say so. But I could argue that I am committed and faithful to my dog, that my dog fulfills me and cures my loneliness, that I am committed to only this one dog and not others. And, that I cannot help myself since that is my "natural" orientation. Do we really want to go there??!
The other problem here is the definition of "goodness" in God's sight. What is "good" to me may not be good to God. God's goodness is built on His character, His definitions, His revelation of goodness in the Bible. Just assuming or saying something is "good" does not make it so to God. For instance, many people assume humankind is essentially "good" and that is their natural or normal state. Sin comes into being when they violate that natural state of goodness. But that is not what the Bible proclaims or describes. Humankind is essentially flawed, essentially sinful and depraved. It needs redeemed and delivered, and that is what Jesus came to do. This teaching or doctrine of "total depravity" is biblically pervasive and must not be ignored in the discussion of homosexuality. This is not to say that homosexuals are by nature and desire "bad" because of their homosexuality. EVERYONE is by nature, temperament and desire essentially bad. It is only by God's restraining grace or redeeming grace that any "good" can come from us.
So, to argue from what is "good" is to assume a whole lot about human nature and God that Matthew Vines does, incorrectly, I believe.
Second, to say that the Old Testament (OT) passages in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do not apply to anyone, especially believers in Christ today is a bit premature. It is declaring that the Old Testament no longer applies to Christians today, especially the legal code of the OT. If so, then the ten commandments should no longer apply. And, scholars have noted that the ten basic commandments really give the basis for all of the OT law code. So, the commandment not to commit adultery applies across the board to all sorts of sexual sin, not merely the narrow act of adultery by a spouse of a heterosexual couple. Is sex before marriage O.K. because I am in a loving, committed, faithful relationship? No it is not O.K.
True, there are many portions of the Levitical law code that do not apply today, but the PRINCIPLES behind that code certainly do apply for all time. Or, maybe Vines would say God made a mistake with the people of Israel and gave them restrictive and extraneous laws to subjugate them and their "natural" and normal sexual orientation, which must have included homosexuality?? To say that Christ fulfilled the Law and we are free from the Law is a blanket statement that must be qualified biblically. Older commentators have noted the threefold use of the Law in the OT--ceremonial, civil and moral. Matthew Vines has not taken this into account at all.
Third, his understanding of Romans 1-3 is flawed, I believe. Paul IS talking about the universality of sin in these chapters, not just about idolatry, unless we broaden the concept of idolatry to define the essence of sin. It is a unique interpretation to say that Rom. 1:18ff refer to select people who willfully choose idolatry and thus engage in unnatural sexual relationships, AS IF he is not referring to ALL humanity in their rejection of God as God. ALL humans choose idolatry in some form apart from God's grace in the gospel in Christ. This is a condemnation of all people without Jesus Christ, and thus the great need of Romans 3 and 4 and redemption in Christ for those who live by faith.
Fourth, his treatment of what is commonly translated "homosexuality" in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:9-10 as "economic exploitation through sexual coercion" is wanting. It is not a done deal exegetically or linguistically. Just looking at the massive literature on the terminology Paul uses does not at all rule out what we would consider normal, homosexual behavior. "Whatever the specific meaning of [the term] in 1 Tim 1:10, it denotes a type of illicit sexual activity that breaks the seventh commandment" and "homosexuality was especially common in Ephesus." (Word Biblical Commentary, William Mounce) The point is that the modern translation of "homosexual offenders" or "perverts" is not out of line linguistically, biblically or theologically. To say, as Vines does, that this does not refer to "loving, committed, faithful homosexual relationships" cannot be sustained. It is his opinion against many substantial New Testament scholars and writers.
I do feel saddened by those who experience rejection by the Christian community, no matter what their sin may be. This should not be among those who claim the love of God and the power of the gospel in their midst. However, to move into a blanket affirmation of homosexuality as a "normal" or "natural" practice and habit for those "so oriented" goes beyond the Scriptures. It becomes a humanistic argument, feelings based, human-centered and not God-centered.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Is Gay Marriage A Problem for the Church?
Geoff Surratt has recently written on gay marriage in his blog (http://geoffsurratt.com/blog/2012/05/11/ my-thoughts-on-gay-marriage/). Actually, I mostly like it. It is refreshing, positive, and focuses on a real issue--and that is making marriages healthy and God-centered. He takes a biblical stand AGAINST gay relationships and announces what he is for and against in that area, but is unwilling to major "on the minors" as he sees it.
The exception I would make is that I think gay marriage is a "litmus test" as to the Christian or not-so-Christian state of America. And it comes up looking pretty bad. To publicly endorse gay marriage, especially from the Oval Office, is to "bless" gays and their agendas. It is more than just recognizing them as legitimate. It is sanctioning them and making them "normal" for the country as a whole. Of course, the President maintains that religious institutions do not have to recognize gay marriage or relationships. The problem here is that whether or not a church or ministry recognizes it or not, such a marriage is legitimate and must be seen and acted upon as such by everyone. To not "accept" gay marriage in the church is meaningless at best and temporary at worst. Sooner or later the church will have to come to the issue of recognizing gay marriage and gay life as "normal" in America and treat it as such. I believe down the road will come legal action against churches who hold out against gay marriage and gays in general. After all, the union is legitimate and sanctioned by state law and government force.
What distinguishes gay rights from civil rights is its decidedly anti-biblical stance and basis. While slave owners and Southern sympathizers "used" Scripture to try to justify slavery and its vices, most biblical writers and scholars and churches saw the evil in such a stance. They rightly discarded slavery and its advocacy in a biblical framework. This was not socializing the Bible, nor accommodating the Scriptures. It was about honoring the image of God in a person of different race than white. It was about treating them with God-honoring respect and acceptance. Their color was not a "choice" they had, as the gay and lesbian person has. To maintain that "gayness" is hereditary or a "necessary" human trait has not and cannot be validated. It is a choice, and an anti-biblical one at that (cf. Romans 1). Sodom and Gomorrah will be re-visited, and God's judgment will be similar. To claim that is harsh and unloving is to claim God does not know what He, as a loving and just God, is doing.
It is when "forced" to recognize gay marriage as "normal" and legitimate that the church will have to take a stand and accept whatever backlash it will suffer, which could range from individual persecution to fines to jail time for its leaders and constituents. I agree that we cannot legislate morality, but we certainly should not legislate or legitimize sinful choices and behaviors. We will have to make a choice, as did Joshua in Joshua 24:15 -- "But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve . . . but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord."
The exception I would make is that I think gay marriage is a "litmus test" as to the Christian or not-so-Christian state of America. And it comes up looking pretty bad. To publicly endorse gay marriage, especially from the Oval Office, is to "bless" gays and their agendas. It is more than just recognizing them as legitimate. It is sanctioning them and making them "normal" for the country as a whole. Of course, the President maintains that religious institutions do not have to recognize gay marriage or relationships. The problem here is that whether or not a church or ministry recognizes it or not, such a marriage is legitimate and must be seen and acted upon as such by everyone. To not "accept" gay marriage in the church is meaningless at best and temporary at worst. Sooner or later the church will have to come to the issue of recognizing gay marriage and gay life as "normal" in America and treat it as such. I believe down the road will come legal action against churches who hold out against gay marriage and gays in general. After all, the union is legitimate and sanctioned by state law and government force.
What distinguishes gay rights from civil rights is its decidedly anti-biblical stance and basis. While slave owners and Southern sympathizers "used" Scripture to try to justify slavery and its vices, most biblical writers and scholars and churches saw the evil in such a stance. They rightly discarded slavery and its advocacy in a biblical framework. This was not socializing the Bible, nor accommodating the Scriptures. It was about honoring the image of God in a person of different race than white. It was about treating them with God-honoring respect and acceptance. Their color was not a "choice" they had, as the gay and lesbian person has. To maintain that "gayness" is hereditary or a "necessary" human trait has not and cannot be validated. It is a choice, and an anti-biblical one at that (cf. Romans 1). Sodom and Gomorrah will be re-visited, and God's judgment will be similar. To claim that is harsh and unloving is to claim God does not know what He, as a loving and just God, is doing.
It is when "forced" to recognize gay marriage as "normal" and legitimate that the church will have to take a stand and accept whatever backlash it will suffer, which could range from individual persecution to fines to jail time for its leaders and constituents. I agree that we cannot legislate morality, but we certainly should not legislate or legitimize sinful choices and behaviors. We will have to make a choice, as did Joshua in Joshua 24:15 -- "But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve . . . but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord."
Friday, May 11, 2012
Evangelical Erosion
I remember an older book by Charles Swindoll in which he talks about "erosion" and the problem with it. Erosion happens without us ever noticing it until it is too late. Slowly, month by month, year by year, a beach is eroded away. Homes are placed in jeopardy. Roads become swallowed up by the sea. This can happen in anything, and it is happening in theology and biblical circles.
I recently attended a conference held by Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia on "Science and Faith." The speakers were top-notch. The subject was well-covered and documentation was adequately provided. The problem, however, was that one speaker, Dr. Denis Lamoureux from St. Joseph's College at the University of Alberta postulated that although sin is real and that we all need a Savior, sin entered the world NOT through a historical Adam and Eve. Biblical folks, he says, have conflated the message of theology and salvation with an ancient phenomenological perspective. Because the Apostle Paul accepted ancient science and cosmology, his use of Adam to tie him to universal sin is a conflation we cannot make. Human sin simply manifested itself gradually over many generations. No historical Adam and Eve is necessary for salvation theology. He represents a growing tide and trend in the biblical-theological and church world.
Then there came the President's announcement that, though he affirmed the Christian faith, he now believes we must fully accept and bless and make same-sex marriage legal and acceptable. After all, his kids and co-workers who know many gays and gay couples can't be wrong!!! He believes he can maintain a Christian testimony and profession and fully endorse and support gay marriage and gay rights. After all, the Bible was written in ancient times with ancient formulas and ancient problems, such as those referred to in Romans 1. This is not the truth or necessary for today. Again, many evangelicals and seeker-targeted churches, especially the megachurches in this country, will buy into this way of thinking. That I can confess Christ and be a Christ-follower and bless homosexuality and gay couples and people. At the very least, I don't need to make declarations against it.
Erosion! Evangelical erosion is taking place. I predict that in a decade or less, many Christian churches and ministries will view homosexuality as a "choice" and not a "sin." Gay people and couples will be welcomed into our churches, as we now welcome divorced people and couples. Barriers to their service and use in ministry will be dropped. As long as they show a loving spirit, they can become caring deacons and astute teachers. Many will ignore Romans 1 or re-tool it and re-interpret it so that modern gays are not addressed by it. They will still need Jesus, still need a saving knowledge of Christ, still depend on Him for salvation and eternal life. And, some will hope that they might "give up" their gay orientation, but it will not become a requirement or expectation. This is where we are headed. No historical Adam and Eve. No barrier to gays. No problem! Erosion.
We cannot play fast-and-loose with biblical revelation or truth. We cannot have two "rights" and no "wrongs." We cannot say that part of the Bible is O.K. while the other parts are open to modern ways of seeing and believing. Not only will we lose our distinctives and truth...we will lose Jesus as well. Because if I can re-contextualize the Bible to fit my sensibilities, then I can do away with Jesus as the "ONLY" way, truth and life.
It is coming. Erosion. What will you do to stop it??
I recently attended a conference held by Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia on "Science and Faith." The speakers were top-notch. The subject was well-covered and documentation was adequately provided. The problem, however, was that one speaker, Dr. Denis Lamoureux from St. Joseph's College at the University of Alberta postulated that although sin is real and that we all need a Savior, sin entered the world NOT through a historical Adam and Eve. Biblical folks, he says, have conflated the message of theology and salvation with an ancient phenomenological perspective. Because the Apostle Paul accepted ancient science and cosmology, his use of Adam to tie him to universal sin is a conflation we cannot make. Human sin simply manifested itself gradually over many generations. No historical Adam and Eve is necessary for salvation theology. He represents a growing tide and trend in the biblical-theological and church world.
Then there came the President's announcement that, though he affirmed the Christian faith, he now believes we must fully accept and bless and make same-sex marriage legal and acceptable. After all, his kids and co-workers who know many gays and gay couples can't be wrong!!! He believes he can maintain a Christian testimony and profession and fully endorse and support gay marriage and gay rights. After all, the Bible was written in ancient times with ancient formulas and ancient problems, such as those referred to in Romans 1. This is not the truth or necessary for today. Again, many evangelicals and seeker-targeted churches, especially the megachurches in this country, will buy into this way of thinking. That I can confess Christ and be a Christ-follower and bless homosexuality and gay couples and people. At the very least, I don't need to make declarations against it.
Erosion! Evangelical erosion is taking place. I predict that in a decade or less, many Christian churches and ministries will view homosexuality as a "choice" and not a "sin." Gay people and couples will be welcomed into our churches, as we now welcome divorced people and couples. Barriers to their service and use in ministry will be dropped. As long as they show a loving spirit, they can become caring deacons and astute teachers. Many will ignore Romans 1 or re-tool it and re-interpret it so that modern gays are not addressed by it. They will still need Jesus, still need a saving knowledge of Christ, still depend on Him for salvation and eternal life. And, some will hope that they might "give up" their gay orientation, but it will not become a requirement or expectation. This is where we are headed. No historical Adam and Eve. No barrier to gays. No problem! Erosion.
We cannot play fast-and-loose with biblical revelation or truth. We cannot have two "rights" and no "wrongs." We cannot say that part of the Bible is O.K. while the other parts are open to modern ways of seeing and believing. Not only will we lose our distinctives and truth...we will lose Jesus as well. Because if I can re-contextualize the Bible to fit my sensibilities, then I can do away with Jesus as the "ONLY" way, truth and life.
It is coming. Erosion. What will you do to stop it??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)