Tag: traditional

“Perspectives on Israel and the Church: Four Views” edited by Chad O. Brand

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Perspectives on Israel and the Church: Four ViewsBook Details:
• Editor: Chad O. Brand
• Authors: Chad O. Brand, Tom Pratt Jr., Robert L. Reymond, Robert L. Saucy and Robert L. Thomas
• Publisher: B & H Academic (2015)
• Format: softcover
• Page Count: 317
• ISBN#: 9780805445268
• List Price: $29.99
• Rating: Highly Recommended

Blurbs:
“The issue of the relation of Israel and the Church is crucial in New Testament interpretation for soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. Perspectives on Israel and the Church affords scholarly, well-articulated accounts of how traditional covenantal, progressive covenantal, traditional dispensational, and progressive dispensational theologies address these crucial issues from their distinctive perspectives.”
—Steve W. Lemke, provost, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

“Arguably no greater hermeneutical issue faces us today in biblical theology than the relationship between Israel and the Church in accordance with the redemptive plan and promises of God. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a better understanding of all sides of this subject.”
—Terry L. Wilder, professor and Wesley Harrison Chair of New Testament, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Publisher’s Description:
The relationship between Israel and the Church is one of the most debated issues in the history of theology. Some hold the view that there is almost seamless continuity between Israel and the Church, while others believe there is very little continuity. Additional perspectives lie between these two. This debate has contributed to the formation of denominations and produced a variety of political views about the state of Israel.

To advance the conversation, Perspectives on Israel and the Church brings together respected theologians representing four positions:

  • the Traditional covenantal view by Robert L. Reymond
  • the Traditional dispensational view by Robert L. Thomas
  • the Progressive dispensational view by Robert L. Saucy
  • the Progressive covenantal view by Chad Brand and Tom Pratt Jr.

Overview:
Perhaps there is no issue which more clearly divides conservative Evangelicals, than the question of the relationship between Israel and the Church. Subsumed beneath that overriding concern are the intramural debates over soteriology (Calvinism, Arminianism or “neither”), eschatology (premillennial or amillennial and pre-trib or post-trib), and ecclesiology (paedobaptism or credobaptism). These questions are not minor. The baptism question divides the Protestant church into denominations. The millennial question bars the entry into parachurch organizations, mission boards and educational institutions. Yet most agree that people from all perspectives on this issue take the Bible seriously: this is a Christian debate, separating fellow believers.

In the last hundred years, the larger question over Israel and the Church has turned from a covenant theology vs. dispensationalism debate into a more nuanced and many-sided affair. Dispensationalism has matured, and progressive dispensationalism presents a new understanding of the question which is both true to its dispensational roots and yet distinct at the same time. And in recent years, new covenant theology has arisen and is often referred to by the term “progressive covenantalism.” This refinement and change is not a bad thing. As the views have interacted with each other, people have tried to modify and clarify their understanding of Scripture. Such has been the history of the Church down through the ages. And while some look at the newer positions as an abandonment of principles, others may see a hopeful realignment that results in a greater unity across all the positions. Indeed it seems that progressive dispensationalism has become a primary view in the academy that is viewed with mutual respect by covenantal views.

A new book from Broadman and Holman offers a restatement of the four dominant positions today, and includes an interaction between them. Perspectives on Israel and the Church: 4 Views brings together three of the most proficient authors for their positions, along with a team of authors for the newer progressive covenantal view. This book presents the debate in a calm and safe environment and allows some of the foremost representatives of the positions to advocate their approach.

Covenantal Theology:
Robert L. Reymond’s chapter on covenantal theology is sharp and clear. He makes a point that modern softenings of dispensationalism still remain somewhat unclear as to the nature of saving faith for Old Testament saints. Throughout his chapter and in his responses, he does a great job unpacking his view and addressing the important points in other positions. He sees both progressive dispensationalism, and progressive covenantalism (as presented in this book) as still too close to dispensationalism and its pre-tribulational, pre-millennial position. His is a strictly amillennial position that sees Revelation as a cyclical book with the millennium being another description of the church age. He does not stress too much the three covenants of classic covenantal theology (coventant of grace, of redemption, and of works), instead he focuses more on the biblical covenants in an approach similar to that of O. Palmer Robertson. He also does not shy away from the term “replacement theology” but proudly uses that description of his position (p. 49).

Traditional Dispensationalism:
Robert L. Thomas’s chapter on traditional dispensationalism presents the dispensationalism I learned with clarity. This is Ryrie’s position which has sometimes been described as “modified” as opposed to “classical.” Thomas doesn’t agree necessarily with the “modified” descriptor, however. Thomas explains that the kingdom was offered and then rejected in Christ’s ministry, and presents a case against taking the NT use of the OT as a guide for how we should interpret Scripture. He also emphasizes how the OT promises are not cancelled by the NT. In his treatment of the land promise, however, he doesn’t deal with the conditionality in the OT associated with it (for instance Deuteronomy’s exhortations to faithfulness so that they would inherit the land, and even how passages like Ps. 37:9, 11 should be understood). He also doesn’t address Rom. 4:13 and how the “land” is expanded to the “world.” He makes a big deal too about no clear-cut use of the term “Israel” for the Church (although so many other Jewish terms and descriptions are used for the Church).

Of note is Thomas’s interaction with Saucy’s chapter on progressive dispensationalism. He takes issue with Saucy’s allowance for the NT use of the OT to shape his understanding of the OT passages. Thomas notes:

By allowing NT passages to provide meaning for the OT, one is doing the same as other nondispensational systems… Saucy’s statement, “proper interpretation begins with the Old Testament,” should be refined to read, “proper interpretation of the Old Testament begins and ends with the Old Testament before going to the New Testament.” (p. 218)

He also is not happy with Saucy’s refusal to defend a pre-tribulational rapture.

Progressive Dispensationalism:
Robert Saucy does a good job explaining progressive dispensationalism. Many reared in traditional dispensationalism, like me, have later rejected that system and now find themselves leaning toward covenant theology but without a good understanding of later developments in dispensationalism. This chapter offers a helpful explanation for those unfamiliar with this position.

Saucy painstakingly lays down hermeneutical principles undergirding his position. He ultimately agrees with an “already, not yet” approach to prophecy but emphasizes the “partial” nature of many of the begun-to-be fulfilled prophecies. Salvation is not just provided through Israel and her Messiah, it is “channeled through” Israel:

From Isaac, the descendants of Abraham are traced by physical descent through Jacob and his sons until the Seed, Jesus Christ, appears and the Gentiles are included in him. It is therefore impossible to ignore this physical dimension and identify Abraham’s seed merely as anyone of faith…. Thus, on the basis of the promise to Abraham, Israel is an ethnic people who constitute a nation among nations that bears a unique relationship to God — a nation created by God in fulfillment of his salvation promise. (p. 166-167)

So even though salvation extends to the Gentiles, they are not “spiritual Jews” or “conceived as part of Israel” (p. 184). Eph. 2 does not speak to Gentiles joining Israel in the covenant people of God. Instead both are part of a new humanity, but each are still distinct (p. 191). He again emphasizes that the Church is never called Israel (yet it is called the “real circumcision”…). So there is a unity in the people of God now as both Israel and the Church are together the “eschatological people of God” (p. 190). Yet, there is still a role for political Israel to play in a future millennium to totally fulfill historic promises. Saucy’s conclusion explains it best:

Rather than detracting from the spiritual unity of God’s saving program present in the church, the fulfillment of Israel’s role as a particular nation, in which God is yet to display his glory, will expand the present spiritual salvation to bring about that holistic salvation of individual and society promised by the prophets, in which all people are united in their diversity as the one people of God. (p. 208)

Progressive Covenantalism:
Chad Brand and Tom Pratt, in their chapter on progressive covenantalism intriguingly point to the debate over the new perspective on Paul as a way forward in this debate. There is a debate over whether personal salvation was primarily in view in Romans or the wider work of God for the people Israel and indeed all of creation. The answer is yes: both are in view. And that is how they approach the question of Israel vs. the Gentile church. There is a corporate and personal element in this question. Who are the people of God and what are their place in salvation history? “Israel” and the “Church” are terms separating out a “dichotomy” where there really seems to be a unity, a oneness to the people of God throughout the Old and New Testaments (p. 233-237). Supporting points for this include:

  1. The oneness of God demands one people.
  2. The people of God are his by divine election and spiritual birth.
  3. The people of God arise from the supporting root of historic Israel.
  4. The marker of the people is the internal presence of the Holy Spirit.
  5. The people of God are the body of Christ.

This approach avoids the rigid “replacement theology” that is directly advocated by Reymond. Instead it interprets the true people of God through all ages as representative of true believers today. This presentation actually struck me as less directly baptistic than the new covenant theology position of Stephen Wellum and Peter Gentry presented in Kingdom through Covenant (Crossway, 2012). (The authors of this volume mention that Wellum and Gentry’s work was released after their book was all but finished, yet they are in substantial agreement with that position, see p. 12.) Emphasizing the experience of the Spirit in the true people of God has the drawback of downplaying the church ordinance of baptism, which seems odd since new covenant theology typically corrects covenant theology on the very question of baptism.

Brand and Pratt go out of their way to renounce a “replacement theology” position:

…we conclude that the idea of “replacement” of Israel by “the church” with a resultant “church age” is not only a misnomer but a misreading of the history of salvation as well. Richard Bauckham remarks, in commenting on Rev 7:4, that the picture there presented “indicates not so much the replacement of the national people of God as the abolition of its national limits.” In Goldswothy’s characterization, it is the glorious result of the mission to the Gentiles carried out by the saved remnant of ethnic Israelites. Therefore, the current stage is more adequately denominated the age of transformation or new creation, for “in Messiah” nothing matters but “new creation” (Gal 6:15), which for Paul and others has already begun, though it has not yet been consummated. (p. 257)

Brand and Pratt go on to explore how the NT really does refer to the church as “Israel” (or by terms referring to Israel). In this section I was intrigued by their explanation of how Luke in Acts doesn’t use the term “church” for the new people of God until after Stephen first roots the term’s meaning in the OT assembly of God’s people. They then conclude with an explanation of their post-tribulational, premillennial view. They concede that reading Revelation in a roughly chronological order is not necessary to their conclusion (premillennialism), but they don’t seem to go out of their way to allow for variations of progressive covenantalism that are not premillennial. Perhaps they are at pains to keep their position tenable for institutions that require premillennialism, I cannot say; but I found their advocacy of premillennialism confusing and contradictory. Kingdom through Covenant‘s presentation of progressive covenantalism lacked any premillennial hints, and also majored on the land promise (and Israel’s identity herself) as typological in nature, and that was extremely persuasive. So the progressive covenantalism offered in this book seems a step lower than what Wellum and Gentry offer. The position as a whole is still young, and this book will certainly help those trying to understand that position.

Recommendation:
I highly recommend this book for those seeking to sort out their own position on how the Old and New Testaments should be read in light of each other. Even if you have “landed” on one perspective in this debate, this book will both challenge and sharpen you. With the possible exception of the progressive covenantal view, the book presents a top-notch explanation for each of the major views. The arguments are well-reasoned, and Scriptural discussion abounds. Footnotes point the way to further reading on important questions, and the end result is a useful and accessible manual on the nature of this debate at present. The book will reward careful study and offer help to some who are confused. It was a joy to work my way through it and I trust it will benefit both student and teacher alike.

About the Authors:
Chad O. Brand has served as a pastor and has taught theology and church history for more than twenty years at three Baptist colleges and seminaries.

Tom Pratt Jr. is president of Eagle Rock Ministries and is a Bible teacher, preacher, and freelance writer.

Robert L. Reymond (1932-2013) was professor of Theology emeritus at Knox Theological Seminary.

Robert L. Saucy is distinguished professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University.

Robert L. Thomas is professor of New Testament emeritus at The Masters Seminary.

Where to Buy:
• Amazon
• ChristianBook.com
• direct from B & H Academic

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by B & H Academic. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

Clarifying My Thoughts on Music

~ Bob Hayton

My most recent post on music has a provocative title: “Superior Affections Yet a Christ-less Conception of Worship.” And someone over at Sharper Iron sought clarification (in the comment thread here) as to whether I was really implying that a traditional stance on music is inherently legalistic.

I wanted to share my clarification here for my readers’ benefit.

Clarification

I quoted Bixby for the “Christ-less” remark in my post. I do think discussing the music issue and having ordinate affections and all, would be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole. The criticism is valid that often there is not much thought given to where we are with music and worship.

That being said, there is a danger to have such an emphasis on form that it obscures the gospel. I do think that is a danger as well.

Berating people and badgering people into having a certain music style is not healthy. Bixby was saying as much. Is RAM doing that, or some RAM type people? I am not sure. But that is not healthy if/when it occurs.

Additionally, having pride in our worship or thinking we are superior because of it would be a gospel problem. Legalism is in the heart so this is a danger that can exist. Maligning others and impugning them with ill motives, which is how the public statements often sound from RAM / traditional music emphasizing fundamentalists when they speak of those who use the other music. It goes back to Chuck Phelps’ letter and the anonymous hit piece on NIU that RAM posted. Those are examples of judging motives and assuming the worst of those who utilize contemporary styled music in worship.

To quote from my post which was referring to Bixby’s:

If you have preferred traditional music, his post will help you examine your own heart. It will also show how this stance toward the worship wars can so easily turn into a pharisaicalism that looks down on others and in turn, becomes an empty shell of externally focused religion.

The point is that one can have what is considered “superior affections” and yet have a Christ-less conception of worship – a legalistic attitude. I am not claiming that RAM has this. I think Bixby brings out some good points and may overstate his case some, but in my experience it is usually the followers who take what someone says and run with it to an extreme. So I bet there are real examples behind the excesses Bixby chronicles and denounces in his post.

Hopefully that explains things. Discussing the role of affections and the role of music can be a healthy thing for the evangelical church. Often people just assume and do, rather than carefully consider. The careful considering I have done on the issue has made me a better worshiper and I think a greater influence in evangelicalism by fundamentalists in general – on lots of things, would be a good thing.

Then some follow up questions were asked and I thought I’d share my response to those here as well. I don’t want to be misunderstood and this is an important conversation – even if it is difficult not to talk past one another and be misunderstood in our zeal for our particular musical position.

Are you saying that if you have a “standard” for worship action (never mind whose for a minute), you are maintaining a “legalistic” and “Christ-less” concept of worship? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but it seems like that’s where you are going.

I am not saying a “standard” makes one legalistic. A standard can be so exalted and gloried in that we rejoice that we aren’t like the publican who doesn’t adopt our standard. That is when it becomes legalistic. How one lifts up and rallies around and promotes the said standard can go a long way to promoting or encouraging the legalistic response to it. But just having a standard or drawing a line at some point, doesn’t mean that legalism will be the inevitable result.

However, wouldn’t you have to say, whether you have thought through it or not, that you have some “standard” of worship, even among those who are trying to have Christian worship; where in your conscience you say “this can be used to bring honor to God”, or “this doesn’t honor the Lord”, or “it doesn’t do anything for me” or however you want to say it.

Yes there is a standard, I would think, at our church. The line isn’t extremely clear but pastoral direction would be given and has been given in shaping the musical philosophy at our church and others I’ve been to in the past.

How do you think a less conservative standard of worship affects the unsaved? Those who have been saved out of a background of extreme love of the world and sin?

Our worship isn’t about the unsaved. I hope they would encounter a reverence and exultation in Jesus when they see our worship however. As for those saved out of a background of “extreme” love of the world and sin? Our worship is so different from what they are used to when it comes to sensual lyrics, sensual musical performance, stage lights, etc., that I don’t think there is a strong enough correlation in their mind.

Today, if you go to the dentist, go to a shopping mall, eat at Wendys, attend a ball game, go to a bowling alley, pop music and a syncopated beat is everywhere. It is the air we breathe. And for that reason, I contend, that it has become just a normal part of the culture. Heavily sensual beat, gyrating dance, intense and very loud music – that is part of the club scene and has characteristics quite different from what you hear in the doctor’s waiting room.

All of that means is that the average Joe who comes to hear our syncopated worship songs, won’t think anything inherently strange or sinful is happening. It is the music expression he is used to – his language. The lyrics and God-ward direction from the worship leader(s) will be what is new, and powerful, and attractive. And he’ll also encounter older hymns, and choral pieces that are different to his average experience that also communicate the depth of church history and the grandeur of worshiping a holy God.

What if someone in your worship team wants to perform secular music in secular venues as well?

Certain kinds of secular music don’t necessarily have to be seen as immoral. But it would depend on the type, the context, etc. It hasn’t come up in churches I’m aware of, or a part of. But consideration would be given for sure. Do we have to have a rule book which says you can’t do X, Y and Z outside of Sunday’s serivce and Saturday’s practice times, in order to be a faithful church? How about we disciple people and respond in biblical wisdom to situations as they arise?

Feel free to jump into the conversation in the comments below, or over at Sharper Iron.

Superior Affections Yet a Christ-less Conception of Worship

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

There are a variety of reasons for the “worship wars,” as they are called. And for fundamentalist Christians, most of the arguments center on the worldliness or immorality of the very musical instrumentation itself — the contemporary, beat-driven sound that makes up CCM. Growing up, I was trained to recognize a strong beat in musical accompaniment and to envision that anyone singing to such music was worldly. As I started thinking through the subject in more detail, I wanted to find a Biblical argument for my stance against pop musical styles. And Frank Garlock and David Cloud had to suffice. Even then, I could see the arguments were quite weak, so most of the rationale had to depend on an analysis of the psychological affect of rock music on people and of all things, potted plants. Yes, plants!

Well, after I walked away from strict fundamentalism and re-evaluated my position on cultural matters in light of an open-minded examination of the Bible, I came to embrace contemporary worship and I was then able to really enjoy worshiping God in music to a whole new degree. I encountered deep, Christ-exalting lyrics (more meaningful to me than some of the shallow and almost trite hymns we sang growing up). And the music resonated with me – it moved me. It was like speaking in the language of my own culture — which I had been trained to deny and put down, but that really was a part of who I was. I was able to express myself in worship, to lift up my soul and exult in new, powerful ways. And I have since come to really appreciate the contemporary worship song for all its worth.

Don’t get me wrong. I still value the old hymns, and I value traditional music as well. I sing in choirs and enjoy harmony and special numbers. I also don’t enjoy any new song, indiscriminately. There is a lot of shallow music without much doctrinal depth out there, for sure. But there are some great songs which bridge the gap between traditional and contemporary. I have written, years ago now, on the Modern Hymn movement. UPDATE: USA Today just did a piece on the Gettys who I also feature in the article linked above. And I still enjoy a balanced worship approach that seeks to unite styles and generations, as well as ethnic affinities, together into a blended, unified, corporate celebration of worship. And I appreciate John Piper’s emphasis on gravity alongside our gladness in worship too.

Now, to the point of my post, after having come to where I am now on worship, I became aware of a newer position on music in fundamentalism. This position eschewed some of the more Gospel-ish hymns, and didn’t take to the sentimental songs that were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They took to more doctrinal-centered, high sounding hymns. And they also stressed “religious affections” — an approach which majored on appropriate feeling in worship, and stressed that God desired the best aesthetics in music. I didn’t get sucked into that movement, although it did seem appealing and intellectual. But it didn’t sit well, especially when it was not Scripture that was judging between various music forms but research and supposed universal aesthetic principles.

I say this to encourage anyone who is following me here, to go read Bob Bixby’s recent post pointing out some grave errors in this “religious affections” approach to music. This approach stresses that there is a right way of feeling, and that how you sing and what you sing in church, reveals if you are having right feelings toward God. It sounds right, but it isn’t. Of this movement, Bixby notes:

They’re separatists by condescension. They don’t practice separation; they practice superiority. And that separates them….

Theirs is a Christ-less conception of worship. It’s Gospel-free. It’s enraptured by form. It’s old-school fundamentalism. And it has little to do with the religious affections that Jonathan Edwards wrote about.

Bixby’s piece is worth reading if you have ever tended toward frowning on contemporary worship styles. If you have preferred traditional music, his post will help you examine your own heart. It will also show how this stance toward the worship wars can so easily turn into a pharisaicalism that looks down on others and in turn, becomes an empty shell of externally focused religion.

I have to quote one more bit from Bixby’s post before encouraging you to read the whole thing.

Consider the God-ward, God-glorifying form of the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. “I thank thee God that I am not like that poor Chris Tomlin singer over there who shuts his eyes and lifts up his hands with the pitiful, artless, crude hip-swaying style of corrupted orthopathy.” Ah, yes! The feelings of thankfulness were genuine in the Pharisee. He had, in fact, religious affections of sincere gratitude that God — indeed, he credited God! — had not made him as that poor loser in the corner, crying out to God with bad poise, seemingly unconscious of God’s glorious transcendence and preference for hymns. No one had more concern about form worthy of God than the Pharisee. No one.

Now if you really want more after reading Bixby, you could try to wade through this old post in my archives, with its 50 plus pages of debate on the subject of the morality of music! But you probably have better things to do!

Jack the Ripper and the King James Bible

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

What does Jack the Ripper have to do with the King James Bible? Well, apparently he represents judgment on those of us who abandoned that old faithful translation of generations past. In 1881 the Revised Version came out and met with widespread approval. So seven years later, in 1888, 5 women faced a gruesome death at the heads of a maniac dubbed Jack the Ripper. Who’d have known this was retribution for abandoning the King James Bible?

Here’s the comment we received at the KJV Only? debate blog yesterday which alleges this very thing, that Jack the Ripper was judgment on Britain for abandoning the King James Bible.

I would think 1881 is a good year to note as a line of demarcation of overlap and underlap of the Church of the Laodiceans and the Church in Philadelphia because after all, that is when the Laodiceans started to accept the old/new Bible which after 7 years were rewarded for their deeds by being visited by Jack the Ripper (by their fruits ye shall know them). The Philadelphian Church Age will continue as long as the Rapture because there are going to be those who stand for the faith once delivered to the saints until that time. Revelation 3 says (well at least it does in my Bible) …

Re 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Now of course, the 2001 ESV is to blame for America’s tragic terror incident of 911. But we could turn the tables on the KJB. In 1607 the translation work for the KJB was being done in earnest. That’s also the year that the England’s Bristol Channel flooded, killing over 2,000 people. (That’s a lot more than 5.) Then around the time the King James Bible was finally gaining or surpassing the place of the Geneva Bible as the most used English Bible, there was the Great Plague of London which killed over 100,000 people (1665-1666). Surely that was judgment on England for abandoning the old Geneva Bible.

This comment illustrates that sometimes, people will see connections where they want to see them. It’s hard reasoning with this mentality. For those on either side of the KJB debate, let us work toward a careful and calm interaction, not a conspiracy theory-driven mentality that frankly doesn’t edify anyone.

**Illustration by Henrik Rehr, taken from the Danish comic Slim nr. 7 (Slime no. 7), used by permission.

–cross posted at the King James Only? debate blog

Why I’m Leery of the Manhattan Declaration

~ Bob Hayton ~ 11 Comments

Someone recently asked me what I thought of the Manhattan Declaration. For those who don’t know, the declaration I’m referring to links Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants together under the banner “Christian” to stand for life and traditional marriage in our culture. It’s an attempt to stick together as Christians in our opposition to these increasingly abandoned values in our culture.

Here is my response. I understand good Christian leaders to be with me against the declaration, and others have signed it in their desire to stand for life and for transforming the culture. I haven’t really read the arguments or taken a side necessarily. But here is my perspective.

I can appreciate it for what it is, but 2 things keep me from signing.

1) It seems to single out a prizing of life and heterosexual marriage as being what Christianity is all about. I don’t think it is the role of the Church specifically to be legislating morality, as that doesn’t work due to fallen human nature. Instead we need to proclaim the gracious gospel of Christ.

2) It joins hands with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in what could easily blur the distinctions between them and traditional Protestants. Again the gospel of salvation by grace through faith is what differentiates us from these other groups who claim the name Christian. That is an important difference that shouldn’t be obscured.

Still, I don’t think the declaration necessarily requires understanding it this way. It is just a declaration in one sense, so I can understand those who sign it. But the need of our country isn’t a united defense and legislative protection of marriage and preborn children, it needs the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is not to say that life is a small cause that we shouldn’t fight for. It is to say that heterosexual only marriage (in my view), isn’t such an important cause.

For more on what I’m getting at in point 1 above, check out my post: America — A Pagan Nation? My pal Jason Skipper over at Fundamentally Changed agrees with my assessment that this declaration represents a compromise with the gospel.

But what do you think? Why or why not do you support this declaration?