Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?

changeinbeliefAl Mohler sees the writing on the wall. A “new Moral McCarthyism” will soon be asking each Christian this question: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” Based on our answer, they stand ready to denounce us as backward, hateful bigots.

Mohler’s comments come in the wake of President Obama announcing that Pastor Louie Giglio would pray the invocation at his upcoming inauguration. A quick about face happened when a liberal watchdog group uncovered the fact that Giglio once preached an “anti-gay” message. It turns out that Giglio’s message was standard, orthodox Christian teaching on homosexuality, and hardly anti-gay as such things go. The Christian message has always been that all sinners need salvation, and to be a man or a woman, is to be a sinner. Sin comes in a variety of flavors, and homosexuality is just one of many. Sure some Christians have been more hateful and more vocal about that sin than others, but faithful Christian pastors, have always been careful to condemn the sin, and remind everyone that we are all equally guilty of offending a holy God.

Russell Moore commented on the outcry that the NY Times and others helped to circulate, as follows:

After a couple of days of firestorm from the Left, Giglio announced this morning that he would withdraw.

Here’s why this matters. The statement Giglio made that was so controversial is essentially a near-direct quotation from the Christian Scriptures. Unrepentant homosexuals, Giglio said (as with unrepentant sinners of all kinds) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That’s 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Giglio said, “it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change.” The Bible says God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), the same gospel, Giglio says, “that I say to you and that you would say to me.”

The Christian faith in every expression has held for 2000 years that sexual immorality is sinful. This same Christian faith has maintained, again in every branch, that sexual expression outside of conjugal marriage is sin. And the Christian faith has maintained universally that all persons are sinners and that no sinner can enter the kingdom without repentance. This is hardly new.

The “shock” with which this so-called “anti-gay” stance is articulated by the Left is akin to the Pork Producers Association denouncing a Muslim Imam’s invitation because he is “anti-agriculture” due to Koranic dietary restrictions.

In fact, by the standards of this controversy, no Muslim imam or Orthodox Jewish rabbi alive can pray at a presidential inauguration.

Ed Stetzer wonders how America will respond to this latest example of the shunning of religious people from the townsquare:

This can be an important moment as America, the media, and President Obama’s administration to consider a simple question. Are people of faith no longer welcome as they continue to hold the beliefs they have held since their foundation? Must they jettison their sacred texts and adopt new views to be accepted as part of society? If they do not, will they be marginalized and demonized even as they serve the poor, care for the orphan, or speak against injustice?

Moore doesn’t wonder but declares, “When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church.”

Moore goes on, and I encourage you to read his entire piece on this subject. But I think you get the picture. To even hint that you ever have believed or held that homosexuality is anything but commendable, upright behavior, is to break today’s moral code. If there is no forthright and frank repentance or clarification, then you are out of the “in club.” You are outside the bounds and not fit to speak in the public square. No, not even to merely pray at a public event.

Mohler’s piece explains this point further, and he also demonstrates that Giglio’s withdrawal was more of a dis-invitation than cordial back-out. Giglio was not so much saving face as standing by his principles, and ensuring that this furor dies down so as not to encourage a misunderstanding of the gospel. Maybe Giglio should have made a bigger to-do about his harsh treatment by the McCarthyites. Maybe he should have been firmer. There could be merit to these reflections, but we are not Giglio and don’t need to go there.

Instead, I think we should ponder why this takes us by surprise. Some aren’t surprised, but most are. We have been lulled to sleep by the compatibility of Protestant Christianity with America’s self-help capitalist gospel. We have been sold a bill of goods by well-intentioned practitioners of the American Christian cult. The cult that equates freedom and democracy, lady liberty and all she stands for, with the cross of Christ and the Bible’s gospel. No, the America which once taxed Baptists for not participating with the official state church in Massachusetts and elsewhere, the public which reveled in the printed tabloid’s lurid details of the public sex-lives of Alexander Hamilton and other leaders, and the humanistic upper class which once embraced Charles Finney and Billy Sunday’s religious appeal to reform the brutish man’s spirit by taking away his brandy — that is much like the America we find today who so readily condemns anyone who doesn’t embrace moral relativism and the libertarian virtue of the time.

Christianity in America today is far less persecuted and far more lightly treated than it has been in most other times and places around the world. We have enjoyed an exceptional period of freedom and ostensible public respect. But such a time is soon to end. Now fewer Americans believe homosexuality is a sin, than those who don’t. And this drastic change in the public’s perception has come about in just a few short years. Meanwhile, the church has hemmed and hawed and often evolved in its views along with the culture and our current president. But as Mohler reminds us, the time for thin-skins and hesitation is past. We risk having no gospel at all, if we do not address homosexuality as sin.

So even as the faithful determine to not give in to culture’s demands on this front, we should be mindful, as Joe Carter reminds us, that Jesus has promised us that the world will hate us. We shouldn’t be surprised. And in light of such a knee-jerk tendency to be alarmed over any expression against homosexuality, we Christians should be especially careful in how we phrase our answer to their incessant question. We will too readily be misunderstood. Christians need to stand against homosexuality, but not as a goal in itself. We need to stand for morality, but not bereft of the grace and mercy which make Christianity unique. We must be resolute but not compassionless.

Christians everywhere, in pulpit or pew, in the office cubicle or the backyard party, need to be ready for “the question.” We can’t be afraid to “come out of the closet” with our views on this vitally important matter. Being ready means being informed, and we should be well read on the condition of homosexuality, and armed with careful and Christian reflection as to its cure. We need most of all to know the gospel and how it speaks to people everywhere, straight and gay. And we need to be broken and humble rather than cocky, defensive or stand-offish. We need to be the very heart and mind of Jesus when it comes to answering this question. We need to speak His words, in His manner and with His winsomeness. May our careful speech woo the lost to Christ. And may the darker these days get help us to draw closer to the light of truth and be ever more effective as an outpost in this sin-darkened world (Phil. 2:15-16).

Book Briefs: “Inside the Reformation” compiled by Mark Sengele

Having just concluded a ten week adult SS series on the Reformation, I was excited to get my hands on a new book that introduces children to the world of the Reformation. Inside the Reformation, compiled by Mark Sengele, is a beautifully produced, coffee-table quality book for kids. The pictures and illustrations are top-notch and will captivate young readers.

The book covers such topics as the Holy Roman Empire, world exploration, music, food and medicine in the middle ages, travel, art, architecture and more. Martin Luther is the focus of this work produced by Concordia Publishing House. Some space is devoted to Luther’s wife and other reformers such as Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli. Important Reformation events such as Luther’s 95 Theses and the Diet of Worms, as well as significant documents, like the Augsburg Confession and the Book of Concord are also surveyed.

The book is a montage of assorted pictures and information, and no attempt is made to tell the full story of the Reformation, directly. Even so, the collection of engaging images and intriguing facts will spur readers to research further and inquire into the history of the Reformation for themselves. The detail and intricacy of some of the concepts covered in this book make it more suited for children in middle school and above.

This book would make a great resource for the child studying Reformation-era history. It would also serve as a useful addition to a homeschool curriculum covering Church history. I was quite impressed with the quality of the book and am very thankful that such high-quality resources are being made available for our children.

Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Christianbook.com, Amazon or direct from Concordia Publishing House.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Concordia Publishing House. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

A Survey of the Reformation, pts. 7 – 10: The Five Points of Calvinism, Answering Objections & Why the Reformation Matters

This Fall, I’ve been teaching a 10 part Adult Sunday School series called “A Survey of the Reformation: Its History and Doctrine.” We finally have the audio up for the final four lessons in this series. I finish out the Five Points of Calvinism over the course of these lessons, and in the final session I make room for answering objections and wrap up the series looking at why all this matters.

The lesson plan for the entire series (which has changed some) is below, and you can download the audio or view the slides from the lessons as they are completed.

    HISTORY

  1. Introduction & An Overview of Church History – Download the Audio, View the Slides.
  2. Forerunners of the Reformation – Download the Audio, View the Slides.
  3. The Protestant Reformation – Audio not available, View the Slides.
  4. Puritanism & The Legacy of the Reformers – Download the Audio, View the Slides.
  5. DOCTRINE

  6. Reformation Doctrine: The Big Picture – Download the Audio, View the Slides
  7. Total Depravity & Irresistable Grace – Download the Audio, View the Slides
  8. Total Depravity & Irresistable Grace (cont.) – Download the Audio, View the Slides
  9. Particular Redemption and Unconditional Election – Download the Audio, View the Slides
  10. Unconditional Election (cont.) & Perseverance of the Saints – Download the Audio, View the Slides
  11. Perseverance of the Saints (cont.), Answering Objections, & Why the Reformation Matters Today – Download the Audio, View the Slides

I used a variety of resources for this series, but the four I recommend to my SS class are listed here below:

Jonathan Edwards on the Problem of Evil

With the recent tragedy at Newtown Connecticut, the problem of evil is on everyone’s mind. How could such an evil act be perpetrated? How could God allow such evil? Would a loving God really allow the deaths of 20 innocent children?

Tragedies like this, and the questions it raises, lead meany people to blame God. Others point to this problem as evidence that a true God does not exist. Or they reshape their thoughts about God. He is nice and helpful and all, but limited. Like an old grandfather, he is saddened by our losses and didn’t want this to happen. He was just unable to prevent it – or worse, he didn’t see it coming.

In contrast to such man-centered thoughts, the Scripture’s teaching on evil and suffering is that God permits it, and works behind it, to accomplish His purposes. For those who love God and believe in Him (the elect), God works everything together for their good (Rom. 8:28). And ultimately, God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11). God “does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?'” (Dan. 4:35). He “has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble” (Prov. 16:4). And Amos 3:6 declares soberingly, “Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?”

If God is truly sovereign, then, why did He choose to allow such sin and suffering in this world? Theologians refer to this as “the problem of evil.” Why does evil exist, in such poignant and powerful measure as displayed so chillingly just this last week? This question is not merely for theists. What explanation can atheists give to this puzzling question? They would have to explain how evil, as a category, can exist without a holy God. If there is no God, than who’s to say what evil is?

Ultimately, Jonathan Edwards has perhaps the clearest answer that I have found. I delve into his thought a bit in this article, but here I want to share a quote I recently included in my SS class this past Sunday. May it help clarify your thinking on this point, and see how truly great and glorious God really is.

God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness… would not shine forth as the [other parts of divine glory] do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all… There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. No matter how much happiness he might bestow, his goodness would not be nearly as highly prized and admired…. and the sense of his goodness heightened. So evil is necessary if the glory of God is to be perfectly and completely displayed

[quoted in Chosen for Life by Sam Storms (Crossway, 2007), pg. 186-187]

As a follow up to this thought, here are some earlier articles of mine along these same lines.

What Makes a Church a Cult?

I was reading through a detailed article in Chicago Magazine (starts on pt. 78) on Jack Schaap’s fall and the history and legacy of First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN (HT: Sharper Iron Filings; more on Schaap here), and I came across an excellent description of what makes a church a cult. I added the numbers to the quote below to list out the four marks of a cult that were mentioned.

What makes a church a cult? I asked Rick Ross, whose nonprofit institute maintains an online archive of data on cults and controversial movements. (He says he is not familiar with the details of First Baptist.) Ross points to a landmark 1981 Harvard study on cult formation, which suggests that all cults, destructive or not, share three elements: [1] an absolute authoritarian leader who defines the group; [2] a “thought program” that includes “control of the environment, control of information, and people subordinating themselves and their feelings to the demands of the leader”; and [3] a lack of accountability for the head of the group. Another common characteristic of cults, Ross says, is that [4] they use shame and some sort of exploitation–financial, spiritual, or sexual–to exercise control. Members of a Bible-based group for example are made to believe that “it’s a sin of pride for you to think for yourself,” he says. “It’s your ego or a demon or Satan’s influence that causes you to doubt the edicts of the leadership.” [bold emphasis added]

Most people I know who have come out of a strict fundamentalist background refere to their former church as cultic. The points above seem to validate this concern. The group I was connected with would qualify as cultic according to this definition.

I shared this quote at Sharper Iron, where they are discussing this article as a whole. I wanted to share it here too, for my audience. What do you think? Are we off base to point to a fundamentalist church and say it is cultic?