www.mybethelbaptist.com

I have never watched a single episode of South Park. I know about the show, but have never personally watched it. If you do not know anything about the show, here is an overview: South Park is a cartoon on Comedy Central that really likes to push the envelope on censorship. To put it another way, it is a very crude show. The creators of the show pour on the satire in a mercurial fashion. They take shots at every aspect of life. They have no problem insulting our leaders, religious or otherwise. They are especially crude when it comes to religion, that is, until recently.

Just last week they planned to air an episode about Islam. The creators of the show tried to depict the prophet Muhammad wearing a bear costume and riding in the back of a Uhaul. You can read about this here: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-south-park-20100423,0,5940860.story?page=1 and here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/arts/television/23park.html

Shortly before the the episode was aired, a group called “Revolution Muslim” posted on their website what could happen to the creators if they air the episode. Basically the spokesperson for Revolution Muslim stated that the creators could possibly end up dead if they went through with the episode. So what happened? The creators backed down. Probably for the first time. The group said it was not a threat, but rather what could possibly happen to the creators would be the same thing that happened to Theo Van Gogh who was killed by a Muslim for drawing caricatures of Muhammad.

The LA Times article included a good point by professor Volokh who claimed that backing down from bullies will only allow them to gain the upperhand. Here is what the LA Times said, “UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh said that although he sympathizes with the predicament faced by Comedy Central, the network has potentially empowered other extremists by how it has chosen to handle the situation.

“The consequence of this position is that the thugs win and people have more incentive to be thugs,” said Volokh, who teaches free speech and religious freedom law. “There are lots of people out there who would very much like to get certain kind of material removed, whether religious or political. The more they see others winning, the more they will be likely to do the same. Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated.”

What Christians and all people should learn about this message is clear. Jesus said in Matthew 10:28, “Do not fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can kill both soul and body in hell” (ESV). The creators of South Park have no fear on hell. Based on the content of their program, they do not understand what Jesus meant when he said in Matthew 12:37, “By your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned” (ESV). Again, based on the content of their program, the creators have no fear of the consequences of their words as they are spoken through imaginary figures. But they are afraid of extremist groups. If some group states that something bad can happen to them if they air the show, they back down. But why is there no fear of God?

We can stop sinning because we fear going to jail, hurting someone, or being labelled something bad. But does that really get to the root of the issue? What is at stake is judgment and hell. In an age where people think, “Anything goes” and “Its all good” obviously it is not. People are scared of someone coming to kill them in order to censor their message. But who is afraid of God? Apparently not many today. The Apostle Peter put it best when he said, “For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God” (1 Peter 4:17 ESV). Let us therefore guard our tongues and our thoughts in fear of sinning against God.

No Comments »

In a recent article by the voice of the Emerging church, Brian McLaren ponders the question of why Evangelicals do not like him. You can read the fine article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-d-mclaren/why-do-evangelicals-disli_b_517094.html

I could save Mr. McLaren some time by telling him why Evangelicals do not like him. The reason why they do not like him is because he claims to be one but he is not. No group likes to be misrepresented. And what Mr. McLaren does is misrepresent Evangelical Christianity. The things that he stands for and believes in according to his new book A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith (HarperOne, 2010), are in reality nothing new. The “Ten Questions” that are to transform Christianity are really not new. And I believe that is why Mr. McLaren is whinning about Evangelicals not liking him.

Instead of asking me first, Brian McLaren believes that he is the object of scorn because he is questioning authority. The authorities have spoken and we are not to question them. First of all, who are the authorities? The biblical writers? The early Church Fathers? The Roman Catholic church? The modern leaders of Evangelicalism? Why whine and complain about the enigmatic figure called “Evangelical Leader?” Instead, Mr. McLaren should simply state what he believes and then let the people decide if he represents Evangelicalism. Because judging from the surface, he certainly falls more in line with classic Liberalism, though he would probably deny that.

It seems that perhaps he may just have an axe to grind. He tries to caricature Evangelical Christianity in such a way so as to suggest that they all unilaterally support Israel over against the Palestinians. Can one be an Evangelical and be pro-Palestine/ Anti- Israel? Certainly no Christian should be against any particular nation. A nation may invade your nation and you have the right to defend your freedom and homeland. But are Christians supporting one nation against another nation based on race alone? True that many conservative Evangelicals unilaterally support the nation of Israel with regards to its policy against the Palestinians. But I would hesitate to  say that supporting Israel is a fundamental tenet of what it means to be Evangelical.

Perhaps Mr. McLaren would be better off just enjoying himself among his friends in the Moderate camp and quit thinking of himself as the target of conservative Evangelicalism. If you are going to try to reinvent Christianity and redefine what it means to be a Christian, you are going to make alot of enemies along the way. But your enemies are enemies because you claim to speak for them. Then you pretend that they are upset with you because their authority is being questioned and they are defensive. But there have been many who have sought to redefine Christianity. In the end, how much Mr. McLaren represents historic Christianity will be determined by other Christians of whom he is accountable to. If he does not like their scorn, then perhaps he should keep his thoughts to himself. If however, he wants to continue to redefine historic Christianity, his thoughts will be held up to sever criticism and he will make many enemies. It simply comes with the territory and has been happening since the beginning. So my advice, if anyone cares is to “man up” and stick by what you say and believe. If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. But please stop crying.

No Comments »

You know the slogan, “You can do it, we can help.” It has become increasingly apparent to me recently just how much of an issue this has become for churches. In the old days, the enemy was always seen as outside the church. Conservative Christians were afraid of Evolution being crammed down their kids’ throat. They were concerned about long hair and short skirts. But those things are not too concerning to the modern Conservative Evangelical Christian. Today there is a brand new enemy. It is called by various names such as: the self-help gospel, the therapuetic gospel, the Jesus-is-your-life-coach gospel, etc ad nausea ab absurdum.

The idea is that you can change yourself to be a better you. The pastor is there alongside you to help you. He is simply your coach along the way. There is nothing to it except a change of attitude. One must simply take on the attitude of Jesus and all will be well. This is very dangerous thinking however. The danger is that it sounds like Christianity. It uses the same phrases and it uses the Bible as its basis. The church has seen this before in Modernism and even Neo-Orthodoxy ala Barth.

So what makes this new Evangelicalism so dangerous is that it removes God from the equation. It is almost like Deism where God is for you but is not really involved in the creation so much. He has given you the instructions, now you figure it out. You can call him, but the change is your doing. Of course no pastor who uses the self-help gospel would put it like that. All would say you need the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. But as always, there are trajectories with such thinking.

Examples: No one is offended by this so-called “gospel.” There is no offense of the cross. There is no stone of stumbling, rock of offense. It is simply Jesus is your buddy and he is there to help you along through life’s problems. Sound good? Sure, who wouldn’t want that? And that of course is the problem.

I am afraid however that this way of thinking is all too pervasive. It is probably taught in most churches in America each week that consider themselves conservative Evangelicals. There simply is no gospel. There is no cross. There is no need for the radical conversion from death to life. Paul could not preach this idea of Jesus being your buddy or life-coach. Instead he said things like, “we preach Christ and him crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23). Moreover he could say, “If in Christ we have hope in this life only (meaning no resurrection), we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:19 ESV).

For Paul and the rest of the Bible, the historic event of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus was foundational to everything. Any foundation that is built on self-esteem, self-help, is a shaky foundation. Once the gospel is lost, all you have is self-help or do good because that is what you should do. Just stop and smell the roses. Life is too short to be in a hurry. Live your best life now, Jesus will help you. Once the cross is removed from the equation, the message ceases to be the gospel. It is something, but not biblical Christianity. May we repent of ever being guilty of offering people hope apart from the gospel.

No Comments »

Situations frequently happen in churches where unrepentant sin begins to affect the church as a whole. It only takes a little leaven to “leaven the whole lump.” But what should the church do? Immediately we might say, ” Judge not!” But is that the biblical response? Is there such a thing as a   “biblical response”? If there is, can we follow that today?

The two most well-known biblical texts that speak about the issue of unrepentant sin in the church are Matthew 18:15-20 and 1 Corinthians 5. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus teaches that if a brother or sister is in unrepentant sin and refuses to listen, finally to the church, then they are to be treated ”as a Gentile and a tax collector.” In 1 Corinthians 5, a man was involved in scandalous sin and Paul instructs the church ”to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (verse 5). Then he states in verse 11, “‘But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”

There are other passages that could be used to support the idea that the church is to be a group of believers who seek to follow the Lord. The church obviously is not sinless or without struggles with sin. But it seems that the church is to be holy (1 Peter 1:16). The biblical mandate is clear. the church is not to tolerate unrepentant sin among its members.

There have been times when a pastor has had to address the problem of unrepentant sin among one of the members. If the church does not have any form of church discipline in its constitution or bylaws, the pastor can really do nothing. The pastor can warn the individual, but the individual can simply ignore the pastor. He or she may even get the support of the church against the pastor. If the church refuses to repent and deal with the unrepentant sin then what is to be expected?

When John has his vision of the resurrected Lord Christ in the Book of Revelation, notice what the Lord said to the church at Ephesus: “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent (2:5). Jesus threatens to remove his presence from the church. And any church that ignores unrepentant sin among its members should expect nothing less than the loss of the presence of the Lord. I am afraid this is widespread in our day.

All of this talk of discipline can sound harsh and unloving. Nevertheless it is a biblical concept and one that is good for the believer as well. Paul told the Corinthians that the man was to be delivered over to Satan so that his soul might be saved. The turning over to Satan was only for the destruction of the flesh. Ultimately, Paul wanted the unrepentant member to repent and be saved. The goal is always restorative and never punitive. Of course church discipline has been abused, but the real question is, ”Is it biblical?” If it is, how should we go about it? Let us imitate Jesus in this way. He was kind and merciful to “’sinners.” But to the hypocrites he was harsh and straightforward. If the church knowingly tolerates unrepentant sin, it is no more a church of believers. James 4:17 says that the one who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, to him it is sin.

No Comments »

Something no pastor would want to hear. Most pastors probably feel that everyone should want to join their church. But then again, it is not really “their” church. It is God’s church. So if there were only one church left on earth, should you join it? Historically, at least since the Reformation, people have sought to distinguish the “marks” of a true church. It is generally agreed that there are two marks of a regular church: The right preaching of the gospel and the right administration of the sacraments (Baptism and the Lords Supper). Though some would include church discipline as a third mark, it could just as well fall under the right administration of the Lord’s Supper, the Supper being withheld from unrepentant members.

So if there were the right preaching of the gospel and the right administration of the sacraments, then yes you would be obligated to join that church. But what about a church in your area? Are you obligated to join a church? There are good reasons to join a church. Mostly because of what Jesus himself taught about the church. He said that he will build his church and the gates of hell will not stand against it (Matthew 16). It is said of Jesus that he loves the church and he gave himself for her to be a spotless bride (Ephesians 5:25). If you are sick, you cannot call the elders of the church (James 5:14). Who would have commissioned Paul and Barnabas on the missionary journey in Acts 15? How could you have deacons or elders? How would you observe the Lord’s Supper? How could you be baptized? How can we judge those inside the church (1 Corinthians 5:12)?  Paul seems to have directed the churches in Galatia to take up an offering (1 Corinthians 16:1). How could you obey your leaders and submit to them (Hebrews 13:17)?

Much more could be said, but one thing is clear: the idea of a local assembly of believers, where the Apostle’s teaching is heard, is clearly outlined in the New Testament. Many would immediately appeal to the universal church or invisible church, but that is not something that the New Testament speaks about specifically. What the New Testament does speak about is a local congregation of believers who meet regularly for things such as hearing God’s Word, prayer, giving, Lord’s Supper, baptism, evangelism, etc.

So the question remains, are you obligated to join a local church? If you answer “no” I would want to know why not. In an age of commitment phobia and churches tripping over each other, perhaps we are setting ourselves up for failure. We enjoy Walmart because it has everything we need under one roof and the prices are cheaper. Maybe we are treating the church the same way. We want everything that suits our needs under one roof. In other words we are consumer driven in our mentality. Instead of seeking to come alongside other believers in your community and build them up, we are looking for whatever will bless us by way of music, teaching, or fellowship. There is nothing wrong with that desire. However, God has given Christians different gifts to be exercised within a local church body for the edification of believers (Ephesians 4:11). And you should come alongside a group of believers in your area and seek to build them up even if that local body has many deficiencies. If the two marks are in place, then that is a great place to start.

No Comments »

The lessons that I have learned over the past few years of being a pastor have been innumerable. I could talk about the necessity for prayer, the need to trust God, the need for wisdom, etc. But I have learned more about what it means to be a good church member than through any other experience. I now realize that I have always been too hard on pastors. I would often grumble and complain against the music choice and seek to find fault with the sermon. If the pastor did not do what I expected him to do, then I would no longer respect him and simply write him off. Most of the time I felt that “if only” he would do this or not do that then everything would be fine. Or I would get offended if I was not asked to do something and someone else was asked (jealousy). Instead of taking an initiative and looking for ways to serve the church, I would complain that the pastor does not do enough to get the things done that should be done. It was the same old cliche, “someone should do something about this.” Instead of looking for ways to build up the church and the pastor, I was overly critical and overly sensitive.

By being a pastor I feel the struggle that comes with the territory. I understand how the Apostle Paul could say, “And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches” (2 Corinthians 11:28 ESV). There is a burden that pastors carry around for their churches. The thoughts about the member’s well-being cannot simply be turned off at will. You have a burden for the warward members, the ones facing marriage difficulties, the ones who have lost jobs, the ones who have rebellious children, and the ones who are causing division. You are burdened by the fact that there is so much to teach and so little has been taught. There are so many traditions and unwritten rules that must be learned.

All this to say that pastors need prayer and support. They love the church and want others to love the church with the same intensity. They are human beings that fail. And when Christians begin to see the church as Christ’s bride they can see that they are called to “adorn her” and to love her as the bride of Christ. Instead of being critical and fault-finding in everything, the member begins to see his or her role as one of building up (Ephesians 4:11). When members begin to see themselves more like servants and less like judges then the church begins to take shape as the bride of Christ.

No Comments »

Considering the fact that the wages of sin is death, what other effects does sin have on people? Right from the beginning we see the result of sin on families. Some extreme sins such as Cain killing his brother are obvious. But what about “lesser” sins? Ham was cursed by Noah because he mocked his father. But Noah had been guilty of intoxication in Genesis 9. Simply by drinking too much, there was an opportunity to sin given to Noah’s children. Ham then gave into the temptation and fell into sin.

All throughout the Bible we see that when people are self-centered and commit sin, their sin affects other people. The quarreling and fighting in James 4 was a result of people not getting what they wanted. In Philippians 4:2 Paul had to entreat Euodia and Syntyche to agree in the Lord; Most of the First Epistle to the Corinthians was to deal with self-seeking sin which was causing division; And there are many other examples.

The church today also suffers from the same disappointment. One individual’s sin affects the spouse and children. This sin causes the pastor great stress and he takes it into his house. That sin can cause division in the church as to how to best deal with it. One sin can have a thousand consequences. the children grow up and they think sin is no big deal. the children in the church see sin and rebellion in their teacher and so they think it is no big deal. All the while the one who is in sin and rebellion believes that the sin only involves themselves. That is a sad mistake. If only we were able to see the tragic consequences of our attitudes and actions as they affect those around us. Perhaps if we were able to see the “sinfulness of sin” then we would not play with it so much. If we believed that unrepentant sin kept us from heaven then we may be quicker to repent.

No Comments »

Over the past few years, I have been thinking much about the idea of church membership. As a pastor, I must admit that the idea of church membership is more important to me now that I am on “the other side of the pulpit.” And it seems that our generation has developed a “commitment phobia” that allows us to think of the church indifferently. In fact when it comes to church membership, most Christians feel free to “take it or leave it.”

            This notion of disregard for church membership is often encouraged by churches. In a recent article I read, the author stated that a person can become a Christian without even joining a church body. Could the Apostle Paul make such a statement? True, church membership is not necessary for salvation. However, why would someone not join a church?

            The reason that people do not want to join a church is because they do not like the church. Even non-believers like Jesus, but have deep resentment towards the church. They say things like, “I like Jesus but not ‘organized religion.’” Many professing Christians do not attend church, preferring to stay at home and watch services on TV. And I firmly believe that at the heart of this indifference towards the church is that the church is so often difficult to be a part of.

            In my weakest moments, I have to confess that many times I do not like the church. Like any relationship, there are moments when it is difficult to love the other party. But the thing that we must always keep in perspective is the love of Jesus for his church.

            The Apostle Paul reminded the church at Ephesus that Christ loved the church and gave himself for her, that he might sanctify her…that he might present the church to himself in splendor without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (5:25 ESV). Just prior to that, the Apostle says that Christ is “the head of the body, the church.” Certainly Jesus is not indifferent to the church and he certainly loves his church. Therefore we must do the same as our Lord.

            Still there are people that would argue that they like Jesus and agree that Jesus loves his church. But they are not convinced that being part of a church is all that important. They feel that they can live out the Christian life apart from the body of Christ, the church. After all, “wherever two or three are gathered, isn’t Jesus there (Matthew 18:20)?” Jesus may or may not be present, but that is not the church.  If you find yourself thinking this way, let me just ask a few questions.

            How can you encourage and exhort one another (Hebrews 3:13)? How can you admonish one another (1 Thessalonians 5:14 and Romans 15:14)? How can you confess your faults to one another (James 5:16)? How can you not forsake the assembling together (Hebrews 10:25)? How can you obey your leaders and submit to them (Hebrews 13:17)? How can you remember your leaders and imitate their faith (Hebrews 13:7)? How can you avoid quarreling and contention in the church (1 Corinthians 10:32)? Let us therefore love the church just as Christ loves his church.

No Comments »

Someone recently brought up the issue of denominations that support abortion which caused me to begin to think about the issue more clearly as it relates to denominations. The person opened a book which listed the ABC-USA as a denomination that supports abortion. That sentence prompted me to look into the matter further. While the sentence is not entirely true, that the ABC-USA supports abortion or is what I would call “pro-choice,” I did discover an interesting example of political spin.

By looking at the ABC-USA website and trying to find some resources, I was overwhelmed to learn that the ABC-USA has virtually every issue covered. They have an opinion on nearly all issues that are happening in the world and in the church. You can find these resources here: http://abc-usa.org/Resources/ABCResources/PolicyStatementsResolutions/tabid/199/Default.aspx

I immediately looked into the statement on Abortion. I have to say that I was not impressed. I actually believed that the book which cited the ABC-USA as pro-choice was incorrect, since there was no footnote to substantiate the source. What I found was that the ABC-USA has a highly nuanced resolution concerning abortion. Amazingly, the resolution is no resolution at all. Rather, the ABC-USA flounders around and says that the issue is so complex and difficult that the General Board is not able to make an actual resolution on the issue. Here is the quote:

We acknowledge the diversity of deeply held convictions within our fellowship even as

we seek to interpret the Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many American

Baptists believe that, biblically, human life begins at conception, that abortion is immoral

and a destruction of a human being created in God’s image (Job 31:15; Psalm 139:13-16;

Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:44; Proverbs 31:8-9; Galatians 1:15). Many others believe that

while abortion is a regrettable reality, it can be a morally acceptable action and they

choose to act on the biblical principles of compassion and justice (John 8:1-11; Exodus

21:22-25; Matthew 7:1-5; James 2:2-13) and freedom of will (John 16:13; Roman 14:4-5,

10-13). Many gradations of opinion between these basic positions have been expressed

within our fellowship.

We also recognize that we are divided as to the proper witness of the church to the state

regarding abortion. Many of our membership seek legal safeguards to protect unborn life.

Many others advocate for and support family planning legislation, including legalized

abortion as in the best interest of women in particular and society in general. Again, we

have many points of view between these two positions. Consequently, we acknowledge

the freedom of each individual to advocate for a public policy on abortion that reflects his

or her beliefs.

I noticed the spin immediately. The denomination doesnt want to take a stand and so says that the issue is up to the individual church member to decide for themselves. This is the basic stance that they have taken with the issue of homosexuality. Because abortion and homosexuality are such divisive issues, therefore we must not divide over them and the General Board will leave it up to individaul churches to decide for themselves.

I understand the reasoning of the ABC-USA. They do not want to dictate to the churches and associations what they are or are not to believe. This is typical of any Baptist denomination that holds to Liberty of Conscience and the Autonomy of the Local Church. The denomination cannot dictate what individual churches believe and do. Sort of.

While I understand their reasoning, I am appalled that every other issue besides abortion and homosexuality IS addressed by the General Board. The Board has made decisions on every other moral issue such as war, capital punishment, missle defence, alcohol, tobacco, slavery, and even for the self-determination of Puerto Rico! (which I am in favor of).

My question is simple: How do they determine which moral issue to take an official stand on and which to not take a stand on? I do believe that if I personally advocated polygamy or slavery, I would immediately be rejected by the ABC-USA if I were moving the church into that direction (which I am NOT). If as a church, we advocated any principle which may be perfectly legal yet went against a resolution of the General Board there would be pressure put on us to remove ourselves.

The point is, is that the denomination has a long history of taking a stand on important moral issues such as Women’s Suffrage, slavery, and civil rights. Why the indifference over abortion and homosexuality? The denomination led the charge along with Martin Luther King Jr to end segregation, but will not even say that abortion is immoral? Perhaps the issue is more complex that I can understand. After all, we must be united in order to promote missions. There is no reason to divide over these “non-essentials.” As the gospel leaves the center, we reap the consequences. Despite what is written, the gospel has indeed left and all there is left to gather around is social action.

No Comments »

Just a few final comments on William Stacy Johnson’s book  A Time To Embrace. In many ways, the book is very typical of what most moderate scholars believe. And of course there is the use of the trump card of egalitarians, Galatians 3:28. Dr. Johnson also uses Galatians 3:28 to trump everything else the Bible says about men and women (150). Paul says to the Galatians in 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ” (ESV). I guess that settles everything. I suppose we should not bother reading the verse in context or consider other verses such as 1 Timothy 2:11-12. As much as the moderate camp decries the use of “homophobic clobber verses” they sure are apt to use their own. I guess that settles the question altogether. There are no gender differences and we are not to make distinctions.

Of course Paul was writing within a context and he was making a specific point that everyone seems to overlook. In fact the point is found in verse 29, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” The whole chapter is dealing with the relationship between Jew and Gentile in light of the New Covenant.  The promises of God were made to Abraham and his offspring. By faith (as opposed to race) we are now children of God in Christ Jesus (26). That is, we are the offspring of Abraham by faith.

On the contrary, there are distinctions that still exist. Onesimus was still a slave of Philemon. Priscilla was still a woman, as was Phoebe. They had distinct roles within society and within the church. So in all Johnson’s talk about context and the meaning of the text, he seems to have forgotten his own advice here.

Finally, Johnson gives us something to really think about. He finishes his case for the ordination of practising homosexuals quite poorly. His hermeneutic becomes evident to everyone. For he writes, “If the meaning of scripture is limited to what ancient minds could have imagined, then there is no such thing as a Word of God that is active and living”(152). The problem is that he has just argued that in order to really understand words like arsenokoitos and malachai  we have to understand the ancient writer’s intention!

Then he says on page 153, “Marriage is not a fixed order of creation but an order of redemption.” He claims that marriage is transformative like a “means of grace.” I think he has brought us back to square one. The ending is quite melodramatic. He just spent 150 pages defending his reasons from scripture only to say, “these things aren’t fixed rules.” My question is, “Why bother using scripture to defend the ordination of practising homosexuals if the meaning of the text is whatever makes sense to the general society?” I understand his point that marriage norms do change over time, but the principle must be fixed and that is the principle set forth in creation and defended by the Lord Christ in Mark 10. When Jesus was asked about marriage and divorce, he didn’t argue from current cultural norms. He argued from a fixed norm from the creation account (Mark 10:1-12).

I have no problem with the pro-homosexual party to argue their case for same-gender marriage and the ordination of practising homosexuals. I just wish that they would not try to support their arguments from scripture. It doesn’t hold water at the end of the day. Conservative Christians know that the case for the acceptance of homoeroticism, argued from scripture, falls flat. Dr. Johnson’s book does not further their cause. I appreciate his irenic spirit, but at the end of the day, I am unconvinced of the arguments. I approached the book hoping that lawyers were more convincing than biblical scholars, but am still disappointed.

For further reading, see Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1990) 441-471 and Modern Theology 16:1 (J 2000), 61-73.

No Comments »