Category: Issues

various issues within fundamentalism specifically or evangelicalism as a whole

More Resources on Thinking Through the Homosexuality Issue

~ Bob Hayton

In my last post, I shared some of John Piper’s thoughts about homosexual marriage. He clearly does not endorse it, but he doesn’t want to officially hop on a political bandwagon promoting one particular legislative approach to dealing with this in our culture and society at large. The job of churches and pastors is to preach the Word and inform the laypeople with the effect that they apply biblical principles to their political and social activities in a way that honors God and upholds the mission of the church.

Here are some additional resources for dealing with homosexuality, which is an increasing problem for American evangelical Christians, churches and pastors.

First, I encourage you to read this moving testimony about a converted homosexual who served God in spite of his struggles and his AIDS. Next, I’d really encourage you to read my review of Wesley Hill’s book Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality. It will open your eyes to the struggles some Christians face regarding homosexuality and give you perspective in looking at others who have identified themselves as homosexual.

Another resource is The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality edited by Joe Dallas and Nancy Heche. You can read my review of that book, here.

I leave you with this video clip of Al Mohler discussing this issue with Mark Dever at this year’s Together 4 the Gospel conference.

John Piper’s Thoughts on Gay Marriage and Pastoral Ministry

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Recently, John Piper preached the following sermon: Let Marriage Be Held in Honor” — Thinking Biblically About So-Called Same-Sex Marriage. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune picked up on his sermon and claimed he was “opting out” of the marriage fight, referring to the proposed marriage amendment to the MN state constitution that is on the ballot this Fall (which defines marriage as between one man and one woman). Piper clarified his remarks, explaining he wasn’t opting out but rather helping his congregation think through the matter biblically. Still the fact remains that Piper has held back from overtly supporting the amendment, preferring not to politicize the church or give explicit weight to one legislative approach to dealing with homosexuality.

Here are some excerpts from that sermon which provide possible reasons for his coming up short of a full endorsement of the marriage amendment.

How should Christian citizens decide which of their views they should seek to put into law? Which moral convictions should Christians seek to pass as legal requirements? Christians believe it is immoral to covet and to steal. But we seek to pass laws against stealing, not against coveting. One of the principles at work here seems to be: the line connecting coveting with damage to the public good is not clear enough. No doubt there is such a connection. God can see it and the public good would, we believe, be greatly enhanced if covetousness were overcome. But finite humans can’t see it clearly enough to regulate coveting with laws and penalties. This is why we have to leave hundreds of immoral acts for Jesus to sort out when he comes.

Laws exist to preserve and enhance the public good. Which means that all laws are based on some conception of what is good for us. Which means that all legislation and all voting is a moral activity. It is based on choices about what is good for the public. And those choices are always informed by a world view. And in that worldview — whether conscious or not — there are views of ultimate reality that determine what a person thinks the public good is.

Which means that all legislation is the legislation of morality. Someone’s view of what is good — what is moral — wins the minds of the majority and carries the day. The question is: Which actions hurt the common good or enhance the common good so much that the one should be prohibited by law and the other should be required by law?

…

8. Don’t press the organization of the church or her pastors into political activism. Pray that the church and her ministers would feed the flock of God with the word of God centered on the gospel of Christ crucified and risen. Expect from your shepherds not that they would rally you behind political candidates or legislative initiatives, but they would point you over and over again to God and to his word, and to the cross.

Please try to understand this: When I warn against the politicizing of the church, I do so not to diminish her power but to increase it. The impact of the church for the glory of Christ and the good of the world does not increase when she shifts her priorities from the worship of God and the winning of souls and the nurturing of faith and raising up of new generations of disciples.

If the whole counsel of God is preached with power week in and week out, Christians who are citizens of heaven and citizens of this democratic order will be energized as they ought to speak and act for the common good.

[quoted from the online transcript of Piper’s sermon dated June 16/17, 2012]

The Desiring God blog later posted a fuller transcript of Piper’s words surrounding point 8 from his sermon. Piper also went on to give a series of brief blog posts addressing the topic of homosexuality which I found very helpful. I provide links to these articles below.

I appreciate Piper’s resolve to not allow the church to become too politicized. We need to stand for God’s truth, but in matters of social policy and interacting with the fallen world in which we live, there are valid points to be made for competing visions of legislative strategy. I support marriage as being defined as between one man and one woman. But I also recognize the political reality of the fallen world we live in. There are legal and economic benefits of marriage that could be bestowed on civil unions, and if they want to call that “marriage”, why should I be surprised? Will legislating a definition of marriage fix the problem of the heart? Will it not only add fuel to the fire when it comes to the continuing the fight for “true equality” from our homosexual neighbors? Will it really solve anything?

An IFB Pastor’s Ugly, UnChristian Comments on Homosexuality

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Pastor Charles Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, NC caused a national uproar over his recent comments on homosexuality. I get the feeling that this news story is only going to get bigger.

Here’s a summary of his comments in a sermon on May 13, where he is reacting to President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage:

I figured a way out, a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers but I couldn’t get it pass the Congress – build a great big large fence, 50 or a hundred mile long. Put all the lesbians in there, fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals. And have that fence electrified so they can’t get out.

And you know what? In a few years they will die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce. If a man ever has a young’un, praise God he will be the first.

–see the youtube video clip included in this article

The pastor is not backing down, and the next Sunday apparently, his congregation was in full attendance with 100 visitors and supporters from the surrounding area. Oh, and there was the massive protest outside from gay rights groups and sympathizers as well.

In fact, one of the church members has gone on record saying that gays are worthy of death.

Let me be clear, this disgusts me. These comments are ugly, uncaring and downright unChristian. And these comments don’t help anyone. They infuriate the homosexuals (understandably), and they give credence to the idea that the Church hates homosexuals, period. Where is the grace? And how are homosexuals to be wooed to Christ with such a hate-filled message.

Someone has also unearthed a 1978 message with Worley declaring that forty years ago, gays would be hanging from a white oak tree. Underlying the words that Worley uses, seems to be a belittling of gays and homosexuals and a feeling that he is better than they are. And one could even read hate into all this – and homosexuals will justifiably see it that way.

Most conservative Christians like me, decry these statements and distance ourselves from them. But some of the recent discussions at SharperIron here and here, sadly show that many basically support this pastor’s message.

There are numerous articles available online discussing Pastor Worley’s anti-gay message and I won’t provide them all here. I just want to explain why I think he is so wrong.

The Old Testament laws against homosexuality teach us that it is immoral, just as much as the laws against sex outside of marriage do, as well. But the corporal punishment and the death penalty was broadly applied in ancient Israel to a number of crimes including homosexuality. And it is wrong to extrapolate from these old laws that God wants homosexuals to be killed today. In fact in 1 Cor. 6, the Scripture says that some of the Christians in Corinth were formerly homosexulas and that they had been washed, cleansed and sanctified – and certainly weren’t worthy of death.

Jesus Christ and his death on the cross took the full punishment of all the coporal punishment-worthy crimes in the Old Testament law. And Jesus’ message of hope and forgiveness through the Gospel is given to all who believe. The Church is spread through persuasion and love, not coercion and the sword.

We should love and welcome homosexuals as fallen sinners (like us all). Their struggles with sin are real and difficult, not to be easily dismissed out of hand. But they must forsake their sin and come to the foot of the cross for forgiveness and healing – just like all of us need to as well.

I encourage you to read my reviews of the following two books for a fuller picture of my take on homosexuality and a Bible-based, sympathetic view that sees the practice as morally wrong, but upholds those who are homosexual as people in God’s image in need of a loving Savior.

The Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism Refutes a King James Onlyist

~ Bob Hayton

I guess this shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. The Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism refutes Thomas Holland, a King James Onlyist. But the fact that a scholarly journal took the time to interact with Holland’s attempts at scholarship is actually quite surprising. But I’m very glad they did.

Jan Krans, lecturer in NT at VU University in Amsterdam, is an expert on Erasmus’ translation work. He has written a book with the intriguing title Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament (Brill, 2006) (the book is available online through archive.org). So Krans knows what he is talking about as he discusses Holland’s claim that Erasmus really didn’t translate the last six verses of Revelation directly from the Latin into Greek.

Here is the abstract of Krans’ article:

With Thomas Holland’s lengthy discussion of a reading in Rev 22:19 as an example, this article shows how Holland’s way of doing New Testament textual criticism falls short on all academic standards. With respect to the main issue, Erasmus’ retranslation of the final verses of Revelation, Holland fails to properly find, address and evaluate both primary and secondary sources.

Krans systematically dismantles Holland’s reasoning and exposes his lack of careful scholarship. For anyone who is familiar with King James Onlyism, this paper will be an insightful read. Those who claim perfection for the Textus Receptus have to grapple with the last six verses of Revelation, and the many errors introduced to the text by Erasmus that have never been corrected.

I share a bit more about this paper over at my team blog, KJVOnlyDebate.com. But you’ll want to read the article for yourself. I’m interested in anyone’s thoughts on this. Please interact in the comments.

Dr. Bruce Ware on Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

I recently came across an interview of Dr. Bruce Ware, one of the professors at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. And 25 minutes of the interview was devoted to his thoughts on Fundamentalism and the differences between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. [HT: Andy Naselli]

I appreciated his explanation of Evangelicalism and generally agree with his characterization of the differing mindsets of the two movements. You’ll find the clip of this portion of the interview below, but there’s a lot more to the interview. I’m interested in your thoughts on this clip. I find myself basically in agreement with most of what Ware says.