www.mybethelbaptist.com

Picking up the book again. I have learned much about Liberal interpretation of scripture and their theology. Cannot say I am impressed necessarily. It is clear now that the author of the book holds to the view known as “Consecration” meaning that the author believes that gay and lesbian people should be welcomed and affirmed into the churches. His argument at one point is that, since they are baptized into the covenant body, they are now children of God as the rest of us. The author contends that churches should consecrate gay and lesbian partnerships in order to declare their legitimacy and acceptance. One caveat though, the Consecrationist position determines that these relationships are to be orderd correctly, meaning that they are to be monogamous. Gay couples are to be joined together by the church for life, according to the book. William Stacy Johnson sees this move as a way forward to lead the church into legitimizing same sex unions. As long as the relationship is ordered, it is legitimate whether straight or gay, according to the author.

The author seems to rely heavily on his concept of who God is and the nature of the gospel/Christ in order to arrive at his conclusions. By immediately pulling down the traditional interpretations of those passages that conservatives use to defend heterosexuality only, the author then focuses on his understanding of what God is like. The Liberal understanding of God is much different than anything else. To the Moderate Christian, God is a warm, fuzzy deity. And because he is a warm, fuzzy deity, he has graciously entered into a covenant with people as a random act of kindness. Before, God was dealing only with Israel as his covenant people. But now of course the gentiles have been grafted into the new covenant. God accepted the Gentiles “warts and all.” And because God has accepted the Gentiles with all their pagan ways, therefore that tells us that God is accepting towards us no matter what we are like. But there is something that appears to be overlooked.

For one thing, it is not as if God just accepts people and leaves them alone. True, God graciously saved me while I was still a sinner. True, I am still a sinner saved by grace alone. But there is a biblical model of human sexuality that is to be followed. For the Moderate, that model appears to be whatever they think it is as long as it is “ordered” and faithful. In other words, God doesnt mind it if homosexuals are united together in some ceremony performed by the church as long as the couple are comitted to remaining faithful to one another. In fact, in the author’s words, we are driving gay and lesbian people away from Christ and the gospel by not consecrating their union (97). He argues that since marriage is a means of grace, therefore by prohibiting same sex relationships, the church denies salvation to homosexual partners. And since the church has the “keys of heaven” therefore the church is free to sanction these same-sex unions and ought to.

No Comments »

William Stacy Johnson’s book A Time To Embrace: Same-Gender Relationships in Religion, Law, and Politics has finally said something good and helpful. On page 72, I found some helpful criticism from the debate. The author says, “To single out one group of people for special scrutiny that is based on sexual identity alone is unfair.” Then on page 74 he writes, “The church zeroes in on gays and lesbians while shrugging its shoulders at so many other issues.” He then gives the example of the pet sin of gluttony. Many pastors and churches are guilty of this unfair targeting and singling out of homosexuality while overlooking other sins. For example, if I make jokes about heading to the buffet after church, people will probably chuckle. But if I were to make a joke about racism or spousal abuse, no one would think that were funny. That is an inconsistency that we have adopted here in the land of plenty. Gluttony is still sinful and not funny.

That constructive point aside, the rest of the book thus far leaves much to be desired. On page 71, Dr. Johnson calls churches that will welcome but not affirm homosexuality, “self-contradicting and cruel.” Then he says, “To be non-affirming (of gays and lesbians) is to be unwelcoming.” He then uses Jesus as an example who was welcoming to many societal outcasts.

Two thoughts: On one level he is right. But on another level, he is wrong. He is wrong to assume that Jesus was sort of ethically indifferent to marriage and sexuality. All we have to do is read Mark 10 to learn about Jesus’ thoughts about marriage and sexuality, “From the beginning God made them male and female.” Likewise, in Matthew 5:27-32, Jesus has something to say about adultery and marriage. If we accept what Jesus said in John 8 as being canonical, then we have to accept that Jesus told the woman who was caught in adultery, “go and sin no more.”

On another level, Dr. Johnson is being consistent with what he believes and what most Mainline denominational churches believe. That is, that churches should accept gay and lesbian people into their membership. If the modern form of homosexuality is not condemned by God, then they should be accepted into full membership and should not be discriminated against. But the author’s complaint is that many of these welcoming churches are not affirming. In other words, they accept gay and lesbian people as members, but they will not appoint them to positions of leadership within the church. I agree with Johnson that if you are willing to accept practising homosexuals into membership of your church, you ought to be willing to ordain them if they meet the criteria (whatever that might be). It is inconsistent for churches to accept them as members and to refuse to ordain them if they meet the other criteria.

William Stacy Johnson sees the churches that will not welcome and affirm gay and lesbians into a fully integrated membership as being inconsistent with the gospel message. Which is why I am reading the book in the first place. It is to understand where Liberalism is wrong and therefore having this conversation. It has to do with their understanding of the gospel message. On page 72, the author states clearly his understanding of the gospel and that is, “The God who is with us in Jesus Christ invites us, by the work of the Spirit to be for and with one another.” That is the Liberal version of the gospel. To join God to be for one another (universal brotherhood of man). In other words, because Liberalism has another gospel, which is a false gospel, that is why they want to welcome and affirm homosexuality and promote the ordination of practising homosexuals. When the gospel leaves, the Spirit leaves. When a foundation is not built on the gospel, it is built on something less than and inferior to the gospel. That foundation cannot remain.

No Comments »

More from Dr. Johnson’s book, A Time to Embrace: I seldom find myself reading these types of books. But I have found this book very helpful to understand the thinking and rationale of modern Liberal theology. There is the appearance of legitimate concern for biblical exposition. But at the end of the day, it seems that their concern is only for appearance sake. Dr. Johnson has an agenda. His agenda is clearly stated on page 69 where he assesses and evaluates the “Accommodation” position on the issue of homosexuality within the church. The author rejects the Accommodation Position in that it does not go far enough. He says that since, “accommodation offers something less than full acceptance…I believe it is inadequate and wrong.” I am glad that he is honest.

Furthermore, in discussing the “Toleration position” that simply tolerates homosexuals within the church, but would not seek their ordination, he uses very loaded words like, “regime” and “half-hearted toleration” (59).  These types of words indicate his stance and position which presumably is full integration and complete acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle into the Christian church. Presumably he holds to his convictions based on the idea that modern homosexual practice is not labelled as “sinful” in scripture. All the passages that we presume to address homosexuality in fact do not address our modern notion of homosexuality, according to William Johnson.  

Another tip to the author’s agenda is his use of John 8:3-7. This story involves the case of the adulterous woman who was brought before Jesus by the Pharisees. The Pharisees wanted the woman to be stoned to death. But Jesus did not condemn the woman. The passage is of course disputed since some early manuscripts do not include it, but the author uses it to prove a point. His point is that all of us have sinned and therefore cannot and should not judge. But he fails to mention verse 11 where Jesus tells the woman to go and sin no more. Again, the text is disputed as to whether it is genuine, but if it is, we should read the whole text.

Chapter 2 will follow later but it looks like a good one. The title is “Toward a Welcoming, Affirming Church” with a quote by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury who is welcoming and affirming towards homosexuality. By way of reminder, I myself am not out to attack anyone personally. I believe that the scripture teaches that homosexuality (modern or pre-modern) is sinful. I am not necessarily out to attack homosexuality in and of itself. I do that in Bible exposition. And for most there is really no need to attack homosexuality anymore than we attack adultery, gluttony, lying, stealing, disobedience to parents, etc. What concerns me the most are actually churches and denominations that state that homosexual practice is incompatible with scriptural teaching and yet will not enforce their stance by dis-fellowship. Of course I am referring to the ABC-USA and others who maintain fellowship with churches who not only are part of other denominations such as the Welcoming and Affirming Baptist Association, but also actually ordain practising homosexuals to the office of pastor or elder. That is an inconsistency on the part of the denomination and is ignored by the indifferent churches that will not push the issue because of a desire to remain together and do good.

http://www.abc-usa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=iRGq66AgLAU=&tabid=102

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23275

http://www.baptistpress.net/bpnews.asp?ID=21649

http://www.abc-indiana.org/background%20information%20homosexuality.htm

No Comments »

William Stacy Johnson’s book A Time to Embrace proves to be a fascinating introduction into the world of “gay theology.” Not to suggest that the author is homosexual, but that he argues in favor of homosexual interpretations of scripture. He begins his address on Religion, as it relates to homosexuality, by seeking to set the context within a three-fold dimension. The three dimensions are: Creation, Reconciliation, and Redemption. The three-fold division allows the author to set the context for a Christian understanding of the issue of creating a proper understanding of homosexuality and Christianity. These three categories are used for each of the seven “big ideas” or schools of interpretation. The seven schools are: Prohibition (does not approve of and would bar same-gender unions), toleration, accomodation, legitimation, celebration, liberation, consecration. Each “school” (school is my word to describe these categories of people) has a different take on the homosexual question. Thus the author seeks to explain each “schools” understanding of Christianity by defining their definition of Creation, Reconciliation, and Redemption. A nice way to categorize things. The author then gives his critique of the “School” and shows where it fails, with the exception of his own school, which in his own mind of course is the correct one.

Under the first school, Prohibition, the author lists a few biblical texts that are used by the school to determine their understanding of why they believe what they believe. Mr. Johnson lists the stories of Sodom and Gibeah (Genesis 18-19; Judges 19) and how the prohibition camp uses these verses to support their notion that God hates homosexuality. Johnson asks, “One must ask whether the propsed behavior in question is morally reprehensible because of its same gender character or because it is violently abusive” (45). This technique is simply a wedge. It divides the text into two possible interpretations. It is either a) God’s hatred towards same-sex relations or b) God’s hatred towards sex that is violently abusive. Mr. Johnson also lists Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10 as proof texts used by the prohibitionist camp to demonstrate God’s displeasure with homosexuality. He then promises to deal with these texts at a later point.

If his comments on the Sodom-Gibeah stories are any reflection of what he has to say later, we may be in for a real tour de force from the liberal and homosexual interpretation of scripture. But I see problems already. I am no theologian in any real sense of the word nor do I hold a chair at any University, not even a community college. The first problem with Mr. Johnson’s analysis is that he is creating an “either/or” scenario, which is a possible way to get at the correct interpretation. However, his theological axioms are very apparent. By creating an either/or situation, one can overlook the possibility that there could be a “both/and” in that the issue for Sodom and Gibeah is that the people were both violently abusive and same-sex oriented. That is, both acts are wrong which is why God judged these cities. More can be said about this later when I read his comments on the passage that he promised.

Futhermore, my suspicion was aroused when he cited that passage in Ezekiel 16:49 (p.49) in that the sin of Sodom “is said to be a lack of concern for the poor.” Now this is poor hermeneutics. To take a passage out of its context and apply it to something that happened nearly 1300 years prior is poor interpretation. Abraham lived roughly 1955-1780 BC. Ezekiel prophesied between about 590-570BC. It is highly improbable that what Ezekiel declared regarding Sodom had anything to do with what we read about in the Genesis narrative. Sodom of course by Ezekiel’s time was much different, perhaps even a different city than the one that God destroyed during the days of Abraham and Lot. Apparently, Sodom (the city described in Ezekiel) was very prosperous having an excess of food and ease. During his denunciation of Israel, Ezekiel began to denounce Israel’s idolatry, false prophets, and wicked elders. In chapter 16, the Lord calls Israel a faithless bride. He even goes so far as to call Israel a “prostitute” in verse 35. The point is, is that when God destroyed Sodom in Genesis18-19, Israel was still in the loins of Abraham. In Ezekiel’s prophecy, Israel was in exile under the Babylonian captivity of Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 1:1-3). Also, in Ezekiel 16 Sodom is paired with Samaria which would have been unknown in Genesis 16-18. So it appears that the Sodom of Ezekiel 16 is a different town than the one in Genesis. All that to say that it seems that Mr. Johnson has something up his sleeve in terms of his “proof texting.”

No Comments »

The USA Today has recently published an article dealing with the turmoil ongoing in the Church of England (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/07/68494513/1). The article is very interesting in that it really tells us alot about American “Christianity.” It appears that the Church of England is trying to hold it’s body together while allowing for differences over the issue of allowing practising homosexuals to positions of bishop. The Episcopal church (American Church of England) has decided to move forward without waiting for the rest of the world. The Episcopal Church has already made a splash by allowing Gene Robinson to become a bishop in New Hampshire, though he is a practising homosexual. While the Church of England and the worldwide body of Anglicans protest the Episcopal Church in America’s action, little can be done to avoid a head-on collision of world views. The Episcopal Church has made up its mind and is moving forward on the issue of allowing for and endorsing the ordination of practising homosexuals to the office of Bishop.

Biblically, I cannot support the idea of ordaining someone to ministry that does not meet the qualifications. Biblically, the practise of homosexual activity is incompatible with Scripture. However, the Episcopal Church has done away with that idea long ago. Strategically however, this is a bad move. What the church has done is sent away any conservative constituency it may have possessed. All the conservative members will now begin to jump ship. Here the words of one of their own:

“I am afraid we are becoming a church of a fundamentalist left,” said the Rev. Kate Moorehead of St. James Episcopal Church in Wichita, Kan. “I want to bless unions within my church, but in our great urge to include all people and not offend anyone, we have neglected to take adequate time to instruct and reflect with our conservative brothers and sisters.” http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-episcopal-church11-2009jul11,0,3371251.story

As I read through William Stacy Johnson’s book on the issue and reflect on the arguments, I have to say that this is a problem that is not going away. The issue of the acceptance of homosexuality as normal is here to stay. Theologians like Mr. Johnson utilize a certain hermeneutic (method of interpretation) to allow for the ordination of practising homosexuals. In their minds, the homosexuality we know today is simply not addressed in scripture; And if anything, scripture affirms the modern idea of committed homosexual unions. That is the liberal argument.

Since the issue is not going away, it is time to address it and determine a proper course of action. Mainline denominations are at a crossroads. Will they embrace it whole-heartedly or reject it whole-heartedly. Or will they like the ABC-USA pretend that they cannot address the issue other than say it is wrong and hope that their churches will do what is right? Well, many churches are leaving the denomination. In fact, 300 churches have just left the denomination in the Pacific Southwest region under the leadership of Dale Salico. The last remaining conservative members are fed up with the indifference and the liberalization of the denomination and they are voting with their feet.

For a very good blog on the Episcopal scandal see http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php

No Comments »

Began reading A Time to Embrace: Same-Gender Relationships in Religion, Law, and Politicsby William Stacy Johnson. The author describes himself as a “Professional Theologian, ordained minister, and a Christian” (2). No doubt Mr. Johnson is a professional as he holds the Arthur M. Adams Chair of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also an ordained minister in the PC (USA) church. Likewise, he is an attorney-at-law. Furthermore, he is also married to a woman. Another interesting note is that the book is published by Eerdmans. All these factors combine to tell us that the book should be taken seriously as it is a serious attempt to “correct” Evangelicalism’s misunderstanding of the biblical teaching on same-sex relationships. In the preface the author makes his purpose clear: “To offer my strongest support to gay and lesbian couples who are seeking to make a life together” (3). Mr Johnson actually sees the Bible as denouncing “… a one-sided and hedonistic homo-eroticism,” which of course is true. But his argument is that what we understand homosexuality to be at present is not what the Bible is against. Mr Johnson’s understanding of modern homosexuality is “…the love between two equals joined in covenant fidelity” (ix).

Sadly Mr. Johnson’s book represents the thinking of most mainline Protestant denominations in America today. In fact, Mr. Johnson lectured alongside Dr. Ken Stone (author of Practicing Safer Texts: Food, and Bible in Queer Perspective), at the bi-annual Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, and Transgender (GLBT) lecture series at the Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School, the flagship seminary of the American Baptist Convention (USA).  Though the information about the theologically liberal tendencies in the ABC-USA is not new, it is certainly not cause for concern in many conservative churches.

It will be interesting to see where Mr. Johnson goes with his arguments for the support of same-sex relationships based on the biblical testimony. No doubt, as I have already read, the author links the struggles of the homosexual community with the struggles of the African-American and the female members of our society. It appears that his main tool for undermining the traditional reading of homosexuality as a sin involves a redefining of the definition altogether. In other words, the author’s goal is to “sweep the rug out from under us” by redefining what the Bible teaches regarding homosexual relations. If it can be proven that what the Bible is speaking about when it talks about “homosexuality” is something very different than what is practised today, then a biblical case for considering it a sin falls to the ground. But I think that his argument doesn’t hold water. As I read the book and comment, I hope to show why Mr. Johnson is wrong in his conclusion.

No Comments »