Culture wars: For Our Names Sake

[Point ten of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

10. The culture war is carried out for our name’s sake, not Jesus’. I am not a fan of gay marriage or Roe v. Wade, and even though I would vote to outlaw the former and repeal the latter, neither of those actions in themselves will make a single unbeliever say “How wonderful Christ is!”

The bitter truth is that the Christian culture war is not carried out for Jesus’ glory and renown, but for ours. It makes “Judeo-Christian values” the end-game, the treasure of our mission. And that is idolatry. Nobody was ever legally or argumentatively or even culturally convinced to believe in Jesus. But millions have been loved and served and submitted to into believing.

Dying for somebody says a whole lot more than debating them.

Read more!

Culture wars: Missionally Challenged

[Point nine of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

9. It mangles mission. The culture war sets the Church above and against the world, rather than in but not of the world. It turns us into picketers and politicos. It makes us suspicious and speculative and sensationalist. It takes relationship completely out of the missional equation. It turns us from peaceful ambassadors for Christ into pontificating warriors for Christianity. It does not ask us to serve and sacrifice, which are non-negotiables for Christian mission, but to maneuver and argue.

Read more!

Culture wars: Sign "The Manhattan Declaration"? Not Me.

At the moment I am writing this line 178,536 people have signed "The Manhattan Declaration" - A Call to Christian Conscience. It is probably clear from my series on the culture wars that I will not be a signer of the Declaration - but some comments are in order.

Their website front page reads:

Read more!

Culture wars: What Jesus Did Not Do

[Point eight Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

8. It has no root in Jesus’ ministry. Jesus knew heart change didn’t come through political power, cultural pressure, or zealotry, so he was keenly disinterested in those things.

Read more!

Culture wars: How to Look Like a Hypocrite

[Point four of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jered Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

4. It is often hypocritical. It is the height of weirdness to expect people who don’t know Jesus to act like they do especially when we can’t get our own house in order. So long as large numbers of Christians continue contributing to the divorce statistics, the porn industry, and more acceptable sins like gluttony and gossip and greed, we have zero business telling the world how to act. Judgment begins at the house of God.

1 Peter 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin, starting with the house of God. And if it starts with us, what will be the fate of those who are disobedient to the gospel of God?

Read more!

Evangelicalism, Politics, and the Gospel

[Crossposted from Street Prophets]

In the discussions that is going on about the Roman Catholic Church, and its change, I made a comment (I will get there in a minute). Starwoman responded with:

Thanks for this very clear and helpful comment about what the strategy is wrt Evangelicals, theology, and civil marriage laws.

I'd be interested in a diary from you on the theology behind Evangelical (and other Reformed, maybe) attitudes towards the relationship between church and state.

I can try to do that - but it may not work out.

Read more!

Culture wars: Moralism is the Medium

[Point two of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]
"
Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to Hell because . . ."

2. Its medium is moralism, not gospel. It makes kingdom militancy about religion, not gospel. It seeks a Christian coercion of others toward better behavior, not an incarnational sharing with others of the better Way.

Read more!

Culture wars: Foolish Expectations

[Point one of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to Hell because . . ."

1. Its expectation is foolish. Whether you believe America was ever a Christian nation or not, it is theologically naive and demonstrably false to think laws or policies make anyone a Christian. You cannot create or recapture a people for Christ by illegalizing sin. (Which, by the way, is not to say that certain sins shouldn’t be illegal. It is only to say that, for instance, outlawing gay marriage or repealing Roe v. Wade won’t make anybody a Christian, much less make America “a Christian nation.”)

Read more!

Culture wars: Jared Wilson Enhanced

I mentioned how much I liked Jared Wilson's "Funny, I don't Feel Neoconnish" posted at Evangel. His ten points about why the "culture wars" are going to hell --

Read more!

Romans 2:1-5:"Judgment and the Judgmental"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

(NET) Romans 2:1 Therefore² you are without excuse,³ whoever you are,⁴ when you judge someone else.⁵ For on whatever grounds⁶ you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth⁷ against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think,⁸ whoever you are, when you judge⁹ those who practice such things and yet do them yourself,¹⁰ that you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know¹¹ that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness¹² and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!¹³

Notes:

¹ sn Rom 2:1–29 presents unusual difficulties for the interpreter. There have been several major approaches to the chapter and the group(s) it refers to:

1. Rom 2:14 refers to Gentile Christians, not Gentiles who obey the Jewish law.
2. Paul in Rom 2 is presenting a hypothetical viewpoint: If anyone could obey the law, that person would be justified, but no one can.
3. The reference to “the ones who do the law” in 2:13 are those who “do” the law in the right way, on the basis of faith, not according to Jewish legalism.
4. Rom 2:13 only speaks about Christians being judged in the future, along with such texts as Rom 14:10 and 2 Cor 5:10.
5. Paul’s material in Rom 2 is drawn heavily from Diaspora Judaism, so that the treatment of the law presented here cannot be harmonized with other things Paul says about the law elsewhere (E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 123); another who sees Rom 2 as an example of Paul’s inconsistency in his treatment of the law is H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law [WUNT], 101–9.
6. The list of blessings and curses in Deut 27–30 provide the background for Rom 2; the Gentiles of 2:14 are Gentile Christians, but the condemnation of Jews in 2:17–24 addresses the failure of Jews as a nation to keep the law as a whole (A. Ito, ”Romans 2: A Deuteronomistic Reading,” JSNT 59 [1995]: 21-37).

² tn Some interpreters (e.g., C. K. Barrett, Romans [HNTC], 43) connect the inferential Διό (dio, “therefore”) with 1:32a, treating 1:32b as a parenthetical comment by Paul.

³ tn That is, “you have nothing to say in your own defense” (so translated by TCNT).
⁴ tn Grk “O man.”
⁵ tn Grk “Therefore, you are without excuse, O man, everyone [of you] who judges.”
⁶ tn Grk “in/by (that) which.”
⁷ tn Or “based on truth.”
⁸ tn Grk “do you think this,” referring to the clause in v. 3b.
⁹ tn Grk “O man, the one who judges.”

¹⁰ tn Grk “and do them.” The other words are supplied to bring out the contrast implied in this clause.

¹¹ tn Grk “being unaware.”
¹² tn Grk “hardness.” Concerning this imagery, see Jer 4:4; Ezek 3:7; 1 En. 16:3.
¹³ tn Grk “in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.”

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My Comments: I almost posted the last message along with this one in the same post. I think it is essential for anyone looking at Romans 1:24-32 to make sure they REALLY focus on this passage. For me, Paul draws the audience into a good "head-nodding" session on all "those" bad people - and then snaps them back to reality with the punchline here: you are "those bad people" so get off your high horse. It is good at this point to remember the verse at the end of the last post as well:

Matthew 7:3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

As opposed to the critic who questioned the authorship (and intellectual depth) of Romans 1:18-2:5; I think this is one of the most important sections of scripture. Here is a review of Paul's argument here - minus the details:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them . . . So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened . . . Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity . . . They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions . . . And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done . . . Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them. Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!

Carl presents that Paul's points here are:

• that the people who do the things on "vice list" between 26 and 32 are wrong:

  John 8:3 The experts in the law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught committing adultery. They made her stand in front of them 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. 5 In the law Moses commanded us to stone to death such women. What then do you say?” 6 (Now they were asking this in an attempt to trap him, so that they could bring charges against him.) Jesus bent down and wrote on the ground with his finger. 7 When they persisted in asking him, he stood up straight and replied, “Whoever among you is guiltless may be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Then he bent over again and wrote on the ground. 9 Now when they heard this, they began to drift away one at a time, starting with the older ones, until Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up straight and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She replied, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you either. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

  While Jesus, further making the point Paul made, reproved the crowd for judging and condemning the adulteress for her sin - He did not ignore her sin. He let her know it was sin, and that she needed to stop sinning



• those that approve and support those that do such things are worse:

  Luke 17:1 Jesus said to his disciples, “Stumbling blocks are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! 2 It would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3 Watch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him. 4 Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times returns to you saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

  Approving of folks who sin is indeed causing them to sin further - it is indeed just the kind of "stumbling block" Jesus talked about here. Notice - again - that Jesus does not say to ignore sin. We are to rebuke our brother when they sin, and then forgive them



• those who judge others that do those things (while they do some/any of them themselves) are worst of all. That brings us back once more to:

  Matthew 7:3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Amen!

Appendix: This section is included in a textual issue one reader brought up

Next: 2:6-16 -- "God's Impartial Judgement"

Read more!

Touring the Net

Here is my (sorta) weekly tour of the internet - and some things that struck me as interesting:

Christian Carnival CCXVII (217) is up (or soon will be) on the other side of the Cascade range from me in eastern Oregon at Diary of 1. The three that caught my attention this week:

1. "Can an Atheist be a good Person". Starving Econ Student researched what atheists mean by "good" in that question, found a couple of examples

   I googled around and saw two atheist answers:

   1. A person who does more good deeds than bad deeds
   2. A person who has empathy and compassion towards others.

   and then he addressed those well.



2. Translation does some funny things. "Do You Love Jesus?" - well there are some different words for "love" in scripture; and Chad examines the use of two of them in the same passage of scripture:

   John 21:15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these do?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Jesus said a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 17 Jesus said a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus replied, “Feed my sheep. -- NET

   Read the notes to the NET Bible text - those translators disagree - but I am not sure what I think. How about you?



3. David at Boomer in the Pew talks about "Growing Up as a Disciple of Jesus Christ":

   Here was our opening question:
   
   Are you a sinner working on your salvation or are you a child of God (a disciple of Jesus) working on your sin? Talk amongst yourselves!

   and goes on to talk about the concepts of justification, sanctification, and glorification based on passages from Romans and 1 Corinthians

At Stand to Reason:

• As an apologist, I get to deal with the "shellfish" and "mixed fabric" questions with regularity. Here is a great answer to "Why Is It Okay to Wear Mixed Fibers?":

  To believe the Old Testament Law literally is to believe that this was the covenant God made with the ancient nation of Israel--a set of instructions for running their nation. To believe the New Testament literally along with the Old is to believe that when we were joined to Christ, we died with Him and were raised with Him, causing us to be released from the Law.

• Melinda points to a new book Why We're Not Emergent (by Two Guys Who Should Be) :

  They explain why objective, propositional Truth (not just lower-case t truth) can be taught and preached and still communicate with Gen-Xers. Both speak from their practical ministry experience.

Last week I pointed to Scot McKnight's multi-part review of The Case for Civility by Os Guinness. This week had:

• "Civility 4" which

  could be called a “civil screed” against the Religious Right. It is not too harsh; it never falls for the uncivil, but the chp univocally calls the RR to the bar for a civil warning.

• and "Civility 5":

  If Os Guinness, in his attempt to call the nation to public civility, can call the Religious Right to task for its rhetoric, he can do the same to the Left . . . “We are closer,” Guinness states, “to the wild atheism of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, back to barnyard debating, with ungrounded assertions, irresponsible accusations, ad hominem arguments, and reasoning that repeatedly slumps into ranting”

Sarah at Intellectuelle in their "Apologetics 101" series talks about "Faith vs. Values?:

It's unfortunate that he has come to think of the Bible this way--as merely a handbook for morality. Do unto others should not be approached independently of no one comes to the Father except through me. But is he all that different from many Christians who regard the moral propositions of Scripture above the saving power of the gospel. Perhaps we could helpfully understand the gospel call as one of many moral appeals, yet is the one that lacks political correctness.

It is also the one theologically conservative Christians can ignore as they preach morality to non-Christians instead of bringing people to salvation in Christ.

Joe Carter's "Thirty-three Things (v.55)" series always has interesting stuff. Some highlights this week:

• "Designed for Sex", by J. Budziszewski:

  I said that we’re not designed for hooking up, that we’re designed for our bodies and hearts to work together. We human beings really do have a design, and I mean that literally—not just a biological design, but an emotional, intellectual, and spiritual design. The human design is the meaning of the ancient expression “human nature.” . . .

• An attack ad on Thomas Jefferson by the "Re-elect John Adams Committee":
  

• D.A. Carson, as quoted by Mark Driscoll in The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World:

  Paul refuses to circumcise Titus, even when it was demanded by many in the Jerusalem crowd, not because it didn’t matter to them, but because it mattered so much that if he acquiesced, he would have been giving the impression that faith in Jesus is not enough for salvation: one has to become a Jew first, before one can become a Christian. That would jeopardize the exclusive sufficiency of Jesus.
  
  To create a contemporary analogy: If I’m called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotalers, I’ll give up alcohol for the sake of the gospel. But if they start saying, “You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,” I’ll reply, “Pass the port” or “I’ll think I’ll have a glass of Beaujolais with my meal.” Paul is flexible and therefore prepared to circumcise Timothy when the exclusive sufficiency of Christ is not at stake and when a little cultural accommodation will advance the gospel; he is rigidly inflexible and therefore refuses to circumcise Titus when people are saying that Gentiles must be circumcised and become Jews to accept the Jewish Messiah.

Jan at The View From Her is one of my favorite bloggers. She is an Evangelical woman who simply writes about some neat things. This week, besides saying nice things about McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy - she adds something to the complementarian vs. egalitarian discussion of men and women's roles in the Body of Christ. She reviews Saving Women From the Church: How Jesus Mends a Divide where she picks the story of the Samaritan woman at the well out to discuss.

WorldMagBlog had some interesting stuff:

• First, they have carved out a respectful community of differing opinions - and so their voting on the community's favorite movies is interesting. They have both top 5 category rankings and a top 25 overall. The top five overall:

  1. Lord of the Rings Trilogy
  2. The Princess Bride
  3. The Sound of Music
  4. Indiana Jones films
  5. The Incredibles

• "Pronounced dead, man takes ‘miraculous’ turn":

  Just before Thanksgiving, the 21-year-old was pronounced brain-dead following an ATV accident. As family members gathered to say good-bye before his organs were harvested, Dunlap’s grandmother, Naomi, began praying for “a miracle”–and that’s just what she got.

Jeremy Pierce at Parableman:

• pointed to a piece written by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly:

  for now I just want to make one comment: the current attempts to tar Hillary as a racist have gone way, way over the top. before the South Carolina primary, the Clinton campaign and its surrogates really did seem to be making a few too many racially charged comments for it to be just a coincidence (though even then some of the accusations were bogus), but after South Carolina it pretty much stopped. I can't say whether it stopped for reasons of politics or reasons of principle, but it stopped.
  
  But the accusations of racism haven't. They've just gotten more ridiculous.

• and deepened the discussion about "Racism Charges and the Clinton Campaign" as well:

  I had to take interest in the first two comments [to Kevin's piece] mentioning Geraldine Ferraro, who didn't come up in the post. What interested me most about their appearance is the assumption that that's a genuine case of racism that they must be taking to undermine his whole argument. First of all, if it's genuine racism that doesn't undermine his argument. His point is that many of the accusations of racism are going way too far. One case that is racism doesn't undermine that claim.
  
  Second, I don't think it's fair to describe that as racist.

Enjoy

Read more!

Is Moralism Defensible?

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost writes "In Defense of Moralism"

Before we discard the term, though, we should question why we would abandon such a useful word when there are so few suitable alternatives. Admittedly, moral philosophers also study morals and moral problems. But unless one has a PhD and an office in the Ivory Tower, calling oneself a philosopher is considered pretentious. The same holds true for almost every other subject worthy of study. To say a person is a theologian, bioethicist, or economist implies they are "professionals" with the necessary degrees and vocational credentials. Unless we consider morality a subject unsuitable for "amateurs", why would we want to toss aside such a useful term as moralist?

The obvious answer is that the term has become weighted down with too much baggage. Before we can reclaim the term it is necessary to cut loose some of the predominant misconceptions about the label:

Certainly, go read Joe's post - it is a valiant effort to reclaim the word. What follows after the fold is my comment at that post:

I suppose one could try to resurrect "moralist" as a term applying to one that studies morals - although I am not sure where the professional future of that job lies. In the secular world, ethicist would probably do better. For the follower of Christ, we probably should be looking at how the secular world we are trying to reach views our moral claims and prescriptions.

First, Christ's primary ministry was to the Jews - the religion of His birth and the community His ministry was launched in and directed to. He shared a common moral framework, and indeed a common citizenship in a theocracy - or at least one repressed by the Romans. The group of Pharisees he was most likely railing against were those calling Jews to ultra-holiness, and strict adherance to religious law and custom, in order to stave off the inroads of hellenization; and to keep Roman rule from breaking their faith community. Of course, in about 30 years, that group would combine with Zealots to start the first of three wars with Rome that would destroy Judah. So, Christ warned against the very things our current moralists and legalists attempt to organize: the creation of rules and customs to be strictly adhered to in order to stave off secularization of our religion. Indeed, we find our extremes wishing to legislate those rules and customs into ["Roman"?] law. Christ instead talked about writing these laws on our hearts, and not in stone. In being pure, not acting pure. And criticized those who would lay additional moral and legal burdens on God's people [that they themselves could, or would, not follow].

Paul would do the same as the church formed. He did not expect Pagan society to follow Christian rules - his moral prescriptions focused entirely on internal church life; and, indeed, he made it clear that we must be "all to all" in order to bring people to Christ so that the morality of God even applied to them at all. At the beginnnings of Romans 2, right after those famous verses and homosexuality and more in Romans 1:18-32, we have this chilling warning against trying to take the moral high ground:

1 Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!

Can you have the "kindness, forbearance and patience" of God while knowing that only His kindness will lead folks to repentance? Then, indeed be a moralist. Otherwise, I think a better idea is to realize that no one cares what you think about their morality until they know you love them.

Read more!

An Odd Position

[Wow - a month since I have posted: the damage two jobs do.]

I find myself in an odd position - I find myself defending Hillary Clinton a lot lately. Considering there are no Republicans I feel called upon to defend - and Senator Clinton is a particular target for stomping from both "progressives" and "repugs" - I find myself pondering why I want to defend her.

It must be chivalry.

I receive notification for Townhall.com - and today I read a reaction to Hillary Clinton's speaking at the Saddleback Church AIDS conference.

Kevin McCullough's "Hillary's Purpose Driven Drivel" is, while making some valid points, basically unfair, uncharitable, self-righteous, and essentially unchristian. In saying that, I too may be unfair, uncharitable, self-righteous, and essentially unchristian. That seems to be the nature and danger of secular political engagement for Christians.

Had he simply bashed her politically I wouldn't be writing this. Since he bashed her theologically with a book I care a great deal about, my chivalrous nature has risen to the fore. McCullough called her to task for three quotes - of course taken out of context with no link to a full text of Senator Clinton's speech. However, I will take Kevin's presentation at face value because, well, it is good enough for what I want to say:

Clinton: "My own 'faith journey' is approaching a half century, and I know how far I have to go."

McCullough hits this pretty well from my theological perspective.

Which is an odd thing to consider for the Biblical Christian. For when one thinks about it we know two truths to be the exact opposite of that statement. First the only journey of faith worth taking is not something that requires fifty years to clarify, and secondly none of us - not one - can begin to fathom the gap of "how far" we are separated from God in our state of sin. Understanding this is key of course because in reality we can't "go" any distance to make up that gap. For us to try to ascertain legitimate standing before the God who made us it would be likened to the impossibility of standing on the top of the Empire State Building in New York City and attempting to shoot an arrow from a bow in hopes of striking the target dead center in the middle of the fifty yard line of the Rose Bowl in Pasadena California.

At Street Prophets I hear a lot from theologically liberal Christians, and other religious beliefs, about "faith journeys" - and I ignore it because they have as much contempt for my "make a decision", "pray a prayer", and be "born again" perspectives as I do for the idea that there is a any "journey" that takes us closer to God. Frankly, we can turn from Him or turn to Him - the "journey" is in our day-to-day decisions to do His will in our lives or not.

However, what would Kevin think of this core principle of my theologically conservative Evangelical church:

We are a people of authentic spiritual transformation – demonstrating love, purity, humility, hospitality, generosity and servant leadership.

We certainly do not believe that transformation ever ends. If I say that I am praying that I will allow the Holy Spirit to continue to transform me into more the person God created me to be - would Hillary say "Yes, that is the spiritual journey I am talking about". I have to leave that as a possibility I think

That is, however, about the only point Kevin gets from me - and he screws it up with his next statement:

Clinton: "But I have been blessed in my life, with my family, and in the church of my childhood, to be guided every step of the way."

Now if McCullough had jumped on this because Senator Clinton didn't mention being guided by the Bible, or the Holy Spirit, or God - and settled for her family and her church - I might have been sympathetic. His argument was, well . . .

Would anyone who has tolerated serial adultery, first hand accounts of rape and sexual assault against other women, and an infantile like obsession with never being criticized call their "family" (i.e. the philanderer she's married to and bore a child with) a blessing? And for Bible believing Christians being "guided every step of the way" is a pretty gigantic claim. After all I do not know a single fellow Christian who would claim to live their life in such away as to have reflected biblical guidance through every single step. The more important question being - guided by what? One Clinton's amorous ambition for Hillary's assistant?

First, to be clear, she didn't name Bill Clinton as someone who guided her - and my guess is it wasn't who she was talking about. Next, we are of course supposed to believe that all of the good, and all of the bad, in our life are blessings - and praise God for it all. However, how should she have "lived her life" based on Biblical guidance?

• Divorced Bill Clinton? Certainly she had the grounds Biblically - but isn't it clear scripturally that God hates divorce


• Not forgiven him? Hopefully Kevin doesn't even want to try to make this case.

So, Kevin's prescription for Hillary's actions in the face of Bill's repeated adultery was to divorce him, and not forgive him? What of this Biblical guidance:

1 Peter 3:1 In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live, 2 when they see your pure and reverent conduct.

In retrospect, have we heard anything about Bill's further sexual exploits since Monica? Has the grace and mercy Hillary bestowed on him helped him redeem himself and turn away from his adulterous past? Isn't that exactly the grace and mercy God calls us to on nearly every page of scripture? Isn't that the Biblical guidance that Peter gave.

Clinton: "Jesus never asked why someone was sick!"

If Kevin had pointed out that Jesus didn't need to ask; and that He made it clear on at least one occasion that He knew without asking why someone was sick - again he might get some sympathy. And, this point is well-taken:

In her attempt to seem biblically literate she sends the double sided message . . . The message is clear: cure the illness and leave the behavior alone . . . the certain equivalent of curing a child of intestinal parasites that threaten their lives - while then sending them back to their village to drink more fecal tainted water supplies.

Yes, Jesus on more than one occasion offered grace and mercy coupled with the command to repent and do different. However, then Kevin goes here:

Should we do all that we can to cure those who are afflicted? Sure, starting first with those who were infected with the disease through no fault of their own. They get the drug cocktails first.

This is wrong on so many Biblical levels I can only ask if Jesus offered His sacrifice on the cross first for those who were perishing in their sin through no fault of their own.

If Kevin wants to open his Bible and make this case Biblically then I will take it all back. However, I would like to start that conversation with:

The Condemnation of the Moralist

Romans 2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?

Next: "An Oddly Positioned Postscript"

Read more!

We Need to Get Over This

I was meaning to post this long comment from an outside thread anyway because I think it is one of the clearest statements I have made to date on my view of homosexuality, sin, and how the Body of Christ needs to view it. Then, this happened:

A megachurch canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay.

There is a lot of discussion in the article about what the church knew, when, and what the content of some of the pictures were. From my perspective, none of that matters. I will grant the church its entire argument for the sake of discussion:

The church’s pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, said no one knew Sinclair, who was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service, when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men “engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing.”

I will grant the church did a great deal to fix the situation:

He said the church offered to pay for another site for the service, made the video and provided food for more than 100 relatives and friends.

I grant this:

Simons said the church believes homosexuality is a sin, and it would have appeared to endorse that lifestyle if the service had been held there.

“We did decline to host the service — not based on hatred, not based on discrimination, but based on principle,” Simons told The Associated Press. “Had we known it on the day they first spoke about it — yes, we would have declined then. It’s not that we didn’t love the family.”

I will not argue with one word of what they said - except that they made the wrong decision: their principles are wrong. More importantly, they have interpreted Biblical principles very wrongly. I will get back to this at the end. First, that long comment yearning to be a post. [It is best if you also go read the whole thread] [there have been some modifications/clarifications to the original comment].

* * * * *

[In answer to this comment] I think exactly some of the translations say "natural use" - and the natural use, as in nature, is for our sex organs to be used in procreation - you know "tab a" and "slot b" for the purposes of making babies. I think "natural use" and "against nature" very much have to do with our biological design and function - and the nature we were originally created for.

You and I, and the Bible, believe that the purposes for which we were originally created have become warped by the Fall - indeed all of nature was disrupted by the Fall: we now have no real gauge of what God intended our true natures to be other than scripture and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. We now have a "natural" (in our own nature) inclination to turn away from God and do what feels right to us - we have our sin nature, or flesh.

I think the passage in Romans tells us that due to the general idolatry and foolishness of mankind - God has "given us over" to our internal cracked natures - the "degrading passions" and "depraved minds" that we all share - in fact I think Paul included enough items so that no one could be left out [if you think you were, please feel free to amend the list]. I read the passage as making homosexuality "natural" in that sense. I have no problem, Biblically, with believing that someone could have always felt homosexuality was natural for them - and that heterosexuality is against their very nature. We all choose who we have sex with, but none of us really choose who we are attracted to. That is a very complicated stew of our experiences, etc - earned in a broken world. It wouldn't even change my analysis if it was proven homosexuality was the result of the in utero hormone bath or a particular genetic make-up - all of nature is cracked and broken. This would be just one more broken piece.

I think Paul, in Romans, identifies a number of aspects of our "nature" that God has given us over to follow. I kinda see it as a "thorn" list - mine has settled into a desire to look at naked women not my wife. To me this is far worse than homosexuality as thorns go - but the thorn isn't any less sharp on the other side of the fence. It seems to me that Romans 1:26-32 is not a list of crimes (even though they are); but the reading out of a sentence passed by God on humankind due to our historic (if not prehistoric) idolatry.

Homosexuality is perhaps the "worst" of the group because it does involve, for committed relationships, love and not lust. How indeed can two people caring and loving each other be wrong? God is love, right? Frankly, only the Holy Spirit operating in someone's life can answer that question - it is nearly impossible for me to do so; and I think foolish to try.

It is just not my job to convict others of their sin - that is the job of scripture and the Holy Spirit; or to do the work of the Holy Spirit in transforming their lives. "God is God and I am not".

This leaves the author of the diary right on the money. Are Christians going to drive gays away from Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit - the only Person that can take an effective hand in leading them out of their sin nature and toward their true nature as the human being God intended at Creation. Every single person in our churches is a sinner (probably every day) and what are a couple of guys holding hands added to the mix: just a couple of more sinners - whether homosexuality is their sin or not.

And, are we as Christians going to "question another man's servant" when gay Christians tell us that indeed they have the Holy Spirit inside of them - they are in Christ and Christ is in them; and that Spirit tells them their relationships are not wrong. Especially, when it is over - really - one or two passages in scripture; and the actions of vehemently anti-gay Christians have run against so many other important passages of scripture.

I think Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin should probably just "love their (gay) neighbor as themselves" for a very long while; and let God handle their homosexuality as He sees fit. We need to help them get to the Master Builder, and He needs to remodel their temple to His liking.

* * * * *

Paul caps off Romans 1 with the start of Romans 2:

Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

We need to get over our fixation on homosexuality, and the "homosexual lifestyle", as some special class of sin. Even if you want to say that those who choose to have homosexual sex (as opposed to choosing that type of desire) are unrepentant and continuing in their sin - so are remarried Christians who were divorced for reasons other than the adultery of their first spouse. Nearly all of our churches have folks living in that unrepentant and continuing sin.

I am not saying the church needs to accept or ignore sin in order to accept sinners. I am saying that our unrepentant and continuing demonization of one of God's loved creatures is unseemly, un-Biblical, and is driving folks who desperately need Him (as we all do) away from Christ.

Our church is supposed to bring the spiritually sick to the Great Physician so that He can heal them - not drive them away because of our legalism and moralism. It is time for this to end; and time to remember the second greatest commandment

Love your neighbor as yourself

I sent an email to the church in Texas - which you can do but I am not advocating. Just put an end to this kind of nonsense at your church.

Read more!

"The End of the Spear", gays, and Christ.

I received this email today which I am passing on along with the answer I gave:

On Friday, January 13th, I wrote an article detailing my concerns about the decision by Every Tribe Entertainment to cast an activist for the gay agenda in a leading role in the movie, "The End of the Spear." (You can access the original article here). Gauging the amount of email that I have received and the number of visitors to my blog, the issue seemed to touch a nerve. I also asked pastors who were equally concerned to add their name to a letter that I was sending to Mart Green, the CEO of ETE. The letter expressed disappointment over the decision and asked them to somehow rectify the situation. I sent the letter on Wednesday, January 18th, with the names of over one hundred pastors attached.

On Friday I received a call from Mart Green and Jim Hanon, the director of the film. We had a cordial conversation. I brought up my two primary concerns with the movie: the casting of a gay activist and the lack of the Gospel message in the movie. (I will hold off on reporting what they said about the Gospel message until I publish an article on Wednesday regarding that entire topic.)

On the casting issue, I asked them several key questions. My first question was directed to Mart Green. "Do you feel that what you did in casting a gay activist in this role was wrong?" I received a quick "no." I moved on.

I wanted to clear up a discrepancy between Chad Allen's and ETE's versions of the casting decision. The public perception has been that ETE was unaware of Allen's homosexuality until after he was already on board. This is an important point to many. A representative from a large, pro-family organization even called me on Friday afternoon to make sure that I was aware of this. WorldNetDaily interviewed ETE President Bill Ewing, who said that "he was not even aware of Allen's homosexuality, let alone his activism, when the actor was chosen for the part." Baptist Press reported in an article last Thursday that "the producers have said they were not aware of Chad Allen's homosexuality when they gave him the role of Steve Saint in the film but decided to stick with him once they were told of his sexual practices." It's obvious that ETE would like people to know that they were unaware of Allen's homosexuality and his activism. This is significant, because if they were truly unaware, then perhaps, the reasoning goes, they should be forgiven for not doing their homework and we should all move on.

Mart Green and Jim Hanon clarified the process for me. According to them, they had offered him the role but had not signed the contract with him when they learned of his gay lifestyle. In spite of that, they still proceeded with the signing of the contract. Now, you may be thinking, "To not offer him the job at that point would amount to discrimination." You're probably right.

But it doesn't matter.

They would do it all again even with prior knowledge of Allen's activist agenda.

I asked the question to Mart, "If you knew before the casting process began what you know now, would you still have hired Chad Allen?" I rephrased it just so they knew what I was getting at. If you were to do another movie just like 'The End of the Spear' and you were fully aware of Allen's activism, would you hire him?" Mart responded that he would like both Jim Hanon and himself to answer the question. Jim Hanon said, "Yes." And then I heard him say something like "We are going to open up the door to anyone who wants to act unlike you, Jason, who wants to be exclusive." I asked Mart Green what he would do. He responded, "I would stand behind my director."

That's it. We no longer have a company who was sloppy with their research and made an error in judgment. We have a film-making company that presents itself as Christian who sees absolutely nothing wrong with casting one of Hollywood's most popular gay activists in the role of an evangelical missionary martyr.

I told him that I believed he would lose the support of much of the evangelical community if they knew this. He disagreed. He mentioned that Jerry Falwell and Ted Haggard are behind the movie, as well as many others.

I mentioned this conversation to the man who called me from the pro-family organization. His words summed up my thoughts, "That's not good."

Would you do the following?

1. Email this information to as many Christians as you know.
2. Email Mart Green and let him know how you feel -- mgreen@everytribe.com.
3. Contact pro-family organizations and church leaders and ask them to contact Mart Green and express their concerns. Perhaps they can talk to him. From all I have read, Mart is a good Christian man with a desire to please the Lord.

Some people have questioned my motivations in writing on this and continuing to write on it. I am doing so because I believe it is important. The loss of discernment is evident in all corners of evangelicalism, and there comes a time when people need to say something.

Jason Janz

And my response

Brother,

Actually, I will not. I will link my position on homosexuality just to show you I am not totally "apostate" on this issue (that was sarcasm). Frankly, I think the conservative Christian community makes far too much of the sin of homosexuality; and gay marriage. It is not the worst sin, or the even the worst sexual sin; nor is gay marriage the worst threat to God's institution of marriage. I will go with pride; adultery; and men, particularly, not loving our spouses as Christ loved us for those awards.

We live in a secular society where some people simply do not believe what we believe. Christians being so adamant over a negative issue, rather than, say, being fired up over doing something for the "least of these" only makes us appear moralistic and legalistic - neither of which Christ was. He probably would have eaten with tax collectors, sinners, and gays were He here today. Would you be asking Him why He did so?

In homosexuality, we are talking about people who from their earliest sexual memory were generally attracted to the same sex. I agree with you that this is not God's design. However, whatever "nurture" got them to this point from their earliest sexual memory is not going to be counteracted by our ostracism and persecution. It is going to be counteracted by Christ's love; and Christ living in them - which as His representatives we are too show and bring them too.

Or in this case not show and drive them from. Would we be equally concerned if the actor had been divorced once; and it was he that had committed the adultery that ended the first marriage. I sincerely doubt it.

I will end with Romans 1:28 - 2:3, right after the strongest denunciation of homosexuality in the New Testament:

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

I think the laundry list of sins attached right after homosexuality (notice where "haters of God" is. Think the list is in order of importance?) and Paul's admonition not to judge because we have all done these things is something those who believe homosexuality is sin should keep well in mind

In Christ,
John Howell

Read more!

Homosexuality Part II: Methinks We Protest too Loudly!

Matthew 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 "Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye

What if homosexuality is always sin? The only distinction would arise in comparing a heterosexual couple in a monogamous lifetime relationship with a homosexual couple in a monogamous lifetime relationship. Biblically, any sexual act outside a monogamous lifetime relationship is sin. It doesn't matter whether it is with the same gender or the opposite. However, we will not get to gay marriage or civil unions until the third post.

Right now, let's look at sexual sin. What is more serious biblically - homosexuality or adultery? I am personally an "all sin is equal" kinda Christian - but if ranking is valid then adultery has to be hands down worse than homosexuality because you have betrayed your spouse, a vow to God, and of course committed a sexual sin. Certainly, adultery constitutes a far more serious threat to Christian marriage than homosexuality on any level

Matthew 5: 27 "You have heard that it was said, `YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart . . . 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

and:

Matthew 19: 9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." 10 The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." 11 But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.

I personally committed all of those. This should land enough logs in enough eyes to quiet almost all condemnations of homosexuality by Christians. Been dropping into internet pornography sites? Do you and your spouse have a damaged sexual relationship, and you masturbate to images and/or fantasies of others? Maybe you have sexual fantasies about that women with the low-cut tight blouse or the guy with the tight jeans; and go out of your way to get the best view of the body you "admire"? How about the sensitive and kind person at church (the office, etc) that you compare favorably with your emotionally distant spouse; and feel the heat of a rising passion? Perhaps you are meeting for coffee or lunch (have you mentioned it to your spouse?) with that funny someone who "really understands you"; and your thoughts are becoming sexual about them (or soon will be)? Is this your second marriage, or are you divorced? Was the divorce caused by adultery? If not, are you committing adultery now? If your spouse left you tomorrow, for reasons other than adultery, are you prepared to be celibate for the rest of your life? This last one I had to face last year - it was a bleak and difficult future to envision.

These are the verses closely following Romans 1:26-7:

Romans 2: 1 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. *

* Romans 1: 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

Romans 2: 2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

I am not really trying to engender guilt. I am trying to engender humility; and an understanding that we all stand in front of an Almighty God imperfect and unable to say much about anything but our own sin.

This author:

"Should opposing the cultural acceptance of gayness be a central task for the Church? Because of the teaching of the Scripture about the task of the Church, I say no."

Does it help the mission of Christ's church to be perceived as hateful representatives of a hateful God when it comes to homosexuality? No.

Homosexuality is not the worst sexual sin, and is only equal to heterosexual sex outside of marriage (how many are doing that right now); and sexual sin is not the worst sin overall. C.S. Lewis:

The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither. -- Mere Christianity

Finally, what if we are wrong? What if Paul really had no clue about committed, loving relationships between people of the same gender, and all he could see was temple prostitution and pederasty? What if gays do feel that orientation from the youngest of ages and that is all right with God? Remember, Paul and the other apostles thought Christ was returning in their lifetime. They had Jesus's revelation to lean on (He of course said only His Father really knew) - and we should live like Christ is returning tomorrow - but still they were wrong about this. How will God feel if we have persecuted gays in His name and He doesn't feel that way? We should always approach judgment and/or condemnation of people based on scripture with "fear and trembling" - or better yet just leave this job to God. I think the wisest thing for Christians to do about homosexuality is to love the sinner; and hate the sin - but keep their mouth shut about the second part in most cases.

Next: Homosexuality Part III: Gay Marriage and Civil Unity (comments allowed at end of series)

Read more!

Homosexuality Part III - Gay Marriage and Civil Unity

This is really two issues: internally in the Christian Church; and externally in a puralistic, democratic society.

On the Christian church side of the issue: I could not support, based on scripture, sanctifying gay marriage (or civil unions) within my church - or even saying that gay permanent relationships are equal in God's eyes. As Richard Hayes said (quoted by Walter Taylor):

Read more!