Tag: Theology

“Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality” by Wesley Hill

~ Bob Hayton ~ 49 Comments

Homosexuality. The word stirs many reactions today. Many Christians who don’t know homosexuals personally, remain puzzled and scared by this term. Many suspect the word does not picture a reality, only an intentional perversion of God’s created order. Pat answers are easy, and when it comes to homosexuality a simple Bible-based condemnation seems all that is in order. It is easier and more convenient for us to file the word, and whatever reality it represents, away into a tidy corner — far away from our experience.

But in today’s world, we can no longer afford to ignore homosexuality. It is all around us, and if we open our eyes, we’ll see it is affecting people we rub shoulders with at work, it’s in our children’s schools, and even has entered our churches. The debate is here, and more. It’s not just a debate, there is a secret battle being waged in countless hearts around us. A battle to believe in Jesus despite personal homosexual attractions.

When the church takes a very public, vocal and aggressive stance against homosexuality and perceived encroaches on the church’s favored family ideal, we inadvertently make it hard for those among us struggling with identity questions of their own. On the other hand, when churches change their message, dismissing Biblical statements condemning homosexual practices outright, or employing some cunning and inventive “exegesis”, the core of Gospel truth is betrayed. And any message left over is spiritually bankrupt. What is needed is a careful balance between a Scriptural approach to homosexual practice as sin, and a gracious acceptance of sinners who are struggling to follow Jesus.

That balance is hard to achieve and frankly, quite rare today. Consider the words of an anonymous Christian who struggles with homosexuality:

What if the church were full of people who were loving and safe, willing to walk alongside people who struggle? What if there were people in the church who kept confidences, who took the time to be Jesus to those who struggle with homosexuality? What if the church were what God intended it to be? (pg. 113)

This perspective may be new to many of us. When is the last time that you or I have known someone struggling with homosexuality? Not one given over to it, but one who professes to be a Christian yet openly admits to struggles in this area? What would it be like to be a Christian struggling with this? Can you even be a Christian if you experience homosexual desires? Isn’t Jesus supposed to miraculously heal you of such a warped perspective?

In a new book from Zondervan, Wesley Hill bravely steps forward to share his own journey with us. In Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality Hill tells the story of his life-long struggle with homosexuality. He shares the hopes and struggles, the loneliness and longing, the despair and perplexity that is life for homosexual Christians. What Hill has to say needs to be heard throughout the church today. His honesty and candor, and his gospel-centered, graceful, hopeful perspective make the book a joy to read. He offers hope for all who struggle against sin this side of the resurrection.

The book is well-written and captivating. Hill finds the right balance in conveying what it is like to think like he does, and feel like he feels, without dragging the book down into a cesspool. He keeps the story moving and intersperses reflections on the testimony of other self-professed Christians who struggled with homosexual desires.

Hill grew up in a Christian home, went to a Christian school and went to a Christian college (Wheaton). He even pursued Christian ministry. He would appear a typical conservative-minded Christian from a loving home. But he learned as a young teenager that something was different with him. He had no sexual attraction for women, at all. Instead, his feelings were directed toward the other sex for apparently no reason that he has yet been able to discover. One story he tells captures his reality well. He was attending a dance at a friend’s wedding. A friend, set him up to dance with a gorgeous girl. And yet even in close quarter with this stunning beauty, he felt no attraction. Instead his eyes were wandering against his will to a man across the room who he couldn’t help but notice.

Hill’s story goes on throughout the book. He is still young (in his late twenties) and realizes he doesn’t have all the answers. But he hopes his story helps others like him come to grips with who they are, and the calling Christ has for them. Hill realizes that some homosexual Christians do experience a healing of their broken desires. But many do not. He writes for “homosexual persons who have tried — and are trying — to ‘become heterosexual’ and are not succeeding and wonder, for the umpteenth time, what exactly it is that God wants them to do.” (pg. 19)

Hill’s testimony of the struggle and perplexity that surrounds homosexuality, helps explain the attraction of homosexual accommodation by the Church. It’s surely easier to remain connected with one “soul-mate” than to struggle against one’s natural impulses. Hill observes:

Occasionally it strikes me again how strange it is to talk about the gospel — Christianity’s “good news” — demanding anything that would squelch my happiness, much less demanding abstinence from homosexual partnerships and homoerotic passions and activities. If the gospel really is full of hope and promise, surely it must endorse — or at least not oppose — people entering into loving, erotically expressive same-sex relationships. How could the gospel be opposed to love? (pg. 56)

Hill goes on to challenge this “easy way out.” He explains how and why abstinence from forbidden pleasures is essential to upholding the true Gospel. “One of the hardest-to-swallow, most countercultural, counterintuitive implications of the gospel is that bearing up under a difficult burden with patient perseverance is a good thing.” (pg. 71).

Hill’s struggles bring alive the hidden suffering of Christians struggling with this sin. There is an intense loneliness. First, it is hard to share with other Christians that you struggle with this issue. Second, if you agree that abstinence is God’s will, you will pull back from non-sexual relationships with others of the same sex for fear of temptation or rejection (if they knew the real you). Finally, for those who cannot just “switch” their inbred sense of attraction, for those who cannot just “become heterosexual”, or those who through long years of effort find they cannot, these are faced with a lonely future with no possibility of waking up next to the one you love and sharing life together. Hill shared some of his personal diary notes on this point: “And don’t you think we’re wired (Genesis 2!) to want the kind of companionship that can only come through marriage?” (pg. 106).

An even more devastating point comes in Hill’s discussion of lust. He quotes Dallas Willard to the extent that to merely look (or see) and desire someone sexually is not wrong. Rather, looking to desire someone is wrong. The second glance is the one with evil intent. Hill shares what it feels like to “look and desire” in a homosexual way, and how this is even more hopeless than those who struggle against inordinate heterosexual desires:

For me and other gay people, even when we’re not willfully cultivating desire, we know that when attraction does come — most of the time, it could be as unlooked for and unwanted as it was for me that day on the dance floor at my friends’ wedding reception — it will be attraction to someone of the same sex. And in those moments, it feels as though there is no desire that isn’t lust, no attraction that isn’t illicit. I never have the moment Dallas Willard describes as “looking and desiring” when I can thank God that he made me to be attracted to women… Every attraction I experience, before I ever get to intentional, willful, indulgent desire, seems bent, broken, misshapen. I think this grieves [God], but I can’t seem to help it. (pg. 136-137)

This experience of brokenness and uncontrollable desires is not uncommon. Hill speaks for many when he writes these words. Hill quotes Martin Hallett of True Freedom Trust, “There are probably nearly as many Christians with homosexual feelings who do not believe that homosexual sex is right for Christians as there are those who are advocating its acceptance.” (pg. 16)

The beauty of this book is that Hill not only describes the struggle, he also explains how he has found peace with the burden. His “life as a homosexual Christian… has simply been learning how to wait, to be patient, to endure, to bear up under an unwelcome burden for the long haul.” (pg. 50). Rather than seeing his struggles and shortcomings as “confirmations of [his] rank corruption and hypocrisy”, Hill has gradually learned to view his journey “of struggle, failure, repentance, restoration, renewal in joy, and persevering, agonized obedience — as what it looks like for the Holy Spirit to be transforming me on the basis of Christ’s cross and his Easter morning triumph over death.” (pg. 144). His insights on sanctification deserve to be quoted in full:

The Bible calls the Christian struggle against sin faith (Hebrews 12:3-4; 10:37-39). It calls the Christian fight against impure cravings holiness (Romans 6:12-13, 22). So I am trying to appropriate these biblical descriptions for myself. I am learning to look at my daily wrestling with disordered desires and call it trust. I am learning to look at my battle to keep from giving in to my temptations and call it sanctification. I am learning to see that my flawed, imperfect, yet never-giving-up faithfulness is precisely the spiritual fruit that God will praise me for on the last day, to the ultimate honor of Jesus Christ. (pg. 146)

What Christian cannot say amen to that? I found Hill’s honesty and frank discussion of his wrestlings against the sinful pull of his soul, inspiring and hope-giving even for broken heterosexuals like me. We could learn a lot from listening to homosexual Christians who are fighting to follow Jesus with a pure heart.

Hill encourages others struggling with this sin to be open about their struggles with others, to seek help, and find a church community to be a part of. Hill’s message also challenges churches today to be a community of Christ-loving people who minister with His gracious hands and loving heart to all those in need around them.

This book packs quite the punch for 160 short pages. It has opened up the struggle of what it means to be homosexual to me in a new way. It gives me hope and confidence that the Gospel of Jesus Christ does work, even for those with such a burden to bear. I pray and trust this book will make a wide impact among churches of all kinds, but especially the more conservative churches.

I have but one small reservation with this book. Hill details both a Roman Catholic’s and Greek Orthodox’s struggle on this issue with no caution about the deficient theology of those churches. There may be genuine Christians who are RC or Orthodox, but they are the exception not the rule. Perhaps those faiths are more open to the struggle for faithful celibacy and so have something he can identify with. As a Protestant, I fear the Gospel can be at stake in so easily recommending Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy with their denial of justification by faith alone.

One brief personal note, too, if I may. As I read the acknowledgments, I was delighted to find many names I recognized from Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis where I was a member for four years. It’s a joy to think that my former pastor John Piper and the apprentice program he and others have poured their lives into was blessed to make a positive impact in Wesley Hill’s life. It shows that conservative evangelical churches can and do minister to struggling homosexual Christians.

I pray more churches would avail themselves of resources like this book and aim to think through what a full-fledged, Biblical perspective on homosexuality really means. I cannot recommend this book any more highly.

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

Pick up a copy of this book at Amazon.com or through Zondervan direct.

Book Excerpt — Singing the Songs of Jesus: Revisiting the Psalms by Michael LeFebvre

~ Bob Hayton

I’m reading through a new Christian Focus book entitled Singing the Songs of Jesus: Revisiting the Psalms by Michael LeFebvre. In this book, the author explains why singing the Psalms was so precious to saints through all ages, prior to the rise of the 18th century hymnwriting movement. LeFebre succeeds in making the Psalms come alive and in equipping the modern church with tools for recovering the use of the Psalms.

I wanted to offer an excerpt which has captivated me. LeFebvre describes the difference between singing to Christ, and singing with Christ. He avers that when Christians sing the Psalms, we are singing with Christ in a unique way.

You can learn more about the book at Christianfocus.com, and in the next couple weeks, I’ve heard this book will be showcased at their new Christian Focus Booknotes blog, too.

Without further ado, I provide an extended book excerpt. For more, you’ll have to get the book!

In the Gospels, Jesus often took the Psalms to his lips as his own praises. He sang Psalm 41 as his own song: ‘My close friend in whom I trusted…has lifted his heel against me’ (Ps. 41:9/John 13:18). He sang Psalm 118, not as a common experience of God’s people but as his own experience as our true king: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’ (Ps. 118:22/Matt. 21:42). Jesus identified himself as the anointed king in psalm 110: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand.”‘ (Ps. 110:1/Mark 12:36). In these and other examples, Jesus frequently showed himself to be the Son of David by taking the Psalms of David to his lips as his own songs (e.g., Matt. 27:46/Ps. 22:1; Luke 23:46/Ps. 31:5; John 2:17/Ps. 69:9).

In fact here is Jesus’ own explanation about his relationship to the Psalms of David:

As Jesus taught in the temple, he said, ‘How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’ David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son (Mark 12:35-37, quoting Ps. 110:1)?

Jesus says that David wrote Psalms for a descendant who would be greater than himself — the coming Christ. In the Holy Spirit, David understood that his songs would ultimately be taken up by the Christ.

Peter makes a similar point in his sermon at Pentecost. Peter preached from a string of Old Testament texts, including several Psalms (Pss. 16, 89, 110, 132)…. According to Peter, David wrote the Psalms ‘knowing’ that God had promised the Christ would come from his line. And he wrote Psalm 16 ‘foreseeing’ the resurrection of Christ. The Psalms were born out of the experiences of David and his heirs, but David wrote with awareness of the coming Son of David who would ultimately take the Psalms to his lips as our perfect king and songleader.

From the beginning, the Psalms were composed for Jesus — as his songs. No wonder the New Testament church never set the Psalmbook aside. They took up the Psalms in great delight, singing in them with Jesus.

Let me offer a word picture to anchor this principle. Imagine that a friend of yours has invited you to a concert. A famous choir is in town, and your friend bought two tickets. As you slip into your seats in the concert hall, a one hundred voice choir lines the platform before you. And the music begins. The singing is superb. It could not be better. It is such a pleasant evening, you and your friend decide to return the next week for another concert.

The next week, you return to the hall and find the same choir singing again. This time, however, a world famous tenor is going to be on the platform with them. As you sit in the audience listening, you are entranced by the beauty of the soloist’s voice, surrounded majestically by the hundred-voice choir behind him. Perhaps you will come again another time to hear more.

What is the difference between these to, imagined performances? In the first, the audience is listening to the voices of a hundred singers. The song is the choir’s song. In the second performance, however, the audience is listening to the voice of one singer accompanied by a hundred others. But it is the one singer in front who stands under the spotlight. His song is being performed, and the rest join him in singing it.

In Christian worship, God is the audience of our singing. Many congregations today see themselves as that hundred-person choir singing to God. They imagine that they stand as a mass of worshipers, singing their songs of faith to him. That is the expectation behind modern hymns and praise songs. Modern hymns do not say, for example, ‘What a friend I, Joseph Scriven, have in Jesus.’ Hymnwriters compose songs for the congregation to sing as their song to God, with the song’s original author and his experience disappearing from view.

This is where the Psalms are radically different. The Psalms are composed for a use like the second performance imagined above. Our divinely appointed leader, King Jesus, leads our praise. Jesus sings his own songs in his own words (composed prophetically for him). They are his praises of the Father which he calls us, as his subjects, to join him in singing. Rather than disappearing from view, we are supposed to sing in conscious identification with Jesus as our Psalm leader, and with his experience of the cross and resurrection before us.

[emphasis added, from pg. 51-54]

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

You can pick up a copy from Amazon.com, Monergism Books, or direct from Christian Focus.

Quotes to Note 25: Dorothy Sayers on the Necessity of Fundamental Christian Doctrine

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

I recently finished reading through Collected Writings on Scripture by D.A. Carson (compiled by Andrew Naselli; Crossway, 2010). The book includes not a few technical essays where Carson defends orthodox Christian doctrine on Scripture from innovative theological liberalism. In the conclusion to his essay, “Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: The Possibility of Systematic Theology”, Carson shares a lengthy quote from Dorothy Sayers that is pertinent to his defenses of orthodox doctrine. I intend to share the quote by Sayers here, as well as some of Carson’s remarks which follow it.

“The one thing I am here to say to you is this: that it is worse than useless for Christians to talk about the importance of Christian morality, unless they are prepared to take their stand upon the fundamentals of Christian theology. It is a lie to say that dogma does not matter; it matters enormously. It is fatal to let people suppose that Christianity is only a mode of feeling; it is virtually necessary to insist that it is first and foremost a rational explanation of the universe. It is hopeless to offer Christianity as a vaguely idealistic aspiration of a simple and consoling kind; it is, on the contrary, a hard, tough, exacting, and complex doctrine, steeped in a drastic and uncompromising realism. And it is fatal to imagine that everybody knows quite well what Christianity is and needs only a little encouragement to practice it. The brutal fact is that in this Christian country not one person in a hundred has the faintest notion about what the church teaches about God or man or society or the person of Jesus Christ.” (emphasis mine, quote from Dorothy L. Sayers, “Creed or Chaos?” in The Necessity of Systematic Theology, ed. Davis, 15-32)

So writes Dorothy Sayers, and I think she is basically right. This chapter has dealt with technical articles and critical judgments, but in the final analysis what is at stake is not some purely academic dispute, but what we preach. (D.A. Carson, Collected Writings on Scripture, pg. 148-149)

The wider American church needs to hear Sayers (and Carson) on this point. It does matter what you believe. The fundamentals of the faith are extremely important. All the warm-hearted feelings and emotion in the world, all the Christian morality and love for mankind, none of this means a hill of beans without clinging to the rock of Christian doctrine which has been revealed to us in Scripture.

In the next few weeks I’ll be sharing another quote or two from Carson’s work and then reviewing the book. I plan on giving away a copy too, so stay tuned!

New Sponsor: The Theological Research Exchange Network

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

The Theological Research Exchange NetworkThis being a thankful time of year and all, I wanted to express my appreciation to the Theological Research Exchange Network (TREN) for placing an advertisement on my site. I have heard of this service before and thought I’d make everyone aware of it.

TREN “is a library of over 10,000 theological thesis/dissertation titles representing research from as many as 70 different institutions”. Dissertations are available from over 125 institutions and conference papers are available from the following national conferences:

  • Evangelical Theological Society (1,129 papers)
  • American Society of Church History (150 papers)
  • Society for Pentecostal Studies (75 papers)
  • North American Patristic Society (20 papers)
  • American Catholic Historical Association (14 papers)

TREN now offers an edocs service where you can find, purchase and download dissertations online. Many papers are offered for free too.

If you are doing theological research, or even if you are just looking for an elusive dissertation to help with some particular study of yours, the Theological Research Exchange Network will definitely be worth looking into.

To check out TREN, and also to help ensure their continued sponsorship of Fundamentally Reformed, please click their advertisement at the top of my sidebar (or the logo above). Thanks!

Galatians 6:16 and “The Israel of God”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 16 Comments

The phrase “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 has long been a matter of contention. Scholars and theologians, as well as pastors and church leaders have debated whether or not the Church should be included in Paul’s descriptor “the Israel of God”. Dispensationalists in particular are very concerned that we not include the Church as part of “the Israel of God”. Obviously the interpretation of this verse has theological implications.

What I find interesting is how much trouble has been spent on this verse to avoid the Church (believing Gentiles and Jews) being referred to by the precise term “Israel”. Why should that term be more important than the following terms which all clearly teach that the Church shares much continuity with Old Testament, believing Israel?

Gentile Christians (who, in part make up “the Church”) are called:

  • those who share “the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”, and thus share in “the promise” (Rom. 4:16, with vs. 13)
  • Jews (Rom. 2:27-29, compare Rev. 2:9, 3:9)
  • “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29)
  • children of “the Jerusalem above” who is “our mother” (Gal. 4:26)
  • “like Isaac”, they are “children of promise” (Gal. 4:28)
  • formerly, Gentile Christians were “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise” now they are “no longer strangers and aliens” but are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:12,19)
  • “the real circumcision” (Phil. 3:3)
  • “the offspring of Abraham” for whom Christ died (Heb. 2:16)
  • recipients of the “new covenant” (Hebrews chapters 8 & 10, and 2 Cor. 3:6, compare Jer. 31:31-34)
  • “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion“, “elect exiles“, “sojourners and exiles” (James 1:1, 1 Pet. 1:1, 2:11)
  • “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9 compare Ex. 19:5-6)
  • formerly they were “not a people, but now” they “are God’s people“; formerly they “had not received mercy, but now” they “have received mercy” (1 Pet. 2:10 compare Hosea 1:6-10)
  • “a kingdom, priests to… God” (Rev. 1:6, compare 1 Pet. 2:9, Ex. 19:5-6)

This list doesn’t include the sacrifices Gentile Christians bring to God (Rom. 12:1-2, Heb. 12:15-16) nor the idea of the Church being a temple of God indwelt by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:20-22, 1 Pet. 2:4-5). Sure one or two of the terms in the list above might be open to dispute. But the cumulative result of all of the titles above seems to be undeniable — Gentile Christians share many titles and privileges with believing Israel of old.

Given this wider Scriptural context, should it be surprising that in Galatians, a book where Paul goes out of his way to affirm in no uncertain terms the equality all believers (Jew and Gentile) share in Christ, that he would call the Church, “the Israel of God”? Again consider Paul’s statements below:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (3:28-29)

For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (6:15)

Contextually in Galatians, Paul is arguing for the unity of believers in Christ, and the last part of chapter 6 is a summation of his argument. An unconditional blessing given to a Jewish “Israel of God” seems out of line with the rest of the book. Furthermore, “all who walk by this rule” (stated in vs. 15) seems to qualify the receivers of the “peace and mercy”.

I have read and reviewed O. Palmer Robertson’s book The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow and found his arguments concerning the verse quite compelling. Recently I came across 2 additional articles which deal well with this question.

G.K. Beale’s “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6:16b” (Biblica 80, [1999], pg. 204-223) is fantastic. He shows that Isaiah 54:10 is most likely alluded to in Paul’s very unusual linking of the terms peace and mercy. He demonstrates that the terms are not commonly found together and demonstrates convincingly that the “new creation” motif of Isaiah 54 is likely in Paul’s mind when he penned Galatians 6:16. His analysis sides with the view that “the Israel of God” refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles together (i.e., the Church).

Andreas Köstenberger around the same time as Beale, independently worked on an article entitled: “The Identity of ‘Ισραηλ  Ï„ου Θεου (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16″ (Faith & Mission 19/1 [2001], pg. 3-24). His article approaches the issue from a wider angle analyzing the passage syntactically and theologically. He concludes that the term refers to all the believing Church, whereas the “them” earlier in the verse is more specifically focused on believers at Galatia. He also shows how this verse harmonizes with Rom. 9-11 and Paul’s emphasis there.

The articles above (as well as the book mentioned previously) would be a good read for this topic. Michael Marlowe also includes some historic quotations from earlier commentators on this particular question, at bible-researcher.com.

I don’t think that the term “Israel of God” by itself settles the dispensationalist/covenant theology debate. But I would have to think some nuancing is required for strict dispensationalists. For more on the dispensational / covenant debate, I would also point you to my series “Understanding the Land Promise“.