Category: The Church

Christ’s church, posts relating to church and church issues

Are We Guilty of Homophobia?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, recently was quoted as saying the following in an interview about homosexuality.

“We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophobia… We’ve used the “˜choice’ language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.”

He was then asked to defend this statement in the recent SBC Annual Convention. The video of the exchange with SBC pastor and blogger, Peter Lumpkins is here.

I happen to agree with Mohler, especially as he clarified his statements. The Associated Baptist Press summarized Mohler’s response to the question by Lumpkins:

Mohler said at the convention “there is no way anyone in fair mindedness can be confused about what I believe about homosexuality,” because he has written more than 200 articles about it, but that “the reality is that we as Christian churches have not done well on this issue.”

“Evangelicals, thankfully, have failed to take the liberal trajectory of lying about homosexuality and its sinfulness,” Mohler said. “We know that the Bible clearly declares — not only in isolated verses but in the totality of its comprehensive presentation — the fact that homosexuality not only is not God’s best for us, as some try to say, but it is sin.”

“But we as evangelicals have a very sad history in dealing with this issue,” he continued. “We have told not the truth, but we have 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.”

“We have said to people that homosexuality is just a choice,” Mohler said. “It’s clear that it’s more than a choice. That doesn’t mean it’s any less sinful, but it does mean it’s not something people can just turn on and turn off. We are not a gospel people unless we understand that only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.”

Mohler said churches have not done their job until “there are those who have been trapped in that sin sitting among us.”

Now the use of “homophobia” is a sticky subject, for sure. But I do agree that Mohler is right. And in this, I echo the sentiments of blogger Elijah Friedeman, and want to quote him at some length (HT: The Aquila Report).

I realize that much of what Mohler said flies in the face of conservative Christianity. No one likes to be called homophobic. And religious people especially don’t like to be called to repentance. But Albert Mohler is absolutely right.

What did Albert Mohler say that was so outrageous? Was it the part about Jesus being the only Savior from sin? Was it the claim that our sinful nature goes beyond a simple choice?Any orthodox Christian should affirm salvation from our sin through Jesus and that we can’t simply decide to turn off our sinful nature.

I know that many conservative Christians want to turn homosexuality into an easy choice. But it doesn’t work like that. Don’t get me wrong. Everyone has a choice about whether or not to engage in sexual acts outside of marriage. But not everyone has a say about whom they’re sexually attracted to.

There are a lot of people in the world with addictive personalities – they’re addicted easily – these people don’t have to give in to their addictive temptations, but they have a problem that can’t be solved with a choice – a problem that only Jesus can fix.

Homosexuality is much the same. Homosexuals have deep-rooted attraction to the same gender that they can’t solve with a choice. Mohler stated that homosexuality, like any other sin, requires a Savior. When did that become a radical sentiment? Last I checked, it’s a biblical concept.

But I have a feeling that most people disagreed with Mohler, because he labeled Southern Baptists as homophobic.

I can’t speak to homophobia in Southern Baptist churches. I’ll have to trust Mohler on that front (apparently he explained exactly how Southern Baptists are homophobic, but I can’t find the transcript). But I know from what I’ve seen, read, and heard, a form of homophobia is very present in many conservative churches.

For some reason there is an irrational fear of and extreme aversion to homosexuals in a lot of churches. We may not come right out and say that we think homosexuals are nasty creatures, but if you read between the lines, it’s pretty easy to pick up on. This is homophobia.

We should not elevate homosexuality above other sins. If we condemn homosexuality as sin, we must also condemn other forms of sexual immorality as sin.

I’ve seen many religious people castigate homosexuals, but turn a blind eye to the other, more pervasive, forms of sins in the church. I’m more concerned about the prevalence of divorce in churches than I am about a few cases of homosexuals trying to silence their critics.

What do you think? Is Mohler totally off base? As for me, I’m standing with him on this one.

For more on this question, see other articles on homosexuality I’ve posted here on my blog. You’ll find reviews of two helpful books I’ve read on this topic.

On Blended Worship: Intentionally Mixing Music Styles to the Glory of God

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

A recent comment concerned music styles and the worship wars. The three way split, envisioned by the commenter included the following.

1) Those want to do nothing but maintain the status quo, whether that is the contemporary style that is now familiar (with no new forms like Christian rap), or a traditional hymn-focused style — this group wasn’t going to budge from their stance.
2) Those who want to move back to the psalmic/hymnic tradition handed down to us from the early church — this group was further described as “Conservative Christianity”.
3) Those who allow for anything within the worship service.

What is missing from this list is “Blended Worship”. Why is it that we have to worry about being “comfortable” in our style? What about loving others and using styles that are accessible to others? Certain styles or songs may move me more than others, but they may hit other people where they are at more readily than they do for me. That has been my view of the issue for the last five years or more, now.

On this front, here are some quotes from documents on worship from my old church, Bethlehem Baptist Church, pastored by John Piper.

Because we value the importance of old and new , historic and current, we will pray that “the Holy Spirit may lead us into ways of worship that are continuous with the historic witness of worship given to the church throughout its history in the world, and at the same time He may lead us into the discovery of new forms and patterns that meet the needs of the people of our day” (R. Webber, “Worship Old and New” ). We will continue to be a “both/and” people that cherishes all the richness and freshness that comes from God.

Because we value the importance of both head and heart in our worship experience , we will continue to fill our minds with Biblical thinking about God, others, ourselves, and life, while at the same time putting renewed and greater emphasis on giving expression to our heart’s affections for God during worship.

Because we value being a singing people with growing appreciation for diverse expressions of love for God, we will use as many musical styles and forms as are helpful to worship and respond to God appropriately, as we seek the “significant range” of “at-homeness” referred to in Fresh Initiative #2. We will encourage whole-hearted participation by the entire congregation in all parts of the worship service, as the defining sound of Bethlehem worship becomes the singing voices of all God’s people praising Him.

Because we value increasing in a humble willingness to support others whose tastes are different than ours, we will put understanding above accusation, forbearance above faultfinding,and Biblical unity above the demand for uniformity. We will create opportunities for God’s reality to be conveyed more powerfully by learning to affirm the forms and styles that edify our brothers and sisters. Our relationships of love for each other will lead us to patiently support and rejoice with those who appreciate other styles, believing that God is able to meet us in the context of any Christ-exalting worship style.

Because we value growing in appreciation of both fine and folk elements in worship, we will strive to affirm the strengths and avoid the weaknesses inherent in both forms. We will worship within the range of gifts that God bestows on us, never compromising spiritual qualifications for aesthetic considerations, as we pursue undistracting excellence in spiritual leadership.

Because we value a determination to welcome people different from ourselves for the sake of Christ, we will continue to embrace God’s call for visible manifestations of love toward each other and our neighbors, providing opportunities before, during and after the service to reach out to those God would have us touch.

Because we value being more indigenous to the diversity of our metropolitan cultural setting, both urban and suburban, we will seek ways to communicate and worship that allow for a significant range of diversity in those whose worship is driven by a passion for the supremacy of God in all things.

Sunday morning worship is a corporate expression of our passion for the supremacy of God. We sense God’s leading to develop fresh expressions of this passion that 1) allow for a more focused and free lingering of love in the presence of the Lord; 2) reflect musically the diversity of our congregation and our metropolitan culture; 3) interweave the values of intense Godcenteredness and more personal ministry to each other in the power of the Holy Spirit. The following clarify our worship distinctives at Bethlehem:

We will continue with one common worship service format, “that with one accord [we] may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Our worship life will have a “defining center,” with significant range on either side of that center, resulting in a broader worship life than in the past that people can comfortably call “home.”

The mingling of historic and contemporary music No church or service can be all things to all people. But we do not value stylistic narrowness. We believe there are affections owing to God that different tunes and different texts and different genres may awaken better thanothers. We will strive to be who we are without exalting our own tastes as the standard of excellence or power. We will see God’s guidance in each worship setting to be both indigenous and stretching.

The last paragraph was excerpted from What Unites Us in Worship, and the other paragraphs were excerpted from Bethlehem’s Philosophy of Worship. There is a lot more in the philosophy document than what I’ve shared, but these sections focus on “blended worship”.

What do you think? Does your church emphasize a “blended worship” style?

Greg Locke, Fundamentalism and the “Baptist” Label

~ Bob Hayton ~ 42 Comments

Recently, Pastor Greg Locke, a well known speaker among both Independent Fundamental Baptists and some Southern Baptist churches, announced that he is removing “Baptist” from the name of his church. Instead their initials GVBC will now stand for Global Vision Bible Church.

Removing the word “Baptist” from the church name is not an uncommon move. The argument is that removing the name makes the church more accessible to some who would shy away from the Baptist label.

In Locke’s case, it means more than dumping the baggage that the title Baptist holds. Instead, he views it as a departure from the IFB movement as a whole. I wonder how much of this is in part due to the recent 20/20 expose on the IFB movement? Perhaps other pastors and churches need to think through this issue themselves. Understandably, this has caused some shockwaves and Locke’s Facebook page was all abuzz with comments good and bad.

I wanted to share his reasoning for removing the name Baptist, and then ask others to chime in on your thoughts related to this. Personally, I’m a deacon at a Baptistic church, that doesn’t have the word Baptist in our name. Yet I’m not necessarily ashamed of it either. That being said, I do think that “being all things to all men” can definitely include modifying the church name (to some extent). And I’m a Christian more than a Baptist anyway.

Here’s the excerpt from Locke in a letter written for his church, explaining the change:

Here is a list of reasons that I feel this is a very important move:

1. Because of our geographic location (Nashville) 95% of any Baptist church is automatically associated with the SBC. While I have many friends in the Convention, we are not affiliated as a church. I preach in some of the greatest Southern Baptist churches in the country but I believe GV should remain Independent in our structure and governance.

2. The IFB “movement” as a whole is totally out of control and I do not personally wish to be identified with it any longer. Legally, our church will still be Global Vision Baptist Inc., Practically, I am worlds away from where I was even 5 years ago and I cannot in good conscience give my full support to a movement that has become nothing more than a mini controlling denomination. I understand that every “camp” of churches has it’s own issues, but I am unwilling to have GVBC submitted to the dictates of a legalistic mindset of man-made regulations. I preach in dozens of IFB churches, but we desire to be truly Independent, even in our identity.

3. The type of families/people we are reaching could care less about such an issue. I have come to realize that people’s lives are so much more important that the name a church has on the sign. We are the church and if we are not healthy as a body it doesn’t matter what the sign says. So many of our people are brand new Christians or are healing from an experience in the same type of church we are distancing ourselves from.

4. Because of our strong emphasis on Powerful Preaching, the term BIBLE would be much more in line with our DNA and overall vision. People say that to remove “Baptist” will take away our identity. Exactly! I want our identity to be nothing but the Word of God. We didn’t start a church so people “like us” would show up. I want a church that is solely built upon the radical principles of the Book. If people know that there is a place like that, they will flock to it. However, if they merely think we are the same kind of church they grew up in, then we won’t even get them in the door. I don’t want our church identity sabotaged by a loyalty to denomination, movement, camp or tradition. I want all my allegiance to God’s Word.

5. Personally, I’m a very hard guy to put in a box. I feel like I have not been true to who God made me to be and it has caused me much frustration. If I were to start the church over again tomorrow, this would be something I would do from the very beginning. God has done so much in my heart these last few years. But overall, I have allowed this constant “identity crises” to become such a focus that it has greatly affected my judgment and my family. I say “NO MORE”. How foolish I have been to seek so much of man’s approval. I am at a point in my life and ministry that if I can’t be who God made me at GVBC, then I must go somewhere that God can use me without the restraints of others that have nothing to do with our church. However, I know this is where God has placed me and I am positive that this is His leading. I’m not dying on the hill of being “Baptist”. But I will gladly lay down my life for the truth of the BIBLE.

We are going to remain as fundamentally sound as we have ever been. We are not changing Bibles or compromising truth. We will continue to keep a red-hot pulpit and build our congregation on expository preaching, soul-winning and world missions. I am grateful for my IFB heritage, but it will not be my future. If others interpret this as an attack on IFB churches, then they have clearly read between the lines. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind”. This is not easy, but I know for us it is right. I love you all. Now, let’s change the sign and reach this town for Christ.

[SOURCE …link now not working…]

What do you think? I for one, commend a man who doesn’t walk a party line but is willing to follow God’s leading and stand on his own two feet. I also predict the reaction to this may just prove once and for all that the IFB movement is in fact, a de-facto denomination. Reactions such as this one by Pastor Gary Click, indicate that to remove the name and distance oneself from the IFB movement is taken (by the supposedly “non-movement”) as “separation”, with the result that the true IFBs will then respond in kind.

For more on Greg Locke, you can read an interview that Re:Fundamentals did with him back in 2009. Please, let me know what you think about this. For the record, I don’t necessarily endorse bailing from the IFB movement as the solution for everyone and every church. But it’s hard to argue that the label is falling on hard times.

May 21, 2011 – The Day the World Didn’t End… What Now?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

My heart was affected deeply when I read this account of Robert Fitzpatrick, a New Yorker who spent over $100,000 to warn the world about May 21,2011. 6pm, the time the global earthquake marking the start of Judgement Day (and the rapture of the elect) should have reached New York City, came and went, and Fitzpatrick was left surprised. The New York Daily News was with him in Times Square soon after 6pm.

He said: “I don’t know what happened. I don’t understand.”

The 60-year-old said he had no regrets. “I did what I had to do,” he said.

“I’m just surprised – I don’t understand it. It’s locked in for 2011.”

“I obviously haven’t understood it properly because we’re still here,” he said.

“Let’s just say I’m surprised that nothing has happened – everything in the bible indicated it.” [source, also see this report]

I’m saddened because Fitzpatrick, and countless thousands of others, have been misled by an apparently well-intentioned, radio teacher, Harold Camping (of Family Radio).

What’s worse, is that the world has front-page headlines about how the rapture didn’t happen, and how “Bible-believing Christians” are just a bunch of end-times-frenzied cooks.

Please hear me now. This does not represent historical, orthodox Christianity. The Christianity which can trace its general teaching from now back to Jesus himself, has not embraced this nonsense. And if you are reading this and you are also one who was surprised, or disappointed, that May 21 didn’t turn out to be “the day”, please keep reading.

Christianity isn’t a religion based on being a good person and trying to follow the Bible and “doing what you have to do”, like Fitzpatrick believed he had done. It’s a life of faith and trust in what Jesus Christ has accomplished on our behalf. This isn’t about an elect few sneering at the loss masses around them. Instead it is depraved sinners, recognizing that apart from Christ we too, would be without hope and bound in our sin.

Jesus Christ bore our punishment, the judgment day that we deserved, on the cross of Calvary. Jesus Christ, God’s own Son – equal with God in power and glory, yet incarnate in human form – Jesus took our place. The Creator of this world, had a plan from before it began, to redeem a believing remnant of his fallen creatures and shower them with grace and joy for all eternity. His message is one of love, yet He is a God who will judge the world for sin. We will give account to God.

Jesus is our substitute, though, for those who have faith in Him. Jesus promises to accept all who come to Him, and He will not cast any of them out. Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross not only holds back the angry hand of God directed at us for our sin, it also turns God’s view of us into a loving and joyful embrace. Since we are united with Jesus Christ by our faith, God sees Jesus’ goodness when He looks at us. Our sins are gone, and our righteousness is infinite (since it is Jesus’ righteousness credited to us).

Through the Cross, God redeems His own people – those who repent of their sins and follow after Christ through continual faith and a desire to please Him – and He does more than that. He promises to remake this world – to undo the wrong that was done. He will rid the world of sin’s presence one day, at the Second Coming of Christ. And Jesus will reign and rule in splendor for all eternity with His own. The world will be a “new world”, and heaven will literally come down to earth.

Yes, Armageddon is part of this. God will judge sin. But the victory is sure, and it doesn’t depend on us recognizing the date or the hour, either! God’s people are to live lives that are eager for His coming – which is why they won’t be surprised when it does come. Their identity, their all and all, is Jesus. Sure they mess up and fail. Yes some of them get preoccupied with how bad the world is and all that needs fixing here and there. But at heart, all true believers know they aren’t better than anyone else. Instead they are thankful for God’s grace in their lives. They continue to hope, and the cling to the Word.

The Word of God is His message for us. But this message needs to be understood and read carefully. It is not an engineering text book, nor a blueprint or math game. It is a grand story. The story of Creation, Fall, Judgment, and Restoration. It is a story of God’s dealings with His people. The Bible says we aren’t to seek a “private interpretation”. God has given His people teachers down through the years and up through now. God says that in the Church He will be glorified through all ages, so the church age is not over (Eph. 3:21). In Bible-believing churches, there are safeguards from wide variety of radio, TV and internet teachers who would have us befuddled and confused. There are elders to guard the flock and safety in a multitude of counselors.

The mystery and hidden things of the Old Testament have been revealed in the New Testament. The church is the culmination of God’s plan for the ages. Jesus Christ is the final Word to mankind (see Hebrews 1). The Bible isn’t a jigsaw puzzle that’s intentionally obscure, it is a revelation of God’s will. The New Testament declares time and again that what was originally somewhat obscure has now been made plain for all through Christ. In fact, Paul and others believed they were living in the last days (see 1 Cor. 10:11 for an example). The last age is here. All that is left is for Christ to return and bring to consummation all His glorious promises for His own.

If May 21, which seemed so air-tight (when it comes to all the numerological connections that were given for it)– if May 21 is not the day, then perhaps you should consider that numerology is something not explicitly taught in Scripture. This whole approach to interpreting the Bible is bankrupt. I challenge those who had been believing Camping’s teaching to turn the radio off and go find a Bible-believing local church. Listen to the preaching and teaching for a while. Read the Bible without Camping’s books in front of you. Let God speak to you through His Word. He will guide you to the Truth.

If you have questions or comments, I’m happy to try and respond as I’m able in the comments section below or you can use the contact tab on the blog here, to talk to me privately. May God bless those who are in Fitzpatrick’s shoes tonight.

Picture credited Debbie Egan-Chin/News, accessible at this story page from New York Daily News.

40% Discount on KJB: The King James Bible – The Book that Changed the World (DVD)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Westminster Bookstore has a special deal on the DVD documentary: KJB: The King James Bible – The Book that Changed the World. This DVD is a first-rate and tells the story of the making of the King James Bible well.

I have reviewed the DVD in full here.

At 40% off the regular retail price, this may be the time to pick up this DVD. You can also compare the price at ChristianBook.com and Amazon.com.

Here is the trailer:

~cross posted from my group site: KJVOnlyDebate.com