The Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Decision and the Church

A lot of people, from all sides, are responding to the Supreme Court decision making same-sex marriage the law of the land. The claim is that this is what the majority of Americans want and desire. After all, recent polls show the majority favoring such a decision for homosexuals. The ploy by that community of people and their supporters is that everyone will want to be a part of history, and not left behind in such history breaking ground. And that includes the church.

Indeed, many Christian churches have given in to the rhetoric, the poor exegesis of biblical texts and contexts, and the "niceness" of those seeking homosexual affirmation and same-sex unions. My prediction stands that the Christian church, including many evangelical churches, will welcome and affirm homosexual people and same-sex couples as a "normal" part of their services and ministries in the not too far future. We will find openly gay people serving in all parts and roles of ministry in our churches. The LGBT community will be fully accepted in the church of Jesus Christ. We will become rainbow-colored churches. This is a tragedy and an open welcome for God's judgment upon the church.

I am an older evangelical pastor, who happens to believe that biblical truth never goes out of style and that there is always right and wrong in all things. The homosexual community will simply wait us out, no doubt, until we die off, and then they can make their presence and influence known in our churches. My son is studying for the ministry, and he and his kids will find a vastly different (and diverse) church in which to minister God's truth and gospel. But before I go the way of all flesh, let me just say a few things about this turn of events.

First, truth is non-negotiable. No matter what the post-Christian world says, truth is absolute, for all time and for all cultures and communities. Certainly, truth must be joined with grace and graciousness for all people in all circumstances. But that graciousness must not compromise or dilute truth, especially biblical truth. God does not operate on a majority opinion, nor on Supreme Court decisions. And the truth of the matter about homosexuality and its tentacles is that it is wrong-headed and sinful. No matter how much we want to re-interpret the plain texts of the Bible on this subject, the preponderance of truth is that openly gay choices and lifestyles are wrong.

Second, same-sex marriage and homosexuality are choices made, not genetically forced upon us so that we can do nothing about them. A lot of talk is made about homosexual desires and how people cannot help being what they are. This supposedly is a defense of openly gay choices and people. However, we all operate by choices. And those choices can be good or bad or neutral. I can choose to smoke or not smoke. Nicotine habits can be broken. Homosexual choices can be broken. To claim I have to be what I was made to be negates the "new birth" and "new creation" that God does in a person's life and choices. We all do what we want to do--just admit this about gay people and same-sex unions.

Third, we live and operate in an increasingly post-Christian and irreligious America. Everybody agrees with this. It's not a thesis or supposition anymore. It is a fact. We have trashed our Christian and biblically based value systems for a humanistic and me-centered lifestyle. Therefore, the Court simply recognized what is true about American culture and values and societal trends. Again, let's just admit this. However, admission of this cultural shift and trend does not make it right or acceptable in our churches. We still need to proclaim and teach biblical truth and standards and the gospel to a dying world.

Finally, life will get worse, not better, for a Christ-follower and a church committed to the truth of Scripture. Such thinking coincides with a Scriptural model of the end times. The letters of the New Testament talk about deception in the last days, and how people will call truth evil and hold to deceptive and false practices. Christ-followers are called to stand their ground. It will be a battle for the hearts and minds of cultures and communities. I predict a day when churches not accepting openly gay people and couples will lose their government privileges. They will be fined for not marrying same-sex couples. Not just dismissed, but openly challenged. Remember the words of Paul the Apostle, "having done all, to stand firm." (Ephesians 6:13)

Principled Relationships

I recently read an email devotional from a man I admire and respect, and have used many of his devotionals in my own life and work. However, I have had to disagree with the following devotional. Here it is:

Stop Living By Christian Principles
TGIF Today God Is First Volume 2 by Os Hillman
Monday, May 04 2015

..."having a form of godliness but denying its power" (2 Tim 3:5).

God never called you to live by Christian principles. He calls you to live in relationship with the living God, Jesus Christ. One of the weaknesses of the Church today is that we teach people principles without the relationship. 

The western church is big on ten step programs, "how-to" methods and acrostics to illustrate memorable ideas. There is a place for establishing principles to change negative behavior. However, we are not called to have a relationship with principles, but a living God.

Living by principles is the equivalent to living by the law in the Old Testament. It is rooted in the Greek system of learning and is dependent upon our strength instead of being led and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Principle-based living is powerless living. This makes our Christian experience a religion instead of a relationship. "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law" (Gal 5:18). 

We read about principle-based followers in the book of Acts, "The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon's Colonnade. No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people" (Acts 5:12-14). There was a group of followers who liked being taught but never entered the game.

The prophet Jeremiah tells us about the nature of God and His desire for every believer. 

This is what the LORD says: "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23-24).

Friend, have you been guilty of living a life based on principles instead of knowing the One who authored the principles? Invite Jesus to be Lord over your life and begin to spend time with Him every day. Ask the Holy Spirit to lead and guide you through every moment of your day.

I fully agree with the problem of "religion vs relationship," and the need of personally knowing Christ with a vital relationship. What I have a problem with is the trashing of Christian "principles" as if something is wrong with living a principled life.

The Old Testament principles were established as a means of loving and obeying a covenant keeping God. The introductory statement to the ten commandments in Exodus 20 reads: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." God begins the commandments with a statement of redemption and deliverance. The commands are meant to flow from and follow redemption, not to be a substitute for them. It may be true that Israel missed this flow and legalistically followed the commands without savoring and living out the reality of a redemptive covenant relationship with God. And they did not do this well, as we know. But this does not invalidate those principles, which, by the way, Jesus Himself followed and obeyed.

Our own law code is founded on biblical principles, not a Greek-based system of learning. I am glad we are a society resting on principles, not on some kind of experiential, illusive, feeling-oriented relational reality. It is true our American and Western societies have departed greatly from those biblically based principles. That is to our detriment and maybe future destruction.

I am also thankful that many non-Christians I know live "principled" lives. My own deceased father, while never knowing Christ personally and relationally, lived on Christian principles taught to him by his grandparents and other family members. Therefore, he did not steal or murder or covet another woman apart from my mom. He even kept the sabbath. Not out of a relationship with Christ, but out of principled living.

So, I am opting for what I call a "principled relationship." I love Jesus and abide by biblical principles. Both are important and necessary. Why would we want it another way?

The Coming Evangelical Division

There is an evangelical division coming! This division has wide ranging consequences and can influence everything from ecclesiology to fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures. It is a division that  can wreck havoc with how churches evangelize and grow and receive new members. It is a new division in the sense that the modern church has not seen it take this shape and form ever. What is this division? It is the division between those who follow the Scriptures concerning the homosexuality and same-sex marriage issues and those who "accommodate" the Bible to include members of the LGBT community into their churches and ministries.

"Accommodation" of the Scriptures is quite serious. It is where theological modernism finds its roots since it plays with direct teachings of the Bible and makes them appear not so direct and plain and applicable. It "enculturates" the teachings of the Bible in these sexual and marriage issues and relegates them to the past or roots them in ancient controversies and challenges to Christian moral teaching. Thus, Paul's very plain warnings against homosexual behavior in Romans 1 are re-read and to be understood in a context of sexual license in the ancient Near East. It is the same thing in the Old Testament when homosexuality is outrightly condemned. Only here the rebuttal comes in many "accepted" evangelical forms--"that's the OT and does not apply to us today," or "that is just for the Jewish people a long time ago," or "the love and teachings of Jesus have eliminated and overcome such harsh teaching." So, homosexuality is fine as long as people "love" one another and why not same sex unions, since Jesus did not really ban them.

The other not-so-Bible based side of this accommodation comes from well-meaning, seeker oriented churches who are trying to attract and capture the unchurched, especially the younger unchurched. Since post-modern people make up their own rules of interpretation and truth, we can apply that to the Bible and it's passages on marriage and sexual orientation. We can accept them "as they are" and HOPE that they, in time, "come around" to embrace biblical Christianity, whatever that may mean. After all, we need to love them for Jesus' sake, and love knows no criticism when it comes to church attendance, church participation and even ministry. We don't want to offend people. We want people to like us and our ministries. This kind of thinking follows the pattern of "light," topically based sermons, geared to the modern, younger mindset. It is always non-judgmental, non-defining, and non-controversial. It tends to be positive, uplifting, easy to follow and relevant to today's millennials. Old concepts and terms like "sin," and "wrath" and "hell" and "judgment" and a slew of others are avoided at all costs.

The excuse used, of course, is that the modern mindset can't or won't understand or pay any attention to biblical terms and teaching. So, we need to "update" the Bible and its teachings to "accommodate" this new generation and their thinking. Many of these churches are large, overflowing with crowds of people mostly illiterate in Bible knowledge. But that's o.k. We will hopefully "get to that" in small groups and classes. Really?? I have yet to see that happen widely and pervasively.

The other side will be those evangelicals who take Scripture and its interpretation and proclamation seriously. These churches and ministries preach and teach the Scriptures, usually in an expositional fashion, seeking to explain and apply passages of the Bible to the modern mindset. Actually, there are some large churches around who practice this manner of ministry. The Bible declares that one man plus one woman equals marriage and that is for a lifetime. Homosexuality is not merely looked down upon but preached against and LGBT people, while welcome, are told honestly and upfront where the church and its teaching stand. Rather than trying to deceive or trick people into the church, these ministries seek to counsel and work with homosexuals so that they forsake that practice and mindset. While many charge these ministries as being harsh and irrelevant, they practice tough love and true biblical understanding and application.

These churches differ from the former often in language, style of teaching, core values and concepts and goals and ministry vision. They, too, want to reach the post-modern, younger, unchurched generation, but with revealed truth and light from the Word of God rigorously taught and applied and lived out in discipleship.

On which side of the divide will you fall?

The REAL Battle in Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood Case

The Supreme Cout began hearing arguments for exemption from the government's mandated Affordable Health Care Act's standard for contraception coverage for all businesses employing a large number of workers. In both the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood's case, the strict evangelical faith rights of the business owners are at stake. This case has created, as you will imagine, no end of comments and remarks, and is a big deal in Lancaster County, PA, where I live and minister. Conservatives are circling the wagons on this one, touting it as one of the most important Supreme Court cases of the decade or even the present time. Again, in our anti-God, anti-evangelical society battle lines have been drawn. Just a couple of comments and a "prophetic" word here.

First, we should beware of distractions. The Court and many will try to argue that to grant these Christian businesses their religious exemptions would open the door to all sorts of future litigation by other Christian organizations, both profit and non-profit. Individual rights will be curtailed and people will be forced into difficult medical situations--all due, of course, to bigoted, biased, narrow-minded Christian people who happen to own businesses. It will seem to the American public that the Court will act in the utmost interest of the individual and on principles of fairness and equal justice for all. I would be surprised if the litigants will win their case based on these so-called "American" principles.

But not so fast. There are a couple of chilling results of a decision against Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. This will be a decision against moral, Christian standards and evangelical views, long held in this country. It will open the door to other kinds of businesses barring biblically centered viewpoints in the workplace and in modern society. It will strike down any semblance of Christ-centered decency and moral retaining walls we once had. It will legalize all sorts of lawsuits against conservative, evangelical businesses seeking to honor God biblically. It will sanction fines against these businesses, real jail time for the owners, and a condemnation of the freedom for such owners to build up a business on their own faith terms.

This is a spiritual battle of immense proportions. Like the homosexual and same-sex marriage recent battles, a defeat will open the floodgate of anti-God inspired thinking and action against evangelicals. We are headed toward Armageddon, at least spiritually and figuratively, if not literally as many believe. I had some friends recently return from Europe where they noted that a pastor was jailed because of his biblical stand against homosexuality preached from his own pulpit in his own church. This is fast coming to America. Evangelical Christians will become a minority element in this society, and their views will be akin to parents withholding medical treatment for a deathly ill child due to their religious convictions. American views have always and will always follow that of their European heritage. We are not as free as we think we are, so it seems!

The other effect a decision against these companies will have is a downturn of Christian entrepreneurs. To be "successful" in business in this country will mean adopting the rules, the standards, the morés of American culture and society's anti-Christian flavor. To be a Christ-centered entrepreneur is to adopt values and standards and "higher" rules lead down by Jesus Christ Himself in the Word of God. To be forced to give these up just to have a prosperous and successful business will be discrimination against Christian businesses and entrepreneurs. But the legal and societal fabric of life will be so much against biblical values that any discrimination lawsuits that do make it to the courtroom will be summarily dismissed.

I repeat. This is a spiritual battle of immense proportion. What is coming down the pike, as I see it, will be pastors silenced, churches fined or even closed down, and parachurch agencies and businesses severely limited and scrutinized by an unbelieving governmental system and the public in general. This is my "prophetic" word, which doesn't require any kind of special gifting to recognize what is happening and going to happen.

Evangelicals have long insisted that the only hope for American is an in-depth revival of the faith in our churches and a resounding taking back of American institutions, government, schools and businesses to the "faith of our fathers." It may be too late for that, however. We may have gone too far, and "Ichabod" is being written over this country by God Himself. If true, we are in for a long, cold and dark season of unbelief and unspeakable tribulation against the children of God. That may be too morose and too "gloom-and-doom" for many. At the very least it will become an America where the evangelical faith many of us profess is in grave danger of disappearing.

Two Views of Pastoral Ministry for Ministerial Candidates

In my forty years of ministry and 15 years of coaching and mentoring churches and Christian leaders, I have noted for some time now two widely disparate views of pastoral ministry. They criss-cross one another at various points, but they indicate two very different views of the pastorate, what is expected, wanted and sought after. One view is indicated by Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Andy Stanley and others in that circle. They are vision-oriented, leadership-driven, energetic, do "big things for God" type of pastors. An indicator of this type of pastoral ministry would be Warren's recent posting about having a God-sized vision --

"Many leaders never achieve the level of influence they could potentially have because they drift through life on autopilot, maintaining the status quo, without a big ambition. They have no master plan, no big purpose, no dreams pulling them along. But if you’re going to be a great leader, you need to dream great dreams. When you stop dreaming, you start dying. If you have no goals, you have no growth. God put it in your mind the ability to think great thoughts and dream great dreams and to have great visions. When you’re stretching and growing and developing, you’re a healthy human being. We grow by being stretched. We grow by facing new challenges. In fact, I would say that if you’re not facing any challenges right now, you need to go find one quick." (Rick Warren's Ministry Toolbox, Jan 30, 2014)

The other view can be represented by Barton Gingerich in his post, "An Alternative to the Celebrity Pastor" --

"The expectation that congregational leaders give off the “right vibe” has become standard in some religious circles. Some churches today assert that a pastor should be an enthusiastic, extroverted purveyor of hilarity, therapy, success, or optimistic activism. These pastors are supposed to be casual, invested with “big dreams” to do “big things for God,” handy at enabling a good time during congregational worship, “innovative” with outreach (i.e. the kids find the pastor sufficiently hip), and—perhaps most important of all—adept in the vocabulary of self-help and therapy. In other words, people want to feel good spiritually, and the pastor is to model that in his own life. I deliberately juxtapose this with George Herbert, who wrote,The Country Parson is generally sad, because he knows nothing but the Cross of Christ, his mind being defixed on it with those nails wherewith his Master was; or if he have any leisure to look off from thence, he meets continually with two most sad spectacles, Sin and Misery; God dishonoured every day, and man afflicted. Nevertheless, he sometimes refresheth himself, as knowing that nature will not bear everlasting droopings, and that pleasantness of disposition is a great key to do good; not only because all men shun the company of perpetual severity, but also for that when they are in company of perpetual severity, but also for that when they are in company, instructions seasoned with pleasantness both enter sooner and root deeper."

In our age of self-indulgence, Herbert’s vision of pastoral self-mortification must be recovered. The parson is the deputy of God to the parish, with authority to dispense that old combination of Word and Sacrament. In his office, he provides care for the souls of his cure, protection from doctrinal error, a model for piety, and an anchor point as leader. The last thing that a pastor needs to resemble in a culture addled with consumerism, distraction, and atomistic individualism is a guide to a theme park. - See more at: http://www.centerforajustsociety.org/an-alternative-to-the-celebrity-pastor/#sthash.eqG0mzax.dpuf  (Worldview Church Digest, Publication of the Colson Center, Jan. 31, 2014)

Both views claim biblical warrant. Both views maintain they love God and love people. Both views want to faithfully minister the gospel of God's grace to people in need. Both views are not age-defined, though Warren might claim more younger ministers than Gingerich. However, there are vast differences to be noted, and these are important as candidates for the gospel ministry prepare for professional ministry roles. How we see ministry, especially pastoral ministry, will guide our training, our reading, our study, our sermon preparations and our congregational service and ministry. And, no doubt that Warren and Gingerich would agree with that analysis.

Warren would say that Herbert's vision espoused by Gingerich is laced with fear-driven rather than humility motivated ministry, confusing contentment with plain laziness, and "little thinking with spirituality." Gingerich would say Warren and others like him have bought into the "bigger is better" voices in church life, confused ministerial leadership with popularity and relativism, and substituted Scriptural sacrificial living with self-indulgent, success-driven modeling. What I find unhelpful for those seeking the path of professional ministry is the "mud-slinging" and "writing off" that go on in such points of view. Perhaps another, more objective, path is needed, especially for those seeking direction for professional, pastoral ministry.

First, everyone in professional ministry must have a specific calling from God for that ministry, whatever it entails and wherever it might be. Some are indeed called to be "country parsons," to be committed to the care of a relatively small number of people, to care for them as they get sick, to marry their sons and daughters, to officiate at family funerals, and to help them grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ in their smaller worlds. Some are called to much larger ministries that take aim at world hunger and injustice and seek to address these global concerns with resources and a perspective that smaller ministries cannot hope to accomplish. So the very first principle of successful and God-honoring ministry of any size or type or kind is to know one's calling from God. Warren is therefore wrong to assert that the "country parson" minister or church leader has "stopped growing," or that such ministry does not face challenges that stretch us. A "big" dream for this type of ministry might be providing food or clothing or shelter for five more needy families in their town. He is also wrong about being "fear-driven" rather than humility motivated. This kind of ministry requires an enormous amount of self-sacrifice and personal humility. It is important to remember that Jesus honored the servant with the "two talents" just as much as the one with the "five talents."

However, the country parson minister must not malign or disdain the "big-thinking" type of professional minister either. These professionals are just as much committed to biblical living and values. But they, like ranchers, see groups of sheep rather than just single ones. They care on a larger scale, seeking to reach more people with the message of Christ. Their "mall-like" concerns do not discount the "mom-and-pop" stores around them. Rather, they see their calling to reach many, many people with the life-giving gospel. They want to impact the global needs of poverty and injustice. This is Rick Warren's passion and commitment. In one service they may minister to more unbelievers than the country parson will do in many years or even a lifetime of faithful ministry. One way is not better than the other, just different.

The problem comes in when we try to "cross-breed" the two forms of ministry. While the country parson can learn some leadership principles and helpful insights from the Rick Warren's of the ministry world, this is not their venue of ministry. They need to seek out and attend training seminars that address their needs, their problems, their venues. So, attending the global summit of Willow Creek or the Catalyst conferences of North Point may not be a wise use of their time and energies. It would, however, be a mistake to judge these country parsons of being sub-leaders or poor leaders.

I would exhort both types of professional pastoral ministries to value each other, support each other, pray for each other and stay away from name-calling, bashing or pigeon-holing one another. And for the candidate moving into professional pastoral ministry, be careful of valuing one type of ministry above the other. The leading question you must answer is simply this, What does God want me to do for Him and His kingdom? And be satisfied with the answer and calling you receive.

Alma Maters: Support or Bail

Probably no one will ever read this post, but that's o.k. I received my quarterly journal from my college alma mater yesterday. I read it through, and although the articles were interesting, the eclecticism created some heartburn for me. My college, a liberal arts college in the northeast, and a well-reputed school with many sterling graduates and so forth, has been trying to inculcate a new level of diversity within its student and faculty ranks. This is not merely racial diversity, but social, moral and sexual diversity, recognizing the LGBTG community fully. The articles in these quarterly journals seek to portray that diversity, as if that is a good and necessary quality of a fine liberal arts college.

My problem is that I am conflicted in the calls for support for my alma mater. I do not at all support the moral code of the LGBTG community, believe that it is a violation of morality taught in the Bible, and cannot give to an institution that not merely puts up with but welcomes such points of view with open arms, almost panting at the opportunity to lend support and credence to the lifestyles. To support something like this would be a violation of my conscience and belief system.

On the other hand, this college was very good to me--a very poor over-achiever from an area high school who had no hope of such a fine education at such a reputed private school. This school welcomed me with open arms, literally paid for my education through grants, scholarships and on campus work study programs. They allowed my InterVarsity evangelical group to meet in the campus buildings and allowed the student union to host a blatantly evangelical program during the time I was there. No one made fun of us or ostracized us from the college community. I am sure this school would point to this as supporting "diversity" and would not understand my reluctance to give back so that other less fortunate students can attend now.

The problem is that a thoroughly Christian viewpoint on campus is recognized as "one of many." It is therefore tolerated along with Buddhism, Jewish gatherings, covens and gay pride meetings. The problem is that there is no ONE truth system that is believed or practiced or acted upon. The college fathers would say this is the genius of a liberal arts college, and they would point out how they had supported my "narrow" point of view along with others. But Christianity is NOT just one of many systems of belief and practice. It is not just an option along with a multitude of other options for faith and life. It stands AGAINST these other systems as false and detracting from the supreme truth for the universe.

In a post-modern world, my alma mater is right there in the middle of the stream of options, opinions and systems, swimming merrily along with the current, and wanting to stay right in the middle of that current. This creates inner pain for me since I have had a number of professors and staff who have helped me immensely in my life journey. Perhaps others feel the same way I do, maybe for different reasons and convictions.

How does one support their alma mater with the above conflicting diversity?

Roger Federer: When The Great Fall

With many of his fans, I was greatly disappointed and dismayed at Roger Federer's loss at the U.S. Open Tennis Championships in NY yesterday. He lost to a 31-year old Spaniard, but not Rafael Nadal, whom everyone wanted him to play. Interestingly, few expected the "Fed" to win the Nadal-Federer match up, but many wanted to see Federer play in the Quarterfinals of this Grand Slam. I am but a very amateur tennis player, but have admired and watched Roger Federer for many years, reveling in his mastery of the game and his greatness in tennis. He is arguably one of the greatest, if not the greatest, tennis players in the modern era. I have read a number of articles about the loss yesterday, and have a few comments of my own at this stage of my life and career, which is nearing retirement itself.

Know when to retire. This is probably the hardest lesson for any of us nearing the end of our careers, especially such an illustrious one Federer has had. The question is not, Can Federer win another Grand Slam? Everybody fairly agrees that in his early 30s he can and may well do so. The question is, Can he win Grand Slams consistently? The answer probably is, Not really. I remember Andre Agassi's run in his mid-30s. It was great, but he knew when to retire, when to quit the major tennis circuit. Federer can continue to play and win tournaments, but probably few major ones. This is not a slam on him or his game, which everyone admires. He has lost a step or two. He just is not the amazing shot maker he once consistently was. I would humbly say to him, Know when to retire.

There is always someone better. Someone more skilled, someone quicker, someone stronger, someone with better consistency. Perhaps that is Nadal or someone else in this era of tennis. The point is to humbly accept this reality and not try to pretend that you are the best. Perhaps Federer was the best ever--until now.

Use your skills and standing to help others. This is what Agassi has done, and rather successfully. He has been honored over and over again for his work with kids and others. Federer can do the same. He has plenty of money and fame. People would flock to his sponsored tennis institutes. He could write books, teach many others, and continue to get the plaudits.

Finish well. I think the saddest thing any great athlete or business person or mega-church minister can do is to not finish well. We all know the "greats" who have left this life in disgrace and dishonor. Perhaps it was alcohol or drugs or gambling or whatever. Their marriages have disintegrated. Their kids lose respect for them. They end up helpless and hopeless. Roger Federer needs to finish well. I would not even venture to say what this means in his life and in the tennis world. But he needs to finish well, whatever that entails.