Tag: Pastor

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

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

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 Recommendation: “Accidental Pharisees” by Larry Osborne

~ Bob Hayton

I just finished a hard-hitting, yet extremely well-written and lucid book. Accidental Pharisees: Avoiding Pride, Exclusivity, and the Other Dangers of Overzealous Faith by Larry Osborne is an engrossing read and tackles an important problem in today’s church. As a former, hard-nosed fundamentalist Christian, I can attest to the horrors of finding out that you have become an accidental Pharisee. I’ve seen that tendency in my own heart many a time. Larry Osborne tacklees this problem with a pastor’s heart for people. His aim is to protect the many weak and young Christians who are constantly in danger of being hurt and bowled over by well-meaning, accidental Pharisees advocating a variety of causes in today’s Church.

I wish I had time to go into a full review of this book right here. But for now I want to draw your attention to it, and let you know that the Kindle copy of the book is on sale for only $3.99 now through November 5th. Let me excerpt some of Osborne’s conclusion so you can see what he’s aiming to do in this short book.

Following Jesus is not a race to see who can be the most radical, sacrificial, knowledgeable, or quickest to burn out. It’s not a contest to see who’s willing to take the hardest road. That’s asceticism, not discipleship.

For the gospel to remain the gospel, grace and mercy have to remain front and center. When the radicalness of my commitment, the intensity of my zeal, or the extent of my personal sacrifices become the means to receive or maintain God’s acceptance and approval, the good news of the gospel is no longer good news to anyone except those of us who excel.

Make no mistake. My warnings about the dangers of an overzealous faith are not meant as a defense of soft and easy Christianity. They are simply a plea that we remain true to the heart of the gospel, offering rest, help, hope, and salvation to the weary and heavy laden. (pg. 195-196)

Consider picking up the book at Amazon or Christianbook.com. To learn more about the book, check out the reviews that are coming in from the book blog tour that Zondervan is running on this title.

Here’s the book trailer as well.

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

Tim Keller on Underadapting to Culture

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

Tim Keller is one of leading voices in church planting today. He has thought long and hard about how to do gospel ministry in today’s urban contexts, and is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, a thriving ministry in the heart of New York City. Redeemer has helped mentor other church planters in New York and beyond through Redeemer City to City, a ministry which has helped launch over 200 churches in 35 global cities so far.

Keller’s latest book is Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City (Zondervan, 2012) which is a manual for how to think about doing church. His aim is to explain how “theological vision,” as distinct from doctrine or methodology, should drive how we bring the message of the gospel to the communities we are called to serve. Just from reading through the introductory chapter, I know I am going to want to read through this manual in depth—highlighter in hand. Keller uses diagrams and sidebars, and yes, even some footnotes, to present his information in an understandable format. And what he has to say is definitely worth hearing. He talks about the inevitability of contextualizing and chides preachers who don’t intentionally think through how their church must speak to the culture around them.

This post is not going to be a full review. I’ll save that for after I’ve had time to examine this work at length. Instead I want to focus in on an excerpt from the introduction on how the Church should adapt to culture. As a former independent fundamental Baptist (IFB), I read these words with great interest:

We will show [in this book] that to reach people we must appreciate and adapt to their culture, but we must also challenge and confront it. This is based on the biblical teaching that all cultures have God’s grace and natural revelation in them, yet they are also in rebellious idolatry. If we overadapt to a culture, we have accepted the culture’s idols. If, however, we underadapt to a culture, we may have turned our own culture into an idol, an absolute. If we underadapt to a culture, no one will be changed because no one will listen to us; we will be confusing, offensive, or simply unpersuasive. To the degree a ministry is overadapted or underadapted to a culture, it loses life-changing power. (pg. 24, emphasis added)

I think there is a wealth of wisdom in this brief except. I particularly appreciated the section that I bolded. This seems to be the case with most conservative IFB churches I know. By and large, the wider culture looks at them with bewilderment. Their version of Christianity—complete with Stoic worship, an archaic Bible and outdated fashion—is totally foreign to the average citizen in the community. And the churchly phrases and Christian lingo confuse the message even more.

In a later section in the book, Keller talks of Anglo Christians who are “often culturally clueless”:

They don’t see any part of how they express or live the gospel to be “Anglo”—it is just the way things are. They feel that any change in how they preach, worship, or minister is somehow a compromise of the gospel. In this they may be doing what Jesus warns against—elevating the “traditions of men” to the same level as biblical truth (Mark 7:8). This happens when one’s cultural approach to time or emotional expressiveness or way to communicate becomes enshrined as the Christian way to act and live. (pg. 96)

Keller goes on to discuss how our culture shapes our view of individualism and community. He also decries how church planters or missionaries tend to reproduce the cultural methodology of ministries that have impacted them.

If they have been moved by a ministry that has forty-five-minute verse-by-verse expository sermons, a particular kind of singing, or a specific order and length to the services, they reproduce it down to the smallest detail. Without realizing it, they become method driven and program driven rather than theologically driven. They are contextualizing their ministry expression to themselves, not to the people they want to reach. (pg. 97, emphasis added)

Keller’s point should not be ignored. While we must not overadapt to culture and compromise the gospel, we nevertheless have a responsibility to analyze the culture we find ourselves in and seek to communicate in such a way, that the offense that arises in response to our teaching, is an offense directed at the gospel itself, and not our own idiosyncrasies and cultural traditions.

I recommend that pastors and church leaders everywhere pick up a copy of this important book from Tim Keller. The book is carefully written and the principles are clearly explained. Even if you disagree with some of what he has to say, his book will provide an opportunity to systematically walk through all of the issues related to doing ministry in a given culture. If we recognize that some sort of “theological vision” exists and undergirds what we do, then focusing on what that vision is and how it is developed will have lasting impact in how we do church in the twenty-first century.

You can learn more about Center Church at Zondervan’s Engaging Church Blog this week or from CenterChurch.com. You can see a book excerpt or watch a video trailer at Westminster Bookstore’s product page. Pick up a copy of the book at any of the following retailers: Monergism Books, Westminster Bookstore, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes&Noble, or direct from Zondervan.

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

Matt Olson and “What Matters Most” with Separation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Matt Olson, the president of Northland Baptist Bible College (now called Northland International University), has been writing a blog recently and saying some really important, and risky things. He’s taking a stand against institutional legalsim and is making his constituents a little uneasy.

Recently he started a multi-part series on “What Matters Most.” He is thinking through separation in light of how the fundamentals of the faith are what truly matter most. I have made a similar point in a post entitled: “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.” Olson also is open about the positive influence on his thinking from Al Mohler’s “Theological Triage” illustration, which is quite helpful in my view as well.

Here is how Olson distills the three levels of his view on separation:

The first/top tier is orthodoxy. What doctrines are necessary for a person to truly be “Christian?” Sometimes we have referred to these as “the fundamentals of the faith.” While five of these were distinguished in the early part of the last century, I do think there are more. These would be beliefs that are necessary to have a true gospel, an orthodox faith, and an authentic Christianity. I believe it is very clear that Paul draws a hard line here with orthodoxy when we read Galatians. If we don’t get this right, we don’t get anything right.

The second tier is one of functional distinctives. These teachings are necessary for a local church to function effectively—such as mode of baptism and church polity. We may have great fellowship with a Presbyterian and even have him preach for us in our church, but we probably won’t be members of the same church. We differ because we interpret certain texts differently. I see this as a “dotted line.” We can both be Christians who love the Lord and seek to please Him in all we do and we can enjoy times together in and out of the contexts of our local churches.

The third tier is personal convictions. These are matters of conscience or preference. These are important, but believers should be able to differ and still enjoy fellowship within the context of the same local church. Love and respect will “give people space.” It is a Romans 14 spirit within the body and does not prohibit a healthy functioning of the local assembly of believers. In fact, the differences can be a strengthening characteristic. [from part 1 of his series]

Olson seems to differ from the fundamentalist party line in his last post in this series, where he makes the following observations:

I believe that the same lines that I draw for an orthodox Christian faith are the same lines that I should draw for Christian fellowship. I believe that every true born again Christian is a brother or sister in Christ and that not only can I have fellowship with him or her, it is what Christ has intended, and it is what brings him great delight (Romans 1:1; Philippians 2:1-11). For me to draw dividing lines that He has not drawn grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ, and hinders the work of the Great Commission.

The mode of baptism, timing of the rapture, cessationist or non-cessationist positions, dispensational or covenant positions, church polity, style of music, philosophy of ministry—are NOT fundamentals of the faith. They never have been. When we get to heaven I think there are going to be a lot of people feeling ashamed about how they fought over these things and neglected what matters most.

Every local church or ministry will have its functional distinctives, and we need these. Every believer will have his own personal convictions, beliefs, and opinions. We need these as well. They are not unimportant and they may even affect the degree of practical cooperation in certain ministry contexts. But, these are not matters of separation and those who don’t agree with someone else’s opinions are not simply disobedient brothers.

A disobedient brother is someone who is in clear violation of biblical teaching and one who after repeated confrontation continues in his sin. The Bible gives plenty of instruction on how to work through these situations in love and toward restoration (Galatians 6:1-5). [from part 3]

I wholeheartedly affirm what he is saying above, and can agree with the gist of his conclusion:

What do we separate over?

  1. The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel (Galatians 1:8,9).
  2. The Christian should expose and separate from another Christian who continues to walk in disobedience (after following a biblical process for restoration, I Corinthians 5:9-13).
  3. The Christian should separate from the world (This is another discussion that I would like to take up in the future because I find many people have a wrong view of ”the world” I John 2:15-17).

[from part 3]

While I applaud Olson’s conclusions on this matter, I’m curious as to what degree this will impact his decisions at the helm of a large fundamentalist institution. I’m hoping he continues to make positive changes, such as his controversial tack on the use of demerits at the university and his changing stance on music (see his open letter for more on both). I wonder if it is too much to hope that he would steer a course for Type B fundamentalists to come into greater fellowship and interaction with the Type Cs who don’t hold to the name fundamentalist but are nevertheless similar in their beliefs. (I’m using Joel Tetreau’s ABCs here.) Apparently others are taking note about Olson’s practice, as the FBFI blog recently put his feet to the fire over an endorsement of a church that belongs to the Sovereign Grace Ministries group of churches. I’m curious to see how Olson answers the very specific questions that have been raised.

These questions are why I am not a part of the fundamentalist movement, because there is such a to-do made about institutions and structures. If you have a fundamentalist institution committed to the movement, then you can’t endorse churches connected to a non-fundamentalist movement. But following Scripture would move you to endorse such churches in the spirit of all Olson has stated above. This is the quandary in store for other fundamentalist leaders who see the deficiencies of an “us four, no more” mentality and really get the Gospel-centered focus of today’s conservative evangelicals. To truly follow their conscience and lead their institutions, they’ll have to invite Mark Dever to their conferences and will inevitably say and do things the fundamentalist base will see as a betrayal of their “cause.”

Here’s hoping that this next generation of fundamentalist leaders are the genesis of a sweeping change within fundamentalism as a whole, and that the wider Church is blessed because of their willingness to follow Christ at all costs.

Just Another Sin, or Abuse of the Worst Kind?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

I just read a great post by evangelical leader, Ed Stetzer, on the Jack Schaap incident. He makes a plea that we stop using the word “adultery” and instead use “abuse.” No matter which state the alleged liaison occurred in, or what the “age of consent” is, a 54 year old senior pastor is abusing a girl of 16 years when this kind of thing happens. I encourage you to read Stetzer’s post: “Call it What It Is: It’s Not Adultery. It’s Abuse.” I agree too, that we need to focus on praying for the victim in this matter.

I’m encouraged by the fact that First Baptist Church of Hammond is not defending Schaap, and has turned him over to the authorities (even if they are assuming no charges will be leveled against him). But some are defending him, or refusing to believe he is guilty. I don’t want to rush to condemn a man, as he is innocent until proven guilty. But the church is saying he has confessed to this dalliance with a 16 year old girl.

I am troubled by the fact that the church at Hammond is not bringing in a 3rd party to investigate the matter. They are using a biased party in David Gibbs. I wish they would follow the lead of ABWE in hiring a third party, like GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment), which has no horse in this race, so to speak. This brings to mind my post on the lessons to be learned from Joe Paterno’s case and how Penn State handled it. Fundamental Baptists (and everyone else) need to be completely above board in handling these kinds of situations.

Even more troubling is that some are saying that this is just another sin. We should be careful not to throw a stone, we too are sinners at heart. All of that is true, but we are talking about abuse, not adultery. This is a man in a position of power, abusing his position and taking advantage of an impressionable young girl. Shouldn’t there be more outrage and less sympathy? Sure, Schaap is human and has struggles with sin, and so do we all. Schaap however chose to abuse his authority and confessed to committing this most heinous of sins. For some who pride themselves in speaking so harshly against the sins of the world, homosexuality being chief among them, it is troubling that the moral outrage expressed toward those “out there” becomes so quiet when speaking about sin done by one of our own.

In this somewhat rambling post, I wanted to share a comment that literally floored me. This was given under my post sharing the news of Schaap’s dismissal and lamenting the fact that so often there is not enough mutual accountability (it would seem) in big name IFB churches. The comment below is disturbing and troubling, to say the least. And it is the epitome of defending Schaap, or so it would seem. Before I continue, let me share the comment in full.

What amazes me the most about most of these posts is how little of God’s Word is known by the posters. A New testament church is not run by deacons – deacons (Acts 6) under the direction of the pastor. You people sound like Moses’ older bother and younger sister. God leads the leader and if the leader fouls up, it is God that takes care of that and He doesn’t need half-witted self-professed theologians to take His place in taking care of His man – not deacons, elders, you people need to understand the New Testament Church; you Mr. Burton obviously do not. Abraham (and Sarah) fouled up – it was no small thing. The whole middle East problem came from that, but God took care of Abraham and on more than one occasion, It was true with Moses, David, and all the rest of the sinners in the Bible. God took care of it. I am not justifying what Schaap has done whatever it is. However, I find no biblical precedent for a mis-trained deacon board to take it upon themselves to touch God’s anointed. A spiritual (Gal 6) man may have counseled him to resign and take time to heal in the process of restoration. You people want to stone him to death! Call me, I’ll send all of you without sin a bag of rocks to throw at him! Bunch of stinkin’ hypocrites!

[Written by R.S. Brewer.]

This seems to be a version of a concept that Jack Hyles was known to teach from time to time: the idea that we can earn enough “brownie points” with God that we are so valuable to Him, that He needs us. God needs His man, so He’ll excuse this sin and that because He sees the man really has a heart for God, in spite of the sin. This is very dangerous thinking. The New Testament does not condone this mentality. Read the book of Hebrews. We can’t play with fire, and there are very clear qualifications given for leaders in the New Testament. Furthermore, it is a misunderstanding of church government. The church has responsibility collectively to hold their leaders in check. Such a top-down approach is unBiblical when applied to a church. The Church is not a state, and not the equal of the Israelite theocracy of the Old Testament.

In conclusion, we must ask ourselves: “Is Jack Schaap’s sin just a run-of-the-mill moral failure? Or is it abuse of the worst kind?” We can’t dance around the bush here, we must call it what it is. If new facts come out which exonerate Schaap, then we will stand corrected, but if we take FBC Hammond’s word (and we have no reason not to), than we have to conclude that Schaap is guilty of the most heinous of sins for any pastor to commit, and whether or not he is convicted in a court of law, and whether his actions were technically legal or not, his abuse disqualifies him from holding the office of a pastor, ever again. If this action doesn’t mar the “good report” of those without that a pastor must have, I don’t know what does.

Schaap can still repent, restore his marriage, and live for Jesus. He can have meaningful ministry service in a church, but he should not be a pastor ever again. Let’s be clear on that.