Tag: sin

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.

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.

Jerry Bridges on Judgmentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 15 Comments

As a follow up to Saturday’s post on the Legalist “Not Me” dance, today I want to quote Jerry Bridges on the problem of Judgmentalism.

Bridges is a well known, and respected author. He’s known for highlighting the role of grace in the Christian’s life. I’ve reviewed his book, Trusting God here previously. One of his most recent books, Respectable Sins, takes aim at the sins that we too easily let slide. Andy Naselli posted some excerpts from the chapter dealing with Judgmentalism, and I’m going to share some of them here, but encourage you to go read Naselli’s full post and then consider picking up a copy of the book for more.

The sin of judgmentalism is one of the most subtle of our “respectable” sins because it is often practiced under the guise of being zealous for what is right…

Example 1: Dress

I grew up in the mid-twentieth century, when people dressed up to go to church. Men wore jackets and ties (usually suits and ties) and women wore dresses. Sometime in the 1970s, men began to show up at church wearing casual pants and open-collar shirts. Many women began to wear pants. For several years, I was judgmental toward them. Didn’t they have any reverence for God? Would they dress so casually if they were going to an audience with the president? That sounded pretty convincing to me.

Only I was wrong. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us what we ought to wear to church. And as for dressing up to meet the president, that’s a cultural thing centered in Washington, DC. If you were invited to meet the president while he is vacationing at his ranch, you would probably show up in blue jeans. Reverence for God, I finally concluded, is not a matter of dress; it’s a matter of the heart. Jesus said that true worshipers are those who worship the Father in spirit and truth (see John 4:23). Now, it’s true that casual dress may reflect a casual attitude toward God, but I cannot discern that. Therefore, I should avoid ascribing an attitude of irreverence based purely on a person’s dress….

…My point here is that it doesn’t matter which side of an issue we are on. It is easy to become judgmental toward anyone whose opinions are different from ours. And then we hide our judgmentalism under the cloak of Christian convictions.

Paul’s response to the situation in Rome [in Romans 14] was, “Stop judging one another regardless of which position you take.” …

I suspect that some of my dearest friends may disagree with some things I’ve said in this chapter. Some do not see the manner of dress in church or the type of music we sing as matters of preference. For them, it is a conviction. I respect their thinking and wouldn’t want to change their convictions at all.

I’d like to be like Paul, who took a similar position regarding the divisive issues in Rome. He did not try to change anyone’s convictions regarding what they ate or the special days they observed. Instead, he said, “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5). Such a statement makes many of us uncomfortable. We don’t like ambiguity in issues of Christian practice. It’s difficult for us to accept that one person’s opinion can be different from ours and both of us be accepted by God. But that is what Paul says in Romans 14. And if we will take Paul seriously and hold our convictions with humility, it will help us avoid the sins of judgmentalism. (pp. 144–48)

I only shared the part about dress, but Naselli includes more on how music and alcohol factor in to this judmentalist problem.

What are your thoughts on this? I, for one, think Bridges nails it on this one. This is indeed a problem, and can be for those of us on both sides of the question in dispute. Rom. 14 and 15 have more to say about this, and we would do well to listen.

Achan’s Curse and the Cross of Christ

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

The stoning of Achan is one of the most horrific accounts in the Bible. Many Christians cringe when reading the account.

Let me quote it here at some length, and then point you to a very helpful meditation on this passage.

Then Joshua said to Achan, “My son, give glory to the LORD God of Israel and give praise to him. And tell me now what you have done; do not hide it from me.” And Achan answered Joshua, “Truly I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and this is what I did: when I saw among the spoil a beautiful cloak from Shinar, and 200 shekels of silver, and a bar of gold weighing 50 shekels, then I coveted them and took them. And see, they are hidden in the earth inside my tent, with the silver underneath.”

So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent; and behold, it was hidden in his tent with the silver underneath. And they took them out of the tent and brought them to Joshua and to all the people of Israel. And they laid them down before the LORD. And Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver and the cloak and the bar of gold, and his sons and daughters and his oxen and donkeys and sheep and his tent and all that he had. And they brought them up to the Valley of Achor. And Joshua said, “Why did you bring trouble on us? The LORD brings trouble on you today.” And all Israel stoned him with stones. They burned them with fire and stoned them with stones. And they raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day. Then the LORD turned from his burning anger. Therefore, to this day the name of that place is called the Valley of Achor. (Joshua 7:19-26 ESV)

The thought of being stoned for a crime seems barbaric. Stoning Achan’s family and servants, his flocks and possessions, and then burning them seems unconscionable. Is not this evidence that the God of the Old Testament, is not the Christian God of Love, presented in the New Testament Scriptures?

Some would say so. But our revulsion to this event is actually an important emotion for us to ponder. In fact, the wrath and fury of God against sin is bound up in the violent action taken against Achan. And when we think of this event from a redemptive historical perspective, when we look forward to how this story prefigures the work and death of Christ, a glorious picture comes into focus.

Christ’s cross was the place God poured out all his violent anger and fury, for God is a Holy God who cannot tolerate sin, even sin in his covenant people. Ultimately, no one could be completely holy and stay perfectly true to God’s covenant. This is why Jesus came to take our punishment for us. God’s just and holy anger against sin was meted out in full measure upon His own Son! What love and mercy, what amazing grace and pity!

My thoughts were turned in this Christ-centered direction by reading a meditation on Achan’s curse from my friend Nathan Pitchford of Psalm 45 Publications. Let me share his concluding paragraph and encourage you to read the whole thing.

Oh, that you would flee to this great Savior and Sacrifice, who was hanged on a tree as a curse, who was made a spectacle before all the people, and went to a bloody death for them, and suffered all the fire of God’s wrath, who was numbered among the sinners, and experienced all that an accursed sinner ought to experience, for no wrong of his own, but only that he might deliver his people from all their sins, and lead them in triumph over all their enemies! Oh, what a Savior is he!

Nathan goes through many Old Testament passages like this mining rich jewels for our meditation. He speaks with the heart and words of a true Puritan. Lately, he has been going through the book of Joshua. I encourage you to feast on his devotions on the Old Testament.

Along these lines, I did a post on the typological aspects of the Battle of Jericho some time ago, which you may also like to read.

Why Preachers Fall

~ Bob Hayton ~ 20 Comments

The higher you rise, the harder you fall. There seems to be nothing more universally revolting than the fall of a big name preacher.  The scandals of Jim & Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard all made the national news headlines.  But not every scandal gets such nationwide attention. Sadly, such falls by “men of God” are all too common.

Yesterday, I found out about one such fall that sits far too close to home for my liking.  Rodney Stewart, an evangelist who was a frequent preacher at the Bible College I attended, was recently caught in an online sex sting.  I own several cassette tapes of this man’s preaching, which always struck me as intense and radically serious. He was a great preacher who stuck close to the Biblical text in most of his messages.  Yet he was found out in his sin and now is sitting in prison awaiting his trial and sentencing.  The sad story is covered by a local news station in the Cleveland area here.

Why is it that men who are respected and hold a revered office (such as pastor, evangelist or preacher) would do such horrendous things?  Why would they be found soliciting sex online from a 15 year old? And why exactly are such failures so commonplace, as it seems?

I can’t speak for all sectors of Christianity, or for the Roman Catholic Church. I do know that sin is common to all men, that is sure.  But for conservative evangelical churches, particularly of the fundamentalist variety, there are several factors which I believe contribute to this problem.

1)  Too much emphasis on morals

This might sound crazy to some.  But an over-emphasis on morality actually encourages sin.  Moralism cannot save.  It cannot free someone of sinful urges within. Only the Gospel of grace can truly transform our hearts.

2)  An external focus

Many fundamentalist churches stress external conformity to rules and standards.  Christians need to look different, act different and dress differently than the world.  Christians need to read their Bibles, spend time evangelizing their friends and neighbors, and actively serve in their church.  All of this, people can trick themselves into thinking they can do.  And then keeping up the appearance of spirituality can in turn become a heavy burden.

3)  Little emphasis on grace

Grace, or God’s favor for undeserving sinners, is not emphasized.  God’s holiness and his high standards are.  Grace comes into play in salvation, but living the Christian life is all about effort, character, and duty. So when people struggle, there is no saving grace that can help them.  They must dust themselves off and try harder.  Often a do-it-yourself-mentality is the practical effect of an over-emphasis on externals and conformity.

4)  Failure to appreciate the Gospel

Similar to what was said above, the Gospel is seen as the 101 class for becoming a Christian.  The meat and the nitty-gritty of Christian living leaves the Gospel behind.  The Gospel is good news for the lost unbeliever, and its an assumed thing for believers.  This misunderstanding cuts off the Christian from his only sure hope.  The Gospel teaches that God accepts us not on the basis of how well we behave, but as a matter of pure grace and on account of Jesus’ death on the cross in our place.

5)  Legalism and burnout

All of this leads to a practical legalism.  Christians live as if God is not happy with them.  To please God and to truly grow in faith, one must add mountains of work to the faith that saves.  If we measure up to our own (or our group’s) expectations, if we perform, if we put out, only then are we satisfied with ourselves, and only then is God pleased with us.  When we fail in a myriad of ways, we have to struggle on alone.  This leads to burnout.  All work, no recognition of God’s love and approval, and no grace.  It’s hard struggling on in such a condition.

6)  No mutual accountability

The ethos of a legalistic church does not lend itself to mutual accountability.  Pastors rarely mention that they too struggle with sin.  If one confesses a sin, he is dealt with as a sinner. Grace isn’t proffered.  There is no benefit to opening up to others about your struggles.  You’ll be rejected, written off and then treated so differently.  For those struggling with sexual addiction, mutual accountability is balm to the soul.  Understanding that others share the same struggles and hearing others be open about their struggles to overcome the sin are key to victory.

7)  Lone Ranger Christianity

This final aspect is an American trait that has affected the church.  People think that the Christian life is something that is purely personal, and can be accomplished on their own.  The Bible stresses the role of the church and the need for brothers and sisters in the faith to encourage each other.  Often, in a high-stress environment, where a judgmental spirit is present, the communal aspects of church life are downplayed.  We get together to eat and socialize but never to discuss the impact of the Gospel on our personal lives.  This is only intensified in the life of a pastor or evangelist.  They are even more prone to the lone ranger phenomenon.  The pastor has to keep himself aloof from his congregation, it is thought.  The very thought of a pastor wanting help for struggling with his personal sins and thought life, is unheard of in many such legalistic environments.

I suppose other factors come into play, but these are certainly influential in many fundamentalist church environments.  But it isn’t only legalistic churches that can harbor such ideas about the Christian life. People can tend toward legalism in any context.

It’s so easy to cast stones at the fallen pastor.  I would hope that we could pray for him and his family, and be on guard lest the sin in our own hearts come to overcome us as well.  I certainly don’t excuse him for his crimes. however.  I just wish the system he was in would have been more grace-oriented.  But for the grace of God, I too could be consumed by my sin.

I would love to hear your thoughts on all of this, too.  Feel free to chime in and let me know what you think.