Would You Go to Prison For Your Stance on Homosexuality?

What would you do if you received a letter from the authorities that said:

“If you continue preaching the gospel and attempting to convert people to Jesus Christ, you will be sentenced to prison for an indeterminate period of time”? I know my response (or what I hope) my response would be. I would continue preaching until they followed through on their promise—and then I’d keep proclaiming Christ in prison.

But what if I received a letter that said this:

“If you continue preaching that homosexuality is a sin and attempting to counsel those with a homosexual orientation to pursue celibacy and/or healing in Jesus Christ, you will be sentenced to prison for an indeterminate period of time”?

Could I never again preach what God says about homosexuality and still be faithful in preaching the gospel of Christ? I mean is it really something worth going to prison for—sacrificing my cherished freedom, life with my family, further gospel ministry? I see nothing about a stance on homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 15. I know that I could never say, “Homosexuality is not a sin” but could I simply say nothing?

Help from John Bunyan and Martin Luther

John Bunyan had only been married two years when he was carried off to prison. He left his wife with four children (none of them her own) and the grief of having just lost a newborn baby. He was in prison for twelve years. He could have left any moment if he would have promised not to preach. This was Bunyan’s response:

If nothing will do unless I make of my conscience a continual butchery and slaughtershop, unless putting out my own eyes, I commit to the blind to lead me, as I doubt not is desire by some, I have determined, the Almighty God being my help and shield, yet to suffer, if frail life might continue so long, even till the moss shall grow on mine eyebrows, rather than thus to violate my faith and principles.

He believed it was more valuable for him to stay in prison and suffer (and his family to suffer) than to make a “butchery” of his conscience or to violate his “faith and principles”. I tend to agree. So did Martin Luther:

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the solider is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

Luther, Bunyan, and many others were able to see that some things which at first glance may seem adiaphora are actually part of the gospel. To refuse to name sin that which God calls sin is to sacrifice the word of God on the altar of political correctness. Such a rebellion is similar to heeding the voice of the serpent who cunningly asked, “did God really say…?” 

My Answer

If your ministry is only about decrying the ills of society and the sinfulness of homosexuality you’ve likely missed the gospel. The point of battling for the right to name sin is waged only so we can point to the balm for that named sin. If we win the battle of naming sin but lose the battle of proclaiming the gospel then we’ve only made the devil dance to a different tune.

Yet, I am charged with preaching the whole counsel of God. Part of that means being truthful about what God says concerning homosexuality. If it really is true that homosexuality is sin then it means that this particular sin (like all others) aims to dethrone God and ruin people. Therefore, it must be battled with all the power of the gospel.

If the battle to see sinners (of all stripes) drop their idolatries and bow a knee to Jesus happens to lead me to prison then to prison I shall go. (Lord keep me faithful!)

What say you?

Is Romans 1 About Homosexuality?

Romans 1 seems pretty clear that homosexual acts and even passions are dishonorable before the Lord.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, tothe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Pretty clear, eh?

“Not so”, says some advocates of homosexuality. They argue that Paul is not talking about homosexuality in these passages. Some argue that his point is to condemn shrine prostitution. The mention of homosexuality in this case is a reference to that which accompanied idolatrous worship. Others say that Paul is against pederasty (a homoerotic relationship between an adult male and an adolescent). In this case Paul is not condemning consensual homosexual relationships—only those which are abusive. A similar argument is often made that what Paul is condemning are those that are “unnatural”. If you are born heterosexual then it is unnatural for you to engage in homosexuality.

Often those making these arguments make it a point to read Romans 1 in the context. If we do, they say, we will clearly see that Paul’s concern is with idolatry and not with homosexuality.

And you know what? They have a point…

The context of Romans 1

In Romans 1 Paul is concerned with idolatry. His point in 1:18-23 is that God created mankind to worship and serve Him (“honor him and give him thanks”). All of creation cries out that this is the case. Humanity in response has suppressed the cry of creation and in rebellion we have “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images…” We have “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator”.

Paul’s point is that creation was not formed to worship creation. We are not made to worship and serve the like. Idolatry does just this, it makes us worship things that are creaturely, just like ourselves. God designed us to worship that which is outside ourselves. Idolatry causes us to essentially worship a mirror.

So those who teach that this passage is not fundamentally about condemning homosexuality are correct. Paul’s main point is not about homosexuality. It is about the consequences of idolatry. But that doesn’t meant that it has nothing to say about homosexuality.

So why then does Paul mention homosexuality in Romans 1?

He uses homosexuality because it is fitting illustration for idolatry. In answering this question, Tom Schreiner says, “Probably because it functions as the best illustration of that which is unnatural in the sexual sphere”. In other words, Paul focuses on homosexuality because it is a tremendous illustration of his point.

Sex is meant to be enjoyed with one different than ourselves. This is why Paul goes back to the creation narrative and uses thelys (female) and arsen (male) instead of the typical gyne (female) and aner (male). He uses the same words in the creation account of the LXX (Septuagint). God made them male and female. Different. Hetero. Other.

Homosexuality is the natural progression of idolatry. It is a picture of our idolatrous exchange of worshipping the Other and choosing to worship that which looks just like us. When we’ve bought the lie that creature is more important than the Creator, such a view is the result. Homosexuality is the natural progression of thinking that is unnatural.

Why those other arguments do not work

Those who teach that Romans 1 has nothing to do with homosexuality encourage us to read the context. I would advise another plan. Reading the context actually shows why the arguments of pederasty, shrine prostitution, and other things does not work. It would make Paul’s argument pointless because it severs the tie with the root of idolatry; namely, the worship of sameness instead of the Other.

It’s also helpful for us to mention that there are things in verses 28-32 that I am guilty of. I too was an idolater. That leaves me in the same boat as the homosexual. But I’m willing to say that even though envy, slander, gossip, boastfulness, and the like sometimes feel very natural they are to be opposed and battled with all the power of Christ.

Here comes a non politically correct statement. According to Romans 1, homosexual acts and passions are dishonorable to the Lord. Therefore, just as I do with my sin, those who struggle with this particular sin must fight it through the power of the gospel. They are correct this passage isn’t solely about homosexuality. But it isn’t silent on it either. It is about the idolatry of humanity and all of it’s damning effects.

We aren’t healed by denying our presence in that list. We are healed by acknowledging our guilt and fleeing to Christ for righteousness.

Why We’ve All But Lost the Gay Marriage Debate

Back in 2011, Focus on the Family conceded that “we’ve probably lost” the gay marriage debate. Two years later “probably” would be an understatement. We have all but lost this debate. I am making the argument in this piece that this happened years ago when we swallowed certain cultural virtues instead of confronting them.

In their book, The Narcissism Epidemic, authors Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell make the argument that narcissism is on a relentless rise in our culture. Starting in the 1960s, “Americans core cultural ideas slowly became more focused on self-admiration and self-expression”. We raise our children to believe that they are special simply because they were born. Somewhere along the way our “specialness” was tied to our imago Homo (image of man) instead of the imago Dei (image of God). The pervasive belief in our culture is that we are special simply because we are human and not because humanity was created in the image of God.

If I am special “just for being me” it is only logical to conclude that the most important virtue is for me to be “true to myself”. It would be supremely unloving and even harmful for someone to try to change me. It would be a suicidal step away from greatness. The most loving thing that I can do for myself is express me—whatever me is.

Twenge and Campbell note that in generations past, religion kept a check on such narcissism. Not anymore. In fact, for many Americans, God exists to make them happy. Not happy in Him, mind you—but happy in our own flesh. Rather than being a deterrent to such self-centeredness the god of many Americans actually gives us a “thumbs-up” in our quest to be positively awesome.

In sum, our culture believes that every person is amazing simply by existing, the most important virtue is to be true to yourself, and God is passionate about the same thing that we are; namely, me.

How the Church Swallowed This

This is a humorous video but it captures our narcissism:

In some instances these cultural “virtues” have not been swallowed whole. But instead efforts have been made to redeem them. Rather than confronting the unbelieving assumption that I am positively awesome, much of our evangelism material starts with affirming that. We then encourage people to become truly awesome by accepting Jesus.

By and large we have not confronted these “virtues” we have just tried to Christianize them. And it is killing us.

Why this is causing us to lose this debate

How does all of this relate to the current debate over gay marriage? Honestly, you could substitute the phrase “gay marriage” with “culture of divorce” and a host of other issues the church is facing. My argument is that accepting our cultural narcissism has provided a breeding ground for normalizing many things the Lord defines as sin.

Think with me for a moment.

When I assume that I am awesome simply because I exist, will I be prone to be governed by anything external? If I am the standard of awesome why would I listen to what a 2,000 year old book has to say? Why would I care about God’s law? It does not define me.

One of the most common arguments in favor of gay marriage is that “it is who I am” therefore it would be supremely unloving to deprive people of simply expressing themselves. It is denying a freedom that is given by our constitution.

This argument can even be Christianized. God wants me to be happy. Happiness comes through me being true to my desires. Therefore, God would not call people to do something that was making them miserable?

What is the church’s response to these claims?

For years we thought that screaming “stop it” loud enough and long enough would do the trick. We thought that if we simply reminded people of what the Bible says and what the Lord thinks about homosexuality then people would be convinced. Yet we never confronted the core problem—that people have rejected the external message of God as definitive. (See this by Dan Phillips)

Then we tried saying, “You can change”. We confronted the idea that “it is who I am” arguments with a message that said, “You can change”. While that is true, it was ineffective because again we never confronted the underlying belief. When we said “you can change” we were met with an angry response of “why would I want to”. No wonder. If being “true to myself” is the highest virtue wouldn’t it be wrong to try to change?

Furthermore, such a change might cause suffering. It’s who I am. Would God really want me to have to suffer through something like this? Does God really want me to stifle desires? Does a loving God really not want me to express love? Wouldn’t it be supremely unloving for God to make me be somebody that I am not.

What does a church that believes God is primarily focused on our happiness say to such a thing? “You know what you might just have a point!” And so it slowly becomes more and more acceptable within the church. Because by and large we’ve swallowed the same virtues that the culture has.

Our Only Hope is the Gospel

Saying that our only hope is the gospel is quite common. And I agree with the statement. But I want to extend it a bit. When many say, “our only hope is the gospel” what they are really saying is, “Jesus can take a homosexual and change his desires and make him no longer gay”. While, I do believe in the power of redemption and change, and I do not want to minimize that, I believe it is aiming too low.

It’s not just homosexuality that needs to be confronted. It’s an entire mindset. The gospel directly confronts these “virtues” and defines them as the vices they really are. What we need in our day is a robust gospel. One that has God at the center instead of man. One that is willing to suffer for the sake of Christ. One that has it’s identity grounded in Christ and His work and not our own innate awesomeness. One that believes our greatest virtue is conformity to Christ and not some “being true to myself” hogwash.

This is what is needed. And the gospel really does have the power to rock mindsets and transform entire cultures. Yes, I believe that we’ve all but lost this debate on gay marriage. But I don’t believe it’s over. Nor do I believe that it is the central issue. It’s just a symptom—as divorces, abortion, etc.—is a symptom of our larger cultural problem of having abandoned the gospel.

I believe if the church focuses on what we really ought to focus on—making disciples—then eventually our culture will change. And maybe my children’s children will one day look at institutions like gay marriage and say, “Wait, a minute this isn’t what is best for us because this is an attempt to find happiness outside of God.” And maybe the gospel will have so penetrated our culture that righteousness becomes the new normal.

Or maybe it won’t. And maybe we and our children’s children will have to suffer; not because of our stance on gay marriage but because we aren’t drinking the Kool-aid that has man at the center of everything. And maybe we’ll be so passionate about Jesus that we’ll be willing to kiss the Cross if it means glorifying him and winning a few people to the unchangeable truth of Christ.

Is Being Persecuted For Biblically Held Beliefs the Same Things as Sharing in the Sufferings of Christ?

Sometimes I am really glad to not have a blog that elicits a ton of comments. Actually, I’m lying. It makes me sad that I haven’t yet succeeded at creating a community here at Borrowed Light. But let’s pretend that I’m cool with it so I can make my next sentence. On days like today I wish that I had an active community here, because I would love to have a discussion.

My question is one that I don’t yet have an answer formulated for.

When the culture at large rejects biblical principles can we also say that they are opposing the gospel?

Or allow me to ask it a little differently.

Can we say that we are being persecuted for the sake of the gospel, when it’s really “biblical principles” (like the issue on homosexuality) that we are being persecuted for? Is being persecuted for biblically held beliefs the same thing as sharing in the sufferings of Christ?

What do you think?

I might attempt an answer to this later. But I need to have one first…

Top 5 Reasons I Didn’t Go to Chick-fil-A Yesterday

In case you somehow missed it, yesterday was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.  In the past few weeks they have come under fire from the LGBT community for CEO Dan Cathy’s support of traditional marriage.  Mike Huckabee delcared August 1st Chick-fil-A appreciation day and encouraged Christians and all those that support traditional marriage to show their support for the embattled franchise. 

I didn’t go. 

Here is why…

1. The closest Chick-fil-A is a little over an hour away from my house.  I wasn’t able to drive that far on a Wednesday.
2. The lines, I hear, were atrocious.  I don’t like long lines.
3. I only had 3-4 bucks. 
4. After working at Chick-fil-A for about 6 months my body developed a chemical dependency to their chicken and lemonade.  I’m trying to wean myself off and I really didn’t want to fall of the wagon.  Because of #1…I can’t get to a Chick-fil-A very often
5. It’s become more than simply supporting Chick-fil-A

Number 5 is the real reason I wouldn’t have went even if the other 4 things weren’t a factor.  If this was only about supporting Chick-fil-A from a ridiculous boycott then I’d be the first in line.  (Or well one of the first 500, at least). 

But it’s become more than that. 

It’s become a sort of counter-protest.  Consider the way Fox News reported it:

It used to be that taking a bite of a chicken sandwich just meant you were hungry. Now it has become a symbol of whether you stand for or against same-sex marriage, or – alternately – the right to express your personal views without fear of retaliation.

And though Christ is very counter-cultural and somewhat of a revolutionary in the eyes of the religious elite of his day, I’m not sure if the way of Christ would be to eat at Chick-fil-A to communicate that we value our American freedom, or chicken sandwiches, and traditional marriage. 

I’m not saying that Christ doesn’t support traditional marriage.  That’d be dumb.  He not only supports traditional marriage, He defines it.  And I’m not even saying that Jesus wouldn’t support Dan Cathy and probably buy a Chick-fil-A sandwich.  I just wonder if maybe he’d do it tomorrow when all the politicization isn’t surrounding it. 

I’m with Barnabas Piper in thinking that maybe this will cost a little more than we bargained for.

---

Also, I’m not sure that those standing in line have counted the cost of eating a highly addictive and delicious chicken sandwich and their what seems to be heroine-laced lemonade.  Seriously, they’ll have to eat there every day now or go through painful withdraws. 

Why the Charles Worley’s of the World Make the Welton Gaddy’s Seem Plausible (2/2)

Yesterday I interacted with this video:

It’s a misnomer to call this guy a pastor.  Pastors feed their sheep.  Pastors protect their sheep from the wolves that are harming their sheep.  They don’t work to convince the sheep of strategies for taming goats.  Pastors stand before a hungry congregation and feed them with “thus saith the Lord”.  They don’t put their own opinion on an equal plain with God and His Word just because they sign their checks with Rev.

This guys rant is going viral on the internet.  And with every click and view, what the gospel says about homosexuality is muddied.  Hate filled garbage like this is what makes it almost impossible for Christians to actually engage the homosexual community and provide the light of Jesus.  This is what people hear and see whenever believers say, “homosexuality is wrong”.  And it is junk like this that gives rise to the Welton Gaddy’s of the world; who, rightly, do not want to be seen as this guy, but wrongly, also miss the gospel. 

Lost in all of this is the transforming gospel.  Worley misses the gospel on at least three fronts. 

He misses the problem

Worley’s solution is to get all the “gays, queers, and lesbians” together and put them in a plot of land surrounded by an electric fence, drop them some food, and watch them die out.  Why will they die out?  Because they cannot reproduce. 

One of the problems with Worley’s solution is that it wouldn’t work.  And that fact actually exposes his wrong-headed gospel-denying theology.  Homosexuality is a matter of the heart more than it is a matter of genetics.  It is not a matter of “them”.  It is a matter of “us”.  Folks like Worley deny that the same seed that sprouts homosexuality is present in his own heart and is probably what birthed this angry tirade. 

The problem with homosexuals is not fundamentally their sexual orientation.  The problem with homosexuals is the same problem with heterosexuals—idolatry.  When we make homosexuality the problem it’s like condemning an apple because it stopped growing when plucked away from the tree. 

I stand firmly with Scripture and say that engaging in homosexual activity is sin.  But I also stand firmly with Scripture and say that my bouts of anger, joylessness, apathy, pride, and a host of other things is sin.  I’m standing with God and His Word against my sin.  My sin problem isn’t a “them” problem, it’s a “me” problem. 

He misses the solution

The Christian’s ultimate goal for an angry man is not to get him to stop being angry.  It certainly isn’t to kill him off.  The Christian’s ultimate goal for an angry man is to help him find grace, forgiveness, and redemption in the precious blood of Jesus Christ. 

The Christian’s ultimate goal for a homosexual is not to make him heterosexual.  It certainly isn’t to section him off from society, drop food, and surround him with an electric fence.  The Christian’s ultimate goal for a homosexual is that he becomes a worshiper of Jesus.  Again, that he finds grace, forgiveness, and redemption in the precious blood of Jesus. 

Worley have very wrong-headed and hateful goal in this tirade.  “Get rid of the queers”.  That’s not the way of Jesus.  Of course neither is pretending that homosexuality is not sinful.  The way of Jesus is to actually acknowledge that we are guilty before God in far more than homosexuality.  It is to admit that homosexuality (or pride, or lust, or anger) is a fruit of a much deeper worship problem.  The only answer for worship problems is the gospel of Christ.  That’s the solution—not electric fences. 

He does both like a jerk

I imagine that Mr. Worley stepped down from the pulpit feeling rather good about his bold stance against homosexuality and President Obama.  He really stuck it to them.  The problem is that it inadequately reflects the posture of the prophets of old and more importantly of Jesus. 

Find the places in Scripture where Jesus is absolutely furious and engaging in something that may be construed from an uninitiated observer as a rant.  Notice his audience.  You will find that it is those that are “within the fold” and are hard as rock in their hearts that Jesus comes like a hammer against.  Seldom does he say, “Watch out for those dirty filthy Romans”.  In fact his aim is less about disagreeing with Rome and more about setting up His own Kingdom. 

Now find the places in Scripture where Jesus interacted with sinners.  Notice his posture.  Was he bold?  Yes.  Did he back down from what is sin and what is required of his kingdom?  Did he engage them like a self-righteous jerk?  Nope.  He stood boldly for the truth but engaged the broken and rebellious with compassion. 

And that is a significant problem because the Welton Gaddy’s of the world come behind the Charles Worleys’ and offer “peace, peace” when there really is no peace.  They offer a mock compassion that is easily swallowed up because everybody and their mom can identify a Worley-esque bludgeoning as “not the way of Jesus”.  But what is lost in all of this is the actual voice of Jesus which compassionately calls sinners (homosexuals, prideful pastors, angry daddy’s, and greedy Republicans) to faith and repentance.  He encourages loose Samaritan women to drop their water jug and drink deeply from the “spring of water welling up to eternal life”. 

Why the Charles Worley’s of the World Make the Welton Gaddy’s Seem Plausible (1/2)

If you haven’t already done so, watch this video:

Take a few deep breaths.  Try to calm down. 

There is much in Worley’s “sermon” that is detestable.  And I want to rightly denounce his “preaching” and his message here.  But for the full treatment of that you will have to wait until tomorrow.  Today I actually want to consider the response of Welton Gaddy.  I do that because I am claiming in this piece that Worley’s ridiculousness is what makes the non-sense spewing from Gaddy’s mouth actually seem plausible.  So, before we can rightly tackle the problem with Worley’s rant it needs to be shown that Gaddy’s response is just as anti-gospel.

Gaddy’s Response

I agree with Welton Gaddy that Charles Worley’s tirade is wrong and flat out dangerous.  In that much we agree.  But why I think it is wrong and dangerous is much different from why Gaddy believes it is so. 

Welton Gaddy, rightly, believes that Worley is simply cherry picking verses and then going on hateful rants against homosexuality.  He rightly says that Worley does not consider the whole sweep of Scripture.  I agree.  Then Gaddy defines the whole sweep of Scripture as a message of a loving God who wants us to love each other.  The message of the Bible is that we learn to get along and cooperate.  Which he is quick to mention is also what our government is about. At this point we diverge. 

What Gaddy says here sounds so good and so “like Jesus” when compared to a dude that wants to round up “queers” like you would a batch of mules that cannot reproduce.  “That’ll get rid of them and then we won’t have to have this problem anymore”.  Acceptance, tolerance, unity, and a message of love seems like a no-brainer compared to such ridiculousness. 

The Problem

One problem though.  The whole sweep of the Bible isn’t fundamentally about humanities quest to learn to love one another.  The message of the Bible is about the self-giving God drawing undeserving rebellious sinners into a relationship with Himself.  It is about him rooting out of his world all sin and belief and creating in its place passionate worshipers. 

Though Worley does cherry-pick verses and rip them out of context he is not wrong that God is “againt” (how do you spell that?) homosexuality. 

It takes some serious exegetical gymnastics and a complete mutilation of the text to make an argument that Romans 1 does not place the sin of homosexuality within the grand scope of Scripture’s message.  Homosexuality is a result of worshipping the creature instead of creation.  And Paul uses that particular sin not because it is worse than any of the others listed in Scripture but because it provides a helpful picture of worshipping and serving “like” instead of worshipping and serving “Other”. 

If it is true that homosexuality is image of God destroying then the most loving thing that we can do is not leave them in their sin.  Yes, Jesus “accepted” the loose Samaritan woman.  But he also told her “go and sin no more”.  There really is such a thing as sin in the world and it’s far more wide-reaching than just “lack of accepting one another”. 

Hate is a sin.  So is homosexuality.  Because both are sin doesn’t mean that both are now somehow acceptable and we just need to learn to love one another in the midst of our sin.  It means that we both need Christ and as we both grab hold of the Cross of Jesus we find unity.  That’s the story of the gospel. 

Unity is found when broken and rebellious sinners find grace and acceptance at the Cross of Christ.  It’s not found when broken and rebellious sinners put on fig leaves and then have a fashion show to encourage one another in their new rebellion-denying attire. 

But rebellion-denying seems so plausible when compared to the anti-gospel rants of the Charles Worley’s of the world…

----

By the way, I find it really telling that a man of such acceptance and love can label the group of people that were listening to this man as those having “sick minds”.  So it is perfectly acceptable, and tolerant, and together, to dismiss and insult those that aren’t deemed as acceptable, tolerant, and together?  Actually, I agree with Gaddy that those shouting “Amen” have sick minds.  But I can say that and not be a hypocrite because I’m not the dude trying to convince sinners (like myself) to hold hands and sing Kumbaya because we really aren’t so screwed up.  But it is quite hypocritical to preach tolerance for all belief—except of course to those that aren’t tolerant. 

What I Hope We Remember After President Obama’s Public Support of Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday the world was a buzz after President Obama’s public support of same-sex marriage.  This political strategy (his “evolution”) really caught nobody by surprise.  His public support only confirms what we have known for quite some time; our President has a very liberal agenda. 

On the day after I thought it may be good to reflect on a few things that are still the same even after this declaration.  I also hope to offer a few ways in which I hope the church responds to his public support of same sex marriage.  Here are my thoughts on this issue:

• Our “fight” is bigger than this.  The sanctity of marriage is a hugely important issue and one worth doing battle over.  Yet at the end of the day we must always remember that our fight is much bigger.  God is rooting out of his world all sin and unbelief and replacing it with passionate worshipers.  Homosexuality, Liberalism, American Freedom, etc. is not the fundamental fight, it is the gospel. 
• God is still sovereign.  The last time I checked the ending of the story it is not pending on whether or not a President or a nation (whose term and life is but a vapor) affirms or denies same-sex marriage.  That is not to increase passivity but to stir up a gospel-rest driven effort. 
• God is mighty to save.  At T4G Thabiti Anyabwile asked whether or not our gospel was powerful enough to transform a terrorist.  Today, I wonder is your gospel powerful enough to transform a homosexual?  If it is then it cannot be chained or stopped regardless of a law or a presidential vote of support. 
• People do not define marriage, God does.  I believe that John Piper said something similar to that, once.  This really is not something up for debate.  Call it arrogant, that is fine, but Scripture is pretty clear on what marriage is.  I’m not sure why we would be shocked that the world would have a different view and define it differently. 
• Fox News isn’t your hub for what is going on in the world.  By this I do not mean that bible prophecy teachers really know what is going on in Israel and the US.  What I mean is that the same thing is going on in our world that was going on in 1st century Palestine.  God created man.  We rebel.  We worship and serve the creature rather than creation.  In Jesus He provides redemption.  That is what is going on in the world.  Let Scripture interpret your world not Fox News and talk radio.  
• Remember why we do battle.  A good part of our battle is because we do not want people to legalize holding bombs with the pin on the floor.  This isn’t a battle to see who wins. 
• If we “lose” this battle lets respond as believers should.  It seems to me that what Barnabas Piper said here, also applies in this situation. 
• The believers citizenship is elsewhere and it is secure.  I pray that we live and respond as if we really believe that this is true.

I fear that some people will read this and miss what I am saying.  I am not saying that the sanctity of marriage is not a big issue.  It is important.  It is a truth worth fighting for.  I am in agreement with Kevin DeYoung in his article here.   I also agree with Joe Carter and others that call the President’s speech blasphemy.  I believe also that it is a finely timed political strategy and nothing close to an evolution and that it is dishonest and outright wrong for the President to pretend like he has finally accepted this position.  It’s wrong for him to drag Jesus through the muck of his idolatry as well.  I’m certainly not for this decision. 

My hope, though, is that we fight with the right weapons and wield them the correct way.  I preach, teach, write, and labor to see people become enthralled with Jesus not America.  I want people fit for the true King’s kingdom and not captivated by the kingdom of the ruler of a borrowed reign. 

As Jesus Said About Gay People…

This picture is making its rounds and I am compelled to offer a little commentary.  There is a pamphlet making its rounds too—both implying that Jesus said nothing gay people. 

To this I respond…

Sure he did.  He said all kinds of things about gay people, and straight people, and bisexual people, and even people who prefer animals.  Jesus says to all people—whether gay, straight, or whatever—that they need to repent or perish.  He lets all people know that their self-righteousness is nothing in the kingdom of God but the work of God is to believe upon Jesus Christ.  He lets all people know that their fundamental identity is not leveled to a sexual choice/orientation/or whatever you want to call it.  People’s fundamental identity is as creature in relation to Creator.  He calls the shots—not you or I.  And He considers us rebels that need to repent. 

If you are not trusting in Christ for salvation I’m not really concerned at this point with arguing about whether homosexuality is right or wrong.  Because I could convince you that it is wrong—or you could convince me that it is okay—and either way if you are not trusting in Christ you either go to hell for homosexuality and a host of other sins (if I’m right) or you go to hell innocent of the charge of homosexuality but guilty of other offenses.  It really doesn’t matter. 

I do know that you and I share common ground in that we are both prideful and given to self-righteousness, defensiveness, and deceptive hearts that worry more about justifying self than trusting in Christ.  I also know that we both were created by God in His image.  And I also know that the only way for us to not engage in God-belittling and joy-robbing rebellion and idolatry is for God to work in our hearts in such a way that we see Christ as more precious and beautiful than fleeting pleasures that may be tasteful morsels for a season but wind up empty in the end. 

I urge you to trust in Christ and his own righteousness and not your own.  The chief reason that you are walking around holding signs and telling people that being homosexual is not wrong is because you are wanting to be found innocent.  The issue isn’t whether homosexuality is right or it is wrong.  The key issue for you is to know that the only way that you will be declared innocent is through the finished work of Jesus Christ.  That’s why he says repent or perish to gay, straight, bi-sexual, and everywhere in-between or left to right of that. 

Al Mohler, Homosexuality, and Job’s Friends

There has been somewhat of a controversy within the SBC concerning statements made by Al Mohler at the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting.  Actually it’s probably not as much of a controversy as some bloggers would have us to believe.  Truth is much that gets the blogosphere in an uproar is usually but a pebble in the ocean of real controversy.  Nonetheless, there has been a good amount of discussion regarding Mohler’s comments.

You can read the full transcript here.  Or watch the video below.  But most of the controversy stems from these words:

But we as Evangelicals have a very sad history in dealing with this issue. We have told not the truth, but we’ve told about half the truth. We’ve told the biblical truth and that’s important, but we haven’t applied it in the biblical way.

Not to put words in Dr. Mohler’s mouth but I think in part what he is saying is that we have been very similar to Job’s friends.  They are only beating on one side of the drum—you’ve sinned, you’ve sinned, you’ve sinned.  To this Job finally responds in Job 19:

“Have mercy on me, have mercy on me, O you my friends, for the hand of God has touched me!  Why do you, like God, pursue me?  Why are you not satisfied with my flesh?”

Job’s point is that IF he has sinned as they claim why are they still chasing him down in judgment and not offering him mercy.  There is nothing in their words that is pointing them to a redeemer.  They are simply saying, Job ‘fess up and maybe things will get better for you. 

Job 19:25-27 should not have been on the lips of Job--or at least only as a response.  These words should have been on the lips of Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad.  They should have been proclaiming to Job redemption and not only his sin:

For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth.  And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another.  My heart faints within me!

Unless the gospel goes deeply into our hearts we will be just like Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad.  We will look at a lost, dying, sinful, hurting, rebellious, and broken people and only shine the flashlight on their wretched condition.  Instead we should proclaim Jesus (I know that E, Z, and B didn’t have a full knowledge of Jesus) and allow the Spirit to turn on the floodlights to display the beauty, excellencies, and sufficiency of Jesus to conquer any sin no matter how heinous. 

This I believe is what Dr. Mohler is saying, “In our response to homosexuality we have only called it sin but we have not done as great of a job of pointing to Jesus.”  If that’s not describing you, then, great—thank the Lord that the Spirit has so worked in your heart that you apply the gospel rightly. 

But I believe Dr. Mohler is correct.  For far too long we have ministered to those guilty of practicing homosexuality and those with same sex attraction in an overly simplistic way that looks more like Job’s friends than it looks like Jesus Himself. 

As Mohler says, “The gospel is what we stand for and the gospel is the only remedy for sin.”  May we be gospel people and not Job’s friends.

Tomorrows LGBT Petition and Hopeful Strategy

Tomorrow there will be a “coalition of local and national LGBT activists will hand-deliver a petition to leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention at their annual meeting calling on the SBC to apologize for the harm its teachings have caused the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Prior to delivering the petition, an historic 'Teach-In' will take place outside of the SBC's convention.”

You can read about it here. 

I believe that the SBC will probably respond by holding its stance on homosexual behavior as being sinful.  That stance is one that I agree with.  However, I hope that we (SBC believers) do more than simply state that homosexuality is wrong.

I have a picture in my mind of what I would love to see happen.  On one side of the street various LGBT protesters are condemning the Southern Baptist Convention for its harmful, hateful, and bigoted stance against homosexuality.  On the other side of the street are gospel-drenched Jesus-followers with equally large billboards; but rather than saying things like “God made Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve” these billboards are invitations to lunch. 

Not invitations to go debate homosexuality over a burger and fries, but a legitimately sincere invitation to just have lunch together.  We do not have to budge on our position that homosexual behavior is harmful, destructive, and ultimately idolatrous and God-belittling.  But we do come to realize that the Law is powerless to convert and it is powerless to sanctify. 

Let the LGBT community continue to call our theology wrong and harmful.  Let them continue to say that we, “promote religion-based bigotry and start recognizing the enormous pain and suffering caused by its mistreatment of LGBT people, particularly vulnerable youth”.  But may they do it trampling over us with out-stretched arms. 

"If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our dead bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms wrapped about their knees, imploring them to stay. If Hell must be filled, let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go unwarned and unprayed for."

Thoughts?

Review of Washed and Waiting by Wesley Hill

Homosexuality is a hot-button issue within the church.  The issue is not one that is between the church and the world; as in the church says its wrong the world says its evil.  There are many that seemingly love Jesus that make arguments that homosexuality is an okay option for a believing Christian.  And there are certainly those that take the position that homosexuality is wrong and they do so in anger and pride. 

For those like me, that feel the biblical position on homosexuality is that it is sinful, one thing that is often lost in the middle of discussing homosexuality and battling legislation is that real people are fighting real sin.  If we truly believe that homosexuality is sinful then we have to truly believe that the only remedy is the gospel (not legislation or simply saying STOP IT!). 

Summary

Wesley Hill writes Washed and Waiting from the perspective of someone in the middle of the struggle.  He believes that homosexuality is sinful but yet he still struggles with homosexual desires.  As it says on the front cover, “he advocates neither unqualified ‘healing’ for those who struggle nor accommodation to temptation, but rather faithfulness in the midst of brokenness.” 

From the midst of this brokenness Wesley hopes to equip struggling Christians on the frontline of three main battles.  The first is to fully understand the gospel’s call on his life and how this confronts his homosexual desire and empower him to obey Christ in the midst of it.  The second battle is loneliness.  And the last battle is to battle the shame and guilt that accompanies this brokenness. 

The books three chapters are centered around these three battles.  Interspersed between these are mini-biographies of those that have fought the fight (homosexuality), two of whom have and finished the race.  These people are  Henri Nouwen, Gerard Manley Hopkins, and Wesley himself.  (Honestly, I’m not sure that Nouwen and Hopkins add much to the discussion; but they certainly are not bad chapters).

This book is not meant to be a defense of Hill’s position.  It is simply as Hill described meant to help people in their struggle.  He wants to help people who struggle with same-sex desire to cling to Jesus in the midst of this brokenness. 

Interaction

So, how in the world do I interact with this book?  Honestly the book rebuked me, encouraged me, and rocked me to the core.  So I’m struggling with how to faithfully interact with this book.

First, I will say that unless you read this book knowing that Wesley’s struggle is YOUR struggle you will not get it.  This book isn’t fundamentally about homosexuality.  It’s really a book about how a sinner can simultaneously be a saint.  It’s a book about clinging to the faithfulness of Jesus in the midst of our own unfaithfulness, idolatry, and brokenness.  It is about being afflicted with the gospel.

Secondly, the most unique thing about this book is Hill’s pleading with the church to help in healing this brokenness.  This is refreshing.  Often the relationship between church and homosexuality is either “accept me without change” or “change before we accept you”.  Hill writes above the fray on this.  To him the church is the answer to loneliness that comes from his struggle. 

Hill’s statement here is worth chewing on:

“…the New Testament views the church—rather than marriage—as the primary place where human love is best expressed and experienced” (111)

I love how throughout this book he places our struggle with sin in the larger story that is lived out in the context of the church.  Beautiful. 

Thirdly, Hill’s view of sanctification is positive and refreshing.  He rightly understands that struggling against sin is not a mark of unfaithfulness but faithfulness.  His view is perhaps best summed up in this paragraph:

The Bible calls the Christian struggle against sin faith (Hebrews 12:3-4; 10:37-39).  It calls the Christian fight against impure cravings holiness (Romans 6:12-13, 22).  So I am trying to appropriate these biblical descriptions for myself.  I am learning to look at my daily wrestling with disordered desires and call it trust.  I am learning to look at my battle to keep from giving in to my temptations and call it sanctification.  I am learning to see that my flawed, imperfect, yet never-giving up faithfulness is precisely the spiritual fruit that God will praise me for on the last day, to the ultimate honor of Jesus Christ.

I need that perspective.  And that is really the final thing for me to interact with.  I am not certain how this book would help one struggling with same-sex attraction, because I don’t.  But I do struggle with sin that is just as offensive to God.  And I minister to people that struggle with a multitude of sins.  I minister to people that have same-sex attraction.  So how does this book help me minister?  In one regard it really doesn’t have a ton of unique things to say about ministering to people with same-sex attraction.  You have to read between the lines to pick that up.  But at the end of the day you come to learn that what a homosexual person (or a believer struggling with homosexual desire) needs is the same thing you need; namely, Jesus Christ and every implication of His glorious gospel. 

One final thing that is worthy of mention**.  Many have been upset that Hill uses the term gay Christian or homosexual Christian.  I understand their concern.  In fact I probably would encourage him not to use it.  But this book is so much more than a linguistics exercise.  If you are worried about his views of justification, sanctification, and identity in Christ then make certain those concerns are coming from the book itself and not Hill’s use of this term.  He defends his use of the term—and even though I don’t find it wise, he does.

At the end of the day this is not a book about what do you label someone that has faith in Jesus, has homosexual desire, and lives celibate in response.  This book is about the simple truth that there exists people that have faith in Jesus, sin that isn’t compatible, and a fight for holiness in response. 

I am recommending this book for a number of people.  Those that have these struggles.  Pastors.  Parents with homosexual children.  And honestly anyone that wants to see an example and learn from someone that is clinging to Jesus in the midst of brokenness.  It’s only 160 pages and it is a very engaging read. 

You can buy it from Amazon for only 10.14

Just Stop IT!

There are actually some times when this may be good counseling.  Of course it would need to be firmly supported by a decent season of gospel teaching.  So that the encouragement to STOP IT! is something that stems from the gospel.  In other words Jesus redeemed you from sin now stop living in it! 

But there are also other times when this is horrible counseling.  And it has left a good number of people hurt in its wake.  I think especially of two hot button issues within the church today; homosexuality and depression.  Consider depression.  How do you tell someone whose mind is broken to “STOP IT”?  In order to have the power to STOP IT I need my brain to function normally.  That takes time and a ton of gospel work.  The same thing goes with homosexual desires.  (Consider Wesley Hill’s book as a resource for this). 

Lord, give me the grace to trust in the power of the gospel.  Without Your grace my sense of urgency (helping people, helping myself) will quickly turn into impatience.  Help me to see that often gospel work takes time to root out idols and replace them with Christ.  Forgive me for times when I have counseled people to STOP IT when all they really needed was a partner.  Forgive me also for times when I’ve been cowardly and refused to believe in the power of the gospel.  Forgive me for times when I should have said STOP IT, but instead I cowered.  Thank you that people’s health and the furtherance of your kingdom does not depend on me “getting it” and ministering perfectly.  Thanks for your grace.

The Affliction of the Gospel

Wesley Hill is a celibate gay Christian.  And his new book, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality, is absolutely breaking me.  Take this quote as an example:

..Far from being a tolerant grandfather rocking in his chair somewhere far away in the sky, God most often seems dangerous, demanding, and ruthless as he makes clear that he is taking our homoerotic feelings and actions with the utmost seriousness…We experience him both as an unwanted presence reminding us that our thoughts, emotions, and choices have lasting consequences, as well as radiant light transforming us gradually, painfully, into the creatures he wants us to be.

British theologian John Webster speaks of “the church facing the resistance of the gospel,” meaning that if the gospel brings comfort, it also necessarily brings affliction.  The gospel resists the fallen inclinations of Christian believers.  When we engage with God in Christ and take seriously the commands for purity that flow from the gospel, we always find our sinful dreams and desires challenged and confronted.  When we homosexual Christians bring our sexuality before God, we begin or continue a long, costly process of having it transformed.  From God’s perspective, our homoerotic inclinations are like “the craving for salt of a person who is dying of thirst” (to borrow Fredric Buechner’s phrase).  Yet when God begins to try to change the craving and give us the living water that will ultimately quench our thirst, we scream in pain, protesting that we were made for salt.  The change hurts.

Be sure you read what Wesley says here a couple of times.  Chew on it.  It’s wonderful.  But it’s also painful. 

My struggle is not the same as Wesley’s.  In fact my struggle is not as intense either.  And that is to my shame. Because his struggle is homoerotic desire and THAT is an abomination, Wesley has to battle.  But my struggle is different.  My struggle is with respectable stuff. So I don’t have to struggle with the same vigor as Wesley. I can fit in with my sin. 

But even though you may be fooled into thinking I have it all together, God is not.  And just as God is intensely afflicting Wesley with holiness—he is relentlessly, doggedly, pursuing me by afflicting my respectable sins with just as much fervor. 

I am thankful that God isn’t that tolerant grandfather.  I’m thankful that he loves me enough to afflict me with a painful gospel that rips my respectable life to shreds.  I am also thankful that he gives me water when I’m screaming for salt. 

You need to read Wesley’s book…Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality

Turning Controversy into Church Ministry Review

“While some churches debate the issue of homosexuality and others completely avoid it, struggling people fall through the cracks”.  So writes, W.P. Campbell in his new book only 12.91 .  I received this book free from Zondervan to review. 

Campell’s hope is that this book will serve to help people stop debating and start ministering with compassion but without compromise.  My guess is that this book will gain many supporters but also many detractors.  Campbell is not afraid to disagree with those that have “Grace with Compromised Truth” nor those that have Truth with Compromised Grace”.  That typically doesn’t win friends. 

This book has a TON to commend it.  I love that Campbell is bold enough to be biblical and not politically correct.  He truly believes that the way to love homosexuals is through the truth of the gospel.  I also love that Campbell is not afraid to take on those that refuse to have compassion on the homosexual community.  I think both groups, and all those in between, have quite a bit they can learn from this book. 

There is a call in this book that we Southern Baptists (all Christians really) need to heed.  As we are looking at how to be a Great Commission people and reach the unreached peoples of the world, Campbell pointedly asks, “what about the unreached gay culture”?

This book is also divided in a very helpful way.  The first three chapters are an analysis of the current situation (I imagine this will have to be updated in future editions).  The second part is dedicated to dealing with the controversy around homosexual ministry.  The third part is dedicated to specific application.  Sometimes, I question the headings (i.e. The Wisdom, Insights from Psychology), but nonetheless it is a helpful outline. 

I also love the stories from real people that are engaged in real battle at the end of each chapter.  This book from beginning to end is practical and truly accomplishes what it intends—to provide a blueprint for real-life ministry to homosexuals. 

I am not sure that I agree with everything that is suggested, but it made me think about a ton of things.  One particular area that I felt was somewhat neglected is the area of church discipline.  How would a church that practices healthy church discipline interact with homosexuality.  It would be an interesting chapter to add. 

This book warmed my heart in areas and convicted me in others.  It is well written, easy to read, and full of information and practical tips.  I heartily recommend it to anyone that is struggling through this issue, or wants to know how to effectively minister to the homosexual community.  Buy it for only 12.91, or get it on Kindle for under 10 bucks . 

Rating 4.5 out of 5 stars

There is also a blog tour that you may find interesting, here. 

P.S. I think this book would be well served to have a different cover. 

Jerry’s Moment

One of the greatest joys in my life is witnessing “that moment”.  That moment when everything changes in a persons mind—that moment when the gospel finally clicks.  I can remember a handful of times that God has given me the opportunity to witness “that moment” in someone’s life. 

One such person was a man named Jerry.  One night my friend—a former student of mine—was sharing the gospel with him.  A few issues came up and my buddy was not quite sure how to answer him; he called me hoping I could assist.  So, the next afternoon my friend and I went to Jerry’s apartment. 

One of the issues was that Jerry was a practicing homosexual.  He was deeply involved in the lifestyle.  I have to confess I had no idea what I was doing.  It also felt a little strange being alone in an apartment with a burly gay man and his 3 cats.  Not knowing what to do I simply asked a few questions to hear Jerry’s story. 

For about thirty minutes he told us everything.  He told us about his experience fighting homosexuality so as not to disappoint his mother.  He told us about currently being in trouble with the law for something he did not do.  Jerry wanted to be loved.  Jerry wanted to be loved by God.  But telling his story was his way of rehearsing the list of reasons why he was unacceptable to God.  At the end of his story he said that he was convinced that he had committed the unforgivable sin—homosexuality. 

What I said next shocked even me.  I agreed with him that homosexuality was an abomination.  (Not sure that I would used that particular word again).  I could see the pain and yet agreement in his eyes.  I continued.  This time, however, I added myself to a whole list of things that are offensive to a holy God.  I told Jerry about my pride, about my past failures, and a whole host of other things.  For what may have been the first time in his life Jerry did not feel alone in his brokenness. 

Then he had “the moment”.  I shared with him what Christ did on our behalf.  I explained that Christ died to conquer my pride and my brokenness.  I assured Jerry that there was no sin—not even homosexuality—that Christ could not forgive and conquer.  Through tear-soaked eyes Jerry cried out to God for grace and healing. 

A few days later Jerry was booted out of his apartment and had to move about 50 miles away.  But he left as a changed man.  The last I heard he was connected to a gospel-believing church and still clinging to hope in Jesus.  I’m happy that I got to see “the moment” when grace connected.

Today in Blogworld 12/17

The first article I read this morning is probably the most sad. Dr. Mohler addresses a new agenda-filled T-shirt worn by toddlers. The T-shirt reads "My Daddy's name is Donor". No, that's not Donner, one of the 8 reindeer; it is a reference to a sperm donor. What is communicated to this little guy is that his daddy does not matter. Mohler sites Catherine Bruton of The Times in London who says: The T-shirt is offered by a company called Family Evolutions, founded by a lesbian couple whose son modelled the shirt. The co-founder, Stacey Harris, says that the T-shirt is empowering. "We want to lift the taboo surrounding donor conception so that kids don't feel that their coming into the world is a shameful secret," she says. "Kids who are empowered will grow up well-adjusted." Despite my concern over the political agenda behind this, I am most pained for this little child and the host of other little boys. What does it communicate to a male child when he is told that daddy doesn't matter? It means men do not matter. It means your masculinity does not matter. Truly sad.

John Piper reminds us that we need to feel homesick: "The likelihood of dying because you are a Christian is closer than it used to be for Americans. The freedom from such threats has generally existed in this country for a tiny portion of history (about 400 years). We have gotten used to it. It seems like the way things must be. So our first reaction to the threat that things might be otherwise is often anger. But that anger may be a sign that we have lost our sense of being aliens and exiles (“Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles . . .” 1 Peter 2:11). Perhaps we have settled in too much to this world and this country in particular. We don't feel as homesick for Christ as Paul did..." Continue reading

In Acts29/MBC news, Founders has posted an interview with Kevin Larson. Larson is one of the 3 churches that will be deeply affected by this decision. The St. Louis Post has ran an article as well. My friend Sam of Believers Church, also deeply impacted by this decision, was interview for this article. My only regret is that in the Post article the author refers to these churches as "Emerging". That is not helpful to the discussion.

Josh Harris has parts two and three now posted on his affluenza series.

Pulpit Magazine attempts to answer a very good question about being unequally yoked: Question: Some people have told me that being unequally yoked is talking exclusively about marriage. Others have said that it applies also to business partnerships and other situations. Could you please expand on this? What does it mean to be unequally yoked and what type of a guideline should I have if it is okay for me to have a business partnership with a non-believer? Read the answer here.

And finally Thabiti Anyabwile, from Pure Church, tackles the Satan (I mean Santa) Claus debate. I am hoping that my friend Will accepts my invite to begin writing on this blog. If he does I would love to see him address this issue--I appreciate his stance on Christmas. As for Thabiti he says Down with Santa Claus. Here is his conclusion: "I'm not arguing a dogmatic causality here. I'm simply asking the question, "Why include Santa Claus at all?" Is the imagined upside of following the culture here worth what we think it's worth? And are our justifications helping us to point our children to Christ or masking the reality that we may be pointing our children away from Him? Personally, I doubt Santa Claus is worth it, and pointing our kids away from Jesus at Christmas may be the worst form of child neglect I can imagine."

Today in Blogworld 12/11

Dr. Mohler has written about the mainline Protestant concern with homosexual pastors. "Yes, They Said It" gives two exhibits (quotes) that point to the reason we are concerned. One of the men that he quoted is a Lutheran. When we compare that pastors comment to a quote by Martin Luther we see just how far some churches have strayed from their origin. Brian Schmeling said this: "People aren't coming to church to hear that their sins are forgiven; they are coming to experience connection to God, to the people sitting with them in the sanctuary and to people around the world. My theology has thus become more incarnational and relational." In other words, he no longer preaches the Cross. Contrast this with what Martin Luther said about preaching the gospel, "The gospel cannot be preached and heard enough, for it cannot be grasped well enough...Moreover, our greatest task is to keep you faithful to this article and to bequeath this treasure to you when we die". Schmeling and folks like him have exchanged that treasure for a false gospel.

Michael Spencer, the Internetmonk, has made a very thoughtful post about Name Tags. In effective irony he points out the hypocrisy of many who call the Emerging Church (Conversation, Emergent, whatever they are called) vague. His point is that we [insert your affiliations here] are just as guilty as the emergent of being slippery and unidentifiable. His solution serves as a fitting rebuke...we should just wear name tags that spells out who we follow. "Maybe we could just try using the names of favorite teachers, like “Keller types” or “Macarthur types.” What do you think? “I am of Paul.” “I am of Apollos.” It would make everything much simpler."

I will take his rebuke and grow from it--I know I do sometimes follow "Piper", "Sproul", "Edwards", "Spurgeon", etc. And defining my theology by a name tag is wrong, I confess. But I do have to disagree with Spencer on one point at least. What many decry Emergent for is not that they are slippery in defining their names or giving a definition to their theology. Granted, it is frustrating not knowing what to call them (it makes writing more difficult). Slippery name tags is not the problem. Slippery theology is what the problem is. When their leaders refuse to make a stance on homosexuality (something the Bible is clear about) and clothe their border-line (sometimes outright) heretical views with deliberately confusing arguments then they become slippery, and that is what people have a problem with. Nonetheless, the rebuke still stands.

New Attitude points us to a C.J. Mahaney article on "Cravings and Conflict". Every time I read or hear something by Mahaney my level of respect for him grows. After reading this article I wanted to comment on it but found myself only able to say, "Wow". I highly recommend you read this article--you will be blessed. In it Mahaney reminds us that we will face conflict, the question is are we ready for it? This article will certainly help us.