Some Thoughts On The Nashville Statement

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, now apparently known as CBMW: A Coalition For Biblical Sexuality, released the results of a council in Nashville titled, somewhat unoriginally, The Nashville Statement. The work of CBMW is something I have supported for a long time, their old logo and a link to their webpage has been incorporated in my blog for many years. I prefer the specificity of the old name but I understand where they are going with this. The statement is signed by a Who's Who of conservative evangelicals, mainly drawn from the ranks of the Reformed. The names include people like John Piper, J.I. Packer, Al Mohler, Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler and the whole T4G crew, R.C. Sproul, etc. as well as people like James Dobson, Francis Chan, Johnny Hunt and Russell Moore.

On to the statement. From the preamble:

We are persuaded that faithfulness in our generation means declaring once again the true story of the world and of our place in it—particularly as male and female. Christian Scripture teaches that there is but one God who alone is Creator and Lord of all. To him alone, every person owes glad-hearted thanksgiving, heart-felt praise, and total allegiance. This is the path not only of glorifying God, but of knowing ourselves. To forget our Creator is to forget who we are, for he made us for himself. And we cannot know ourselves truly without truly knowing him who made us. We did not make ourselves. We are not our own. Our true identity, as male and female persons, is given by God. It is not only foolish, but hopeless, to try to make ourselves what God did not create us to be.

That is a perfectly valid and true statement. At the heart of both the homosexual and "transgender" movements is the simple statement "Did God really say?" that echoes the words of the Enemy to Eve in the Garden. It is not coincidental that in every case of heresy, the underlying issue is always doubting God's Word. The great issue of the day is the perversion of human sexuality in ways that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. Who in the early 2000's with the exception of some extreme radicals would have thought that college sports conferences would boycott entire states over the issue of not letting men use women's restroom and locker facilities? But here we are. To my everlasting sadness, many people who profess Christ as Lord also deny His teaching on human sexuality, a contradiction that can never be resolved.

The statement itself is pretty standard stuff, 14 affirmations and denials. It is not nor is it intended to be an exhaustive theological treatise. It is a simple listing of what Bible believing Christians ought to affirm the Bible teaches about sexuality and what the Bible denies about sexuality. I am not going to go through all of them, they are common Bible sense statements. I did want to point out one of the articles though, number 10 which is already proving to be the most controversial. Here is a screenshot because I couldn't copy and paste it and I am too lazy to write it out.

That is also pretty straightforward. Sin is sin and approving of sin is also sin. That is just straight Romans 1 stuff, emphasis mine.

They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:29-32)

Approving of sin is condemned just as sinning itself. Proclaiming your approval of what God declares is sinful and deserving of death is to rebel against God, getting back to that same question "Did God really say?".

My view of the Nashville Statement is that it is an unfortunate necessity, a statement of common sense and basic Biblical doctrine that sadly needs to be reaffirmed today especially since so many "Christians" seem determined to virtue signal by approving of the grossest of sins.

It is pretty obvious that some left-wing groups encouraged people that just as obviously haven't read the statement to go the Facebook page of CBMW and leave silly, vacuous comments. I left a comment that suggested that people had not read the statement and was responded to by a Gunnar Sherrill (on a public post) who accused me of advocating theocracy. I was not biting.

Mr. Sherrill's comment is what passes for civil and thoughtful discourse among Americans today. As an aside he posted comments on a number of posts including the obligatory accusations of CBMW being Nazis and/or the KKK. Many comments seem to come from people who either object to the interpretative conclusions of the authors of the Nashville statement without any actual attempt to interact with the statement from Scripture or, as I suspect is the case, what they really object to is people having a position on human sexuality that uses the Bible as their authoritative source rather than the current culture. In other words, they don't so much object to the opinion itself as they do object to having an opinion in the first place.

At the risk of sounding partisan, you have to realize that the same people "punching Nazis" in the streets will be happy to "punch patriarchs" in the streets or perhaps even in churches. Placating and compromising with these people or virtue signaling in the hope that they will persecute you last is not going to work and worse it is dishonoring to God and cowardly.

Bottom line for me, if you can't agree in principle with the essence of what is written here, I have to question if you have even a cursory understanding of the Scriptures in general and what they have to say uniformly about human sexuality in particular. Denny Burk in a follow-up post wrote:

Anyone who persistently rejects God’s revelation about sexual holiness and virtue is rejecting Christianity altogether, even if they claim otherwise.

I agree wholeheartedly. Sexual morality is not the Gospel but you cannot understand the Gospel apart from an understanding of the seriousness of sin and the Scriptures are crystal clear that sexual sin is an area of critical emphasis when it comes to human depravity and rebellion against God.

I unapologetically endorse the Nashville Statement. There is nothing I find in substantive error in the statement. I am no one but a simple blogger but I believe the entire church needs to stand up for the Biblical design for human sexuality that stands counter to all forms of sexual immorality: adultery, divorce, homosexuality, pedophilia, gender dysphoria, incest, etc. While some of those sins carry more weight culturally and are more grevious Scripturally because of the harm they cause to others, they all are violations of God's created order and all are sins that must be repented of.

The Nashville Statement is a statement that shouldn't be necessary but it is also a statement that absolutely is necessary. If the church cannot stand courageously and without apology for something as clearly taught in Scripture as human sexuality, there is little hope for the church to be faithful in any areas.

I have signed the statement, nobody that I am, and I encourage you to first read the statement in its entirety, ponder it and if you are in agreement add your own name to the statement.

Schism Is As Schism Does

I have been watching the Episcopal Church by peeking through my fingers at the slow moving train-wreck for a number of years. By no small effort the EC-USA has been the tip of the spear when it comes to jettisoning orthodoxy for "progressive" political correctness and that has led to the demographic implosion that the Episcopal Church and other "progressive" denominations have experienced. Like a snake swallowing its own tail the progressives keep telling themselves that they need to just take one more step away from orthodoxy to bring people back but all they accomplish is ecclesiastical suicide.

Today the latest bit of bad news came down from the Anglican Communion,  the worldwide circle of churches which included the Episcopal Church. In a nutshell the Anglican Communion, which is far more vibrant and orthodox in countries outside of the U.S. and the U.K., announced a suspension of the Episcopal Church from the Communion for a period of three years. The exact wording is below:

7. It is our unanimous desire to walk together. However given the seriousness of these matters we formally acknowledge this distance by requiring that for a period of three years The Episcopal Church no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity.

That is a pretty stinging rebuke from the worldwide Anglican body but the critical point cam earlier in the statement"

2. Recent developments in The Episcopal Church with respect to a change in their Canon on marriage represent a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of our Provinces on the doctrine of marriage. Possible developments in other Provinces could further exacerbate this situation.

What needs to be crystal clear is that "conservatives" who walked away from the Episcopalian church are not the ones who are causing schism. Rather the Episcopal Church by embracing a deviant understanding of marriage, gender and human sexuality has willingly placed itself outside of the boundaries of what can legitimately be called the church. They have departed from the church, not the Anglican Church in North America or other groups and churches that have left the Episcopal church. When someone or an organization deviate from the boundaries of the Kingdom, the only proper response is to separate from them. Despite the faux unity some propose, sometimes separation is the only proper response to those who embrace sin. Those who have left have departed not from the unity of the church but have returned to the unity of the church.

The Episcopal church has responded to the statement as one would expect including the obligatory obscene eisegesis of that most oft misapplied verse, Galatians 3:28:

Before the Jan. 14 vote, Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Michael B. Curry told the primates gathering Jan. 11-15 in Canterbury, England, that the statement calling for the sanction would be painful for many in the Episcopal Church to receive.

“Many of us have committed ourselves and our church to being ‘a house of prayer for all people,’ as the Bible says, when all are truly welcome,” Curry said in remarks he later made available to Episcopal News Service.

“Our commitment to be an inclusive church is not based on a social theory or capitulation to the ways of the culture, but on our belief that the outstretched arms of Jesus on the cross are a sign of the very love of God reaching out to us all.  While I understand that many disagree with us, our decision regarding marriage is based on the belief that the words of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians are true for the church today: All who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, for all are one in Christ.”

“For so many who are committed to following Jesus in the way of love and being a church that lives that love, this decision will bring real pain,” he said. “For fellow disciples of Jesus in our church who are gay or lesbian, this will bring more pain. For many who have felt and been rejected by the church because of who they are, for many who have felt and been rejected by families and communities, our church opening itself in love was a sign of hope. And this will add pain on top of pain.”

The comment section is very instructive, including the frequent threat to withhold funds from the Anglican Communion.

The Bible is crystal clear. The same Paul that Mr. Curry so grossly misquotes is also the apostle who had the most to say about marriage, sexuality and how to deal with sin in the church. It is the undeniable witness of Scripture that one cannot simultaneously embrace and celebrate wanton sin and call oneself a disciple of Jesus.

So what? If you are reading this you likely are not Episcopalian or Anglican so why should you care? You should care because this disaster is a warning for the rest of the church, a warning that compromise with sin invariably destroys the church. The rest of the church should be constantly vigilant because what we see on display here can happen to any of us if we let loose our grip on the Bible as applicable and authoritative and clear on this and many other topics. I take no pleasure in the death throes of Episcopalianism but some of the most tragic events are the most instructive.

Biblical Love Is Neither Mute Nor Blind

One of the most common mischaracterizations of Biblical teaching in the contemporary religious world called "Christianity" has to do with "judging". People throw "judge not lest ye be judged" in various iterations around as if that means that Christians should "just love people", further defined as "never pointing out sin in others". This is most commonly used in reference to sexual sins, especially homosexuality. We are told we cannot "judge" homosexuals, just love them. What if staying silent is actually far more unloving than spoeaking the truth in love, even when that truth is hard to hear.

This mindset of "no judging" is one of the most dangerous, Gospel undermining falsehoods around. If it were even remotely true we would have a much smaller New Testament. While that would make "Bible in a year" reading plans easier to complete, this philosophy is anti-Biblical and anti-Gospel. Peter, Paul and the other apostles didn't go around telling people "God loves you just the way you are. Heck we are just sinners too! Come to church on Sunday." They called out sin and called on people to repent, relying on the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit to change hearts and create born-again new creations.

Sexual behavior is one of the most powerful impulses in humanity. It is at the same time one of the most wonderful gifts we are giving within marriage, especially when it results in the blessing of children, but it is also, not coincidentally, perhaps the most twisted and abused impulses among humankind. The Bible is full of examples of this, from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah followed by the incest between Lot and his daughtes to the rape of Tamar by her brother Amnon. Humanity bears this out all through history and every day still. It seems that there is no end to the human appetite to pervert God's design for sexuality in His image bearers and there is no counter to that insatiable appetite except the life shattering Gospel.

Where we run into trouble on this "judge ye not" idea is in application. Ought we judge unbelievers and believers alike, or not judge them alike as the case may be? Absolutely not. The only way to come to that conclusion is willfully ignoring the Scriptures in favor of the whims of contemporary culture.. Paul gives us a critical glimpse into how the church must deal with sin, especially sexual sin, in our midst in his first letter to the church in Corinth.

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are 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. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 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. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you." (1 Corinthians 5:1-13)

That is a passage that rarely gets attention from the "judge ye not" crowd but it should. Of course we are not to condemn the unregenerate for acting like unregenerate people dead in their sins. We do a lot of this in the church to the detriment of our witness. However we are to be discerning of those among the church who are in sin and likewise we cannot faithfully preach the Gospel without a call to repent and turn away from sin and toward Christ. We cannot tell people "come to Jesus and do as you like, He doesn't care!". That would qualify as "another Gospel" and ought to be condemned in the church. We must be heralds of the King, claiming His rightful ruler-ship over mankind and all of mankind's relationship and nowhere is that more true than in sexual relationships.

Human sexuality is designed only for enjoyment within the boundaries of heterosexual, monogamous marriage. That is incontestable from Scripture. We can look all the way back to the beginning to see the genesis (pun intended) of this vitally important human relationship:

The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:20-24, emphasis mine)

A man shall leave his parents and be joined to his wife, becoming "one flesh". That is the pattern God created man and woman to fulfill. Any other expression of sexual behavior is disordered and contrary to God's design and as such is sinful. Sexual relationships are not left to the whims of mankind to continually define and redefine based on the winds of culture. We have shown our limitless stomach for deviancy in this area of human life for thousands of years. Sexuality is deeply embedded in humanity created in the image of God. His first prescriptive command to humanity is to "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth...". His creation of woman as a complementary helper to man is inextricably entwined with the heterosexual, monogamous marriage covenant that serves as the bedrock human relationship, the method of perpetuating humanity through child bearing and a picture that prefigures Christ and His Bride, the church. This relationship cannot be overemphasized and it is not subject to revision.

Many people point an accusing finger back at the church for failing to show the same fervency toward other  sinful behavior like divorce, adultery, greed, gossip, etc. that we exhibit toward sexual sins It is absolutely true that we are far too quiet in many areas of sin in the church. The real question is what do we do about it? One "solution" is to be equally silent about sexual sins, if we aren't going to be consistent we should just shut up. The other is to redouble our discernment toward all sins in the church, not just the ones that are easy to point out like homosexuality. Failing in some areas is not a license to chuck the whole thing and replace it with an "anything goes" religion that guts the Gospel in favor of a happy clappy attitude that not only refuses to call sin what it is but embraces and celebrates it.

Biblical love is not our contemporary sappy notion of "love". Biblical love is not blind and it is not mute. Biblical love sees when one who bears the name of brother is sinning and speaks the truth in love in the hope of renewal and restoration. We do sinners no favors and are not their friends when we turn a blind eye and shut our mouths to allow sinners to be content in their sins. No one will thank us for our blindness and voicelessness when they stand before the Judge.

The Christian Case For Sin?

It seems like there is a contest between the religion pages of the Huffington Post and CNN to see who can post the silliest and most ridiculous pieces on Christianity. CNN might have pulled ahead with a post by Mark Osler titled The Christian Case For Gay Marriage. I will wait, hopefully in vain, for the article on "The Christian Case for Stealing" or "The Christian Case for Murder" or "The Christian Case for Adultery".  As ludicrous as that sounds, up until just a few years ago there would not have been any sort of semi-serious outlet for a article with that title. Mr. Osler starts off with this gem:

What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others.

Perhaps Mr. Osler's Bible is missing a few pages, like for instance 1 Corinthians 5.....

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 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. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you." (1 Cor 5:9-13)

You don't have to look very far to see that the authors of the epistles, post-cross and ascension, absolutely recognized homosexuality as an extreme form of sexual sin (later on in the very next chapter 1 Cor 6:9; Romans 1: 24-26; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:6-8). So if we are not to associate or even share a meal with people in the church in open sin, doesn't it seem to make sense that we would not extend to them the Lord's Supper or baptism, certainly not solemnizing what the Bible abhors by calling their relationship a "marriage"? If someone showed up at the gathering of the church where you meet and said "Sorry I am late, I had to steal this car so I could make it, stopped by to have an adulterous tryst with the lady down the street and intentionally ran over a little old lady in the cross walk. So, where are the plastic cups and crackers?", I would hope that you would not extend to them the blessings of the Lord's Table.

Mr. Osler then goes on in his flowery and vacuous essay to try to link acceptance of homosexuality with Peter's issues with eating with Gentiles, a completely untenable link especially when you consider that the same guy who rebuked Peter for not eating with Gentiles (Paul) is the guy who wrote so strongly against sexual sin and those who would try to use the grace of God as cover for their continued perversion. The New Testament is clear that what we eat doesn't really matter and the distinctions that separated Jew from Gentile have been done away with. It is also clear that homosexuality is still a gross sin, something that needs to be repented of, not celebrated.

There are lots of sins in the world, it is true. Homosexuality is certainly singled out, multiple times and specifically but there is a tendency to overemphasize opposition to homosexuality while turning a blind eye to other sins like greed, divorce, etc. The reaction we should have is not to brush over or normalize homosexuality but to be honest in confronting other sins within the church. People like Mr. Osler are not extending grace to those that the Bible says are trapped in sin by trying to pretend that the Bible doesn't say what it clearly says in order to placate the culture.The cure for cancer is not to cheerily tell someone they are not sick at all and send them on their way and the cure for sin is not to tell people that Jesus died so that they could keep on sinning. So-called "gay marriage" is going to be a highly divisive issue in the upcoming years and clearly the fickle winds of the culture are blowing in favor of recognizing homosexual relationships as "marriage". That may be true and I don't really think the church should spend a ton of time or effort combating secular, civil "gay marriage" but nor should we offer the truth as a sacrifice on the altar of political correctness in a vain attempt to placate the pagan culture and curry favor with the world.

Some of the right message. Almost entirely the wrong solution. Definitely the wrong messenger.

Andrew Sullivan has the cover story for the latest Newsweek (do people still read magazines?) and he has caused something of a stir with his article Christianity In Crisis. Mr. Sullivan lays out his case that the church is broken and overly concerned with politics, self-righteous and hypocritical. All well and good. I have made some of the same statements of concern.

I get why this message resonates with people because at a superficial level it resonates with me! The problem is not so much in the observation of the issues as it is in the proposed solution and the messenger. First of all, Sullivan's solution is a strange blend of a selective "pick and choose" hermeneutic ala Thomas Jefferson and a new asceticism based on the life of Francis of Assisi. Sullivan approach is to reduce Jesus to a moral teacher, failing to capture that the message of Jesus was not a message of morality but of the impending judgment and Kingdom. Trevin Wax wrote a nice response to Sullivan, Christianity in Crisis? A Response to Andrew Sullivan, and this really captures it:

Unfortunately, his solution is woefully inadequate. He wants to return to the simple message of Jesus as if that message can be divorced from the Man who delivered it.

That gets to the heart of the matter. If Jesus is nothing more to you than a moral example, He is little different from any other human. He is nothing more than an ancient Gandhi. Gandhi might have been a swell guy but following him isn't going to save anyone.  In his call to abandon the self-righteous, hypocritical church Mr. Sullivan also guts the Bible and the Gospel and reduces Jesus to a moral buffet line where we pick and choose what we like and leave what we don't. Does the church utterly seem to miss the call to self-denial and care for the poor and love of enemy? Yes, yes and yes. Does Sullivan miss the point of the Kingdom and the non-negotiable call to repent and turn from sin? Sadly he clearly does. The solution we need is not less of the Bible, it is more and taken what God has revealed and preserved for us more seriously.

As far as Sullivan, while God often uses the most unlikely among His followers to speak prophetically, I don't think that Mr. Sullivan falls into that category. Perhaps more like the donkey that warned Balaam.  As an open homosexual who "married" his partner, Sullivan seems quite self-serving in his rewriting of the Bible to create a new Gospel that doesn't see sin, at least his preferred sin, as a problem. It is always easy to overlook the convicting nature of the Bible and focus only on the forgiveness. Lots of people love the story of the woman caught in adultery but seem to neglect the parting words of Jesus "Sin no more". Whether sexual sin or divorce or disregard for the poor or support for militarism or anger, we always have an easier time wagging our finger at others sin and finding cover for our own.

The same Jesus who spoke of loving your enemies also said that a man looking upon a woman in lust has committed adultery with her in his heart and that it was better to pluck out your eye than have it cause you to sin. That is a pretty extreme statement and He was speaking of a man merely looking at a woman. Not sure how you can reconcile that with a man engaging in an open and unapologetic homosexual relationship with another man who is preaching to us about "following Jesus". Because of this, Sullivan is easy to dismiss out of hand and the important points he raises get lost in the fatally flawed "solution" and messenger. Those who defend the status quo can just chalk up anyone who raises legitimate questions as malcontents and heretics, lumping us in with Sullivan. This is a real danger. The church needs to heed some of these warnings. The church is far too political, far too concerned with institutional preservation and our "rights" and living the American dream and not nearly concerned enough with the poor and the orphan and the widow or even with the lost.

As importantly, Andrew Sullivan needs Christ. Not the moral teacher Christ. Not some perverse revisionist Jesus that would approve of a wantonly sinful lifestyle. He needs Christ to be His Lord and His Savior. He needs the supernatural change of heart that will turn him away from his love of sin and into a born-again new creature that rejects rather than celebrates sin. Please pray with me for the salvation of Andrew Sullivan. He is a talented writer and a pretty smart guy but none of that will be worth a thing when he stands before the King.

A Lesser Evil Is Still Evil

I find Doug Wilson, who blogs at the cleverly named Blog and Mablog, to be, in spite of some puzzling positions on issues like baptism and ecclesiology, one of the finest minds in the church today. Even when I disagree with his position I usually find his clearly thought out arguments to be refreshing in a day and age when dialogue often devolves into online shouting matches and one-upmanship. I found myself reading an interesting essay he wrote the other day, Santorum, Just War, and False Equivalence. Doug is disturbed by the questions some people, like me, raise when it comes to “Christian politicians” who claim the title “pro-life” based on opposition to abortion but simultaneously are quite comfortable and rarely challenged regarding their enthusiasm for war. His concern is that we are making a (false in his opinion) equivalence between support for abortion and support for war.

Equivalent what? I am speaking of the civilian casualties of war, what is sometimes infelicitously called "collateral damage," and the fatalities that result from abortion-on-demand. When these two are placed on the same moral plane in the heat of debate, it is an understandable mistake. Just as there is a fog of war, so also there is a fog of debate. But a studied, steadfast refusal to distinguish them is in reality a moral failing and we really need to be done with it.

Let me set this alongside a comparable moral failing -- the refusal to acknowledge a distinction between a deliberate targeting of civilians (as when Hamas blows up a pizza joint full of teenagers) and when one of our units targets combatants who place themselves in close proximity to civilians, so that the civilians might get caught in the crossfire. If the rules of engagement instruct our troops to do whatever is possible to protect the lives of such civilians, then this is completely different from the first scenario. These are two military actions which result in the deaths of civilians, but they nevertheless occupy two different moral universes.

At the outset let me say how troubling I find it when Doug, and the vast majority of other Christians, refer to American soldiers as “our troops”. They are not “my troops”, not in any sense. I am not interested in God blessing our troops as they vanquish the foes of America. When “our troops” are bombing someone else, whether they are targeting civilians or military targets, they are not doing so on my behalf. My political, economic and even religious freedoms are not really all that important and the presence or lack of them does not change my calling as a minister and evangelist of the King. It was by God’s providential hand that I was born and live in America but it was also His providential hand that placed Japanese children in Hiroshima and Dresden, Germany. Our fascination and admiration for the military is unbecoming for followers of the Lamb who was slain.

As far as the war=abortion equivalence, I have made that connection as well, speaking not specifically about politics but rather how Christians view political issues, in relation to candidates who espouse “our values”. There is a serious disconnect between issues where we take seriously that all people, including unborn children, are made imago dei , in the image of God, and other places where we tacitly reject that notion when the image bearer in question is wearing the wrong uniform or living in the wrong country. I have run into far too many people who claim to be Christians that see nothing wrong with defending as a necessary evil (if they even see it as evil) the killing of Japanese children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki while expressing outrage over the murder of unborn children in the womb.

However, I recognize that Doug has a point. The loss of innocent life in war is not precisely the same thing as the willful murder of a child in the womb. The intent is different, the circumstance are different just as a child in the womb killed by a stray bullet in a drive-by shooting is a different setting than the cold clinical setting of an abortion clinic. That is simply reality.

That reality does not in any way make one acceptable in some circumstances and the other not acceptable under any circumstances, especially for a follower of Christ. Jesus speaks directly to this when He talks about things like adultery as an act and lusting after a woman in your heart or the act of murdering someone versus hating someone in your heart. Far from creating a “sin hierarchy” where adultery in lust is lower than adultery in fact, Jesus creates an “equivalence” between the two. Likewise with murder and hatred. Jesus was not known for His nuanced positions. You will look in vain to Christ for an exposition of “just war theory”. Jesus didn’t say that murder was bad when it was an innocent child in the womb but potentially OK in a military action, especially if it is done on behalf of a free republic founded on “Judeo-Christian” values. If anything Jesus is drastically expanding what is unacceptable for God’s people or rather pointing out what was always the case. It was never OK to hate someone as long as you didn’t kill them. It was never OK to lust after a woman even if you never consummated the act. I think we would say that hating someone in your heart is “not as bad” as actually taking the life of another but that doesn’t mean that we should assume that in the eyes of God the two are in different moral universes.

In war, innocents die. That is simply the way of war, even in this day and age. An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities will result in civilian deaths and the resulting backlash will result in untold more. Simply assuming that if America is the one dropping the bombs that it is somehow more justified than another country is comforting to those who live under the stars and stripes but that is probably less than comforting to a Christian in Iran or North Korea. Whether we admit it or not, and often it is not only admitted but trumpeted, Christians in America view our military as distinct from the armed forces of any other country. When “our troops” kill innocent civilians in a military strike, it is a tragic but unavoidable situation. When the opposite happens and the aggressor is one of our “enemies”, it is a war crime.

This truth alone should dissuade Christians from blithely supporting someone as “pro-life” who advocates for war, especially pre-emptive strikes on a nation that has not threatened America and that we are not at war with, even though that candidate is adamantly anti-abortion. That is not to suggest that Christians should only vote for one candidate or another. Whoever becomes President (or is re-elected) will be in a position where national interests likely will demand a decision that leads to killing. As such we should find ourselves removed more and more from the political process and the governing of a state.

Aborting a child is a horrible thing. It places a mother in the most unnatural possible position, a position where the one person who cares for and protects their child more than anyone else finds herself ending her child’s life. Seeing the results of “collateral damage” in the broken and burned body of a child is likewise horrible. The end result is the same regardless of the circumstances: a child is dead.

I appreciate the nuance that Doug is putting out there and the thought that he puts into his argument, flawed though I find it. It is perhaps a sign of the political times that we live in that we tend to make moral equivalences in places where they may not be appropriate but it is also a sign of the enormous influence of American culture on Christians who live here that permits us to compartmentalize certain types of evil as “necessary in some circumstances” and others as “unnecessary under any circumstances”. Our calling as Christians, if we are indeed Christians, trumps political considerations, economic and religious freedom and our “rights” to self-defense and self-determination. We may be called to lay down our lives but we will never be called to take the life of another, or to actively support actions that lead to that result. Abortion is evil and wrong. Killing a child (or an adult for that matter) in a war between nations or ideologies is also evil and wrong.

A lesser evil is still an evil.

Dueling Billboards

I was perusing my hometown newspaper (the Toledo Blade) this weekend while waiting for my wife to get out of surgery and the main article on the home page was a story about two churches with dueling billboards in Toledo. The article, Debate on gays is writ large, is about two churches in Toledo debating the issue of homosexuality via billboard.

The ongoing and sometimes contentious debate in churches regarding homosexuality is back in the public eye in oversized print, thanks to 10 Toledo-area billboards proclaiming competing messages.

After Toledo's Central United Methodist Church posted a single roadside billboard in late April that said, "Being Gay Is a Gift from God," the Rev. Tony Scott of the Church on Strayer felt compelled to offer an opposing point of view.

The Maumee megachurch this week bought nine billboards that proclaim, "Being Gay is NOT a Gift from God -- Forgiveness, Love, and Eternal Life Are."

Here is a classic "lose-lose" scenario.

On one side is the absolutely ridiculous statement that living in a homosexual lifestyle is a gift from God. God "gifts" people with something He clearly condemns as sin? Would you have a billboard that says being an adulterer is a gift from God? Or that being greedy is a gift from God? Not to go all elementary school here but "they started it" with a billboard that is not only erroneous but also intentionally provocative.

On the other side, I doubt that the nine rebuttal billboards are going to do much other than draw a line in the sand. I agree with the content of the message more or less. The method not so much. Perhaps the better method might be to equip the 2500 members of The Church on Strayer to go forth, meet and get to know homosexuals in Toledo and minister to them in love. Billboards don't seem to be a terribly effective ministry tool. It looks kind of like the big church one upping the little church. I'll see your billboard and raise you eight!

I used to think that winning arguments was a great way of winning people. Experience has shown me otherwise. I am pretty skilled at debate and arguing but vanquishing someone in an argument is more likely to leave them resentful and me feeling smug. That is not helping me and it certainly is not helping anyone else. What would be helpful? If Bill Barnard and Tony Scott, the two pastors in this kerfuffle, would actually sit down and talk with one another. If both of these men are Christians, they are adopted brothers with the same Father, not enemies on opposite sides of an ideological debate. They sound like reasonable men who live and minister in the same city, a city I of course know very well and also know is hurting in many ways. Instead of communicating via billboard and soundbytes in interviews, how could they find a way to minister to the lost and hurting in Toledo?

There is a time and place for spirited discussion. There are lots of issues we need to clarify, lots of truths we need to stand firm for, lots of ways the world is trying to chip away at the fundamental truths of the Gospel. But there is also a place, often overlooked, for sincere believers to remember what unites us and what our calling is. That is hard to do with dueling billboards.

Mohler on reparative therapy

Just an outstanding essay from Al Mohler on the controversy swirling around Michelle Bachmann's husband and rumors of the use of "reparative therapy" to reorient sexual orientation: Reparative Therapy, Homosexuality, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Dr. Mohler hits all of the right points here regarding the Bible's unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality, both acted upon and the desire itself, along with the reality that the only "therapeutic" for sin is a progressively sanctified that comes from a regenerate believer. I think this is must reading because it avoids the frequent extremes on this highly visible and emotionally charged issue: either complete acceptance and embrace on one side or unequivocal and angry condemnation on the other.

Here are his concluding comments:

Christians cannot avoid the debate over reparative therapy, nor can we enter the debate on secular terms. We must bring to this conversation everything we know from God’s Word about our sin and God’s provision for sinners in Christ. We will hold no hope for any sinner’s ability to change his or her own heart, and we will hold little hope for any secular therapy to offer more than marginal improvement in a sinner’s life.

At the same time, we gladly point all sinners to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, knowing that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. [Romans 10:13] We hold full confidence in the power of the Gospel and of the reign of Christ within the life of the believer. We know that something as deeply entrenched as a pattern of sexual attraction is not easily changed, but we know that with Christ all things are possible.

And, even as Christians know that believers among us struggle to bring their sexual desires into obedience to Christ, this is not something true only of those whose desires have been homosexual. It is true of all Christians. We will know that those believers who are struggling to overcome homosexual desires have a special struggle — one that requires the full conviction and support of the body of Christ. We will see the glory of God in the growing obedience of Christ’s redeemed people. And, along with the Apostle Paul and all the redeemed, we will await the glory that is yet to be revealed to us.

An important essay from Al Mohler

Dr. Mohler writes this morning for the Wall Street Journal on the enormous change in the culture, both the secular culture and the church: Evangelicals and the Gay Moral Revolution

In less than a single generation, homosexuality has gone from something almost universally understood to be sinful, to something now declared to be the moral equivalent of heterosexuality—and deserving of both legal protection and public encouragement. Theo Hobson, a British theologian, has argued that this is not just the waning of a taboo. Instead, it is a moral inversion that has left those holding the old morality now accused of nothing less than "moral deficiency."

The liberal churches and denominations have an easy way out of this predicament. They simply accommodate themselves to the new moral reality. By now the pattern is clear: These churches debate the issue, with conservatives arguing to retain the older morality and liberals arguing that the church must adapt to the new one. Eventually, the liberals win and the conservatives lose. Next, the denomination ordains openly gay candidates or decides to bless same-sex unions.

This is a route that evangelical Christians committed to the full authority of the Bible cannot take. Since we believe that the Bible is God's revealed word, we cannot accommodate ourselves to this new morality. We cannot pretend as if we do not know that the Bible clearly teaches that all homosexual acts are sinful, as is all human sexual behavior outside the covenant of marriage. We believe that God has revealed a pattern for human sexuality that not only points the way to holiness, but to true happiness.

In just a few years we have seen a seismic shift in moral norms. While this is not surprising in the wider culture which is rapidly abandoning any semblance of religious based morality, where the real shock is comes from the widespread acceptance of sin in what used to be the church. Dr. Mohler goes on to say that we have, as the church, done a poor job in dealing with this issue. Not in terms of acceptance or normalization. That is not on the table but in terms of dealing with this issue face to face:

In this most awkward cultural predicament, evangelicals must be excruciatingly clear that we do not speak about the sinfulness of homosexuality as if we have no sin. As a matter of fact, it is precisely because we have come to know ourselves as sinners and of our need for a savior that we have come to faith in Jesus Christ. Our greatest fear is not that homosexuality will be normalized and accepted, but that homosexuals will not come to know of their own need for Christ and the forgiveness of their sins.

This is not a concern that is easily expressed in sound bites. But it is what we truly believe.

It is now abundantly clear that evangelicals have failed in so many ways to meet this challenge. We have often spoken about homosexuality in ways that are crude and simplistic. We have failed to take account of how tenaciously sexuality comes to define us as human beings. We have failed to see the challenge of homosexuality as a Gospel issue. We are the ones, after all, who are supposed to know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only remedy for sin, starting with our own.

We have demonstrated our own form of homophobia—not in the way that activists have used that word, but in the sense that we have been afraid to face this issue where it is most difficult . . . face to face.

This is not an apology for standing for the truth. It is a call for us to show that we, as Dr, Mohler says, "believe the Gospel we so eagerly preach". I think this is an important conversation and one fraught with all sorts of issue but one we need to have.

The crumbling foundation of organized religion

The religious news world is abuzz with the news, long expected, that the Presbyterian Church-USA has paved the way for non-celibate homosexuals to serve as clergy in their rapidly dying denomination. This is from the official webpage of the PC-USA regarding the change to PC-USA ordination. The old language regarding ordination standards read as follows:

Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

That has been dramatically revised. Note the change:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G- 14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

What is clearly removed is the requirement that clergy be either a married in a heterosexual marriage or chaste. That requirement made sense and was perfectly Biblical. What replaces it is a complete lack of standards at all. Note also that any reference to repentance of sin is also removed.

Set aside the whole clergy issue for a second here. My position on that is quite clear. As I understand this, unmarried clergy are no longer required to be celibate. So someone who is a pastor and is single, of either gender and of any sexual preference, can be engaged in sexual activity outside of marriage and that is not only OK, it is celebrated?

So here are several scenarios.

One: An unmarried heterosexual male pastor lives with his girlfriend in a non-celibate sexual relationship. That apparently is OK.

Two: An unmarried homosexual female pastor lives with her girlfriend in a non-celibate sexual relationship. That is also OK.

Three: An unmarried bi-sexual male pastor lives in a home with an assortment of men and women, all of whom engage in sexual acts with one another. I guess that is OK too?

Forget gay marriage, if you don’t think there is anything wrong with your church leaders being in non-celibate unmarried relationships why bother with marriage at all? The only real reason for marriage becomes tax and legal benefits and getting stuff at your wedding shower.

I can’t see how anyone can read the New Testament and think that open and unrepentant sin, or to put it more bluntly the embrace and celebration of sin, is compatible with the church, a Body made up of sinners who have been born-again and made into new creatures. Creatures that struggle with sin for certain but never, ever that embrace sin as holy. What an upside-down situation!

This has ramifications far beyond just the death of mainline protestantism. All around us the structures of organized religion are falling. The so-called “mainline” denominations are dying by means of a slow suicide, trying to make themselves more “inclusive” but alienating the very believers who make up the church. Some segments of the traditional church seem ascendant at the moment but the cracks are apparent if you take the time to look. The Western culture that is defined in large part by organized religion that is a pale imitation of Christianity is in its death throes and what will remain in 20 or 30 years is going to look very different from the world we are accustomed to. As I have repeated ad nauseum I do not lament the death of Christendom but I do wonder if the Body of Christ is prepared to do the work of evangelism, mercy and ministering in a post-Christendom culture without the safety and security of the cultural acceptance of our faith. I am afraid that by and large that answer is no. Far too many of my brothers and sisters are stubbornly clinging to the traditions of the past in the hopes of rescuing the present. We still persist in trying to replicate Western Christendom in the mission field when in fact we should be looking to the mission field for clues to how we will need to function in the future. The future of Christianity in America is going to look a lot more like the 21st century church in China than it will the 16th century church in Geneva. We need to prepare our youth for that day instead of trying to integrate them into the fading Western church culture that never looked much like the New Testament church in the first place. The great theologians like Calvin, Edwards and Spurgeon still have a place in the church but we had better start looking to the martyrs and the persecuted church to a greater degree. Jim Elliot and Michael Sattler are going to have a lot to teach us regarding the days ahead.

(Dr. Mohler has an excellent essay on this subject from a different perspective: Following Jesus While Rejecting the Bible? Yet Another Tragedy in Mainline Protestantism )

Once again we are indebted to the ELCA

Thanks to the Evangelical Lutheran Church for making paragraphs in news stories like this one possible…

"It's going to be an extremely glorious and festive ceremony because it's the culmination of decades of work to welcome LGBT people into the ELCA," said Amalia Vagts, executive director of the Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries, a nonprofit that credentials openly gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people for ministry.

Megan Rohrer, one of the pastors who will participate in Sunday's rite of reception service, grew up in South Dakota and attended a Lutheran college where she said students tried to exorcise her "gay demons" by throwing holy water on her. Some of those people are now Lutheran pastors in South Dakota, she said.

Rohrer, who is transgender and a lesbian, was ordained by four congregations in San Francisco in 2006, but could not join the ELCA roster until the denomination's national assembly approved the new policy in August

I am not even sure what that means. Ms. (Mr.?) Rohrer was once a dude and now is a transgendered, lesbian “pastor”? I am afraid I don't find that glorious or festive, I find it tragic.

That paragraph comes from the latest story out of the ELCA and shockingly enough it is NOT a sudden reversal and call to repentance for the entire denomination. No indeed, the ELCA takes another step in embracing sin. Here is the crux of it...

Churches can now hire noncelibate gay clergy who are in committed relationships.

What exactly does that mean? We have a date this weekend, I am committed to it. Are we in a committed relationship? What about a heterosexual male ELCA pastor (assuming there are any) who is living with his girlfriend. Is that OK? What if she just sleeps over, does having a toothbrush and a change of clothes at his place count as them being in a “committed relationship”? Does this interpretation require a joint checking account? What if a pastor is committed to a half dozen women? Can he/she/whatever be "hired" as a pastor?

I have a better idea. Since we are supposed to emulate the lives of the elders of the church and since God has made clear that the only acceptable “committed” relationship is one man and one woman in the covenantal bounds of marriage, how about we stop playing social engineering games and stick to the book?

The Presbyterian Church (USA) takes the lead in embracing sin

You have to work pretty hard if you are a mainline denomination and want to wear the coveted yellow jersey of progressiveness. The PC (USA) took a major step today toward claiming the prize by defining marriage between "two people".

Presbyterian leaders approve gay clergy policy, may define marriage as between 'two people'

Presbyterian leaders voted Thursday to allow non-celibate gays in committed relationships to serve as clergy, approving the first of two policy changes that could make their church one of the most gay-friendly major Christian denominations in the U.S.

But the vote isn't a final stamp of approval for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) or its more than 2 million members.

Delegates voted during the church's general assembly in Minneapolis, with 53 percent approving the more liberal policy on gay clergy. A separate vote is expected later Thursday on whether to change the church's definition of marriage from between "a man and a woman" to between "two people."

Under current church policy, Presbyterians are only eligible to become clergy, deacons or elders if they are married or celibate. The new policy would strike references to sexuality altogether in favor of candidates committed to "joyful submission to worship of Christ."

At least this movement is motivated with a deeply Scriptural purpose:

"For the Presbyterian Church to stay current and enter the next generation, they really need to let go of this debate," said the Rev. Cindi Love, executive director of SoulForce, a gay Christian group.

Love said she also believed that if the Presbyterians approve the redefinition of marriage, the church would become the largest U.S. Christian denomination to recognize marriage between same-sex couples.

Well that certainly should be the primary concern of any church, to "stay current" with the whims of the world.

I wonder if any sin still counts in the Presbyterian Church (USA) these days?

If you are going to embrace sin, do it all the way!

Here is a shocking bit of news. The Episcopal Church-USA has elected another homosexual as a "bishop" (well, an "assistant bishop" whatever that is). Open and unapologetic lesbian Mary Glasspool was elected by a sizable number of delegates in Los Angeles.

This was the most telling part:

"One of the reasons she is so the right person for this is that she knows who she is and she knows she belongs to God and she knows everything else falls in place when you keep that central," ("Bishop" V. Gene Robinson) Robinson said in a phone interview. "She's no stranger to people who think she shouldn't be a priest because she's a woman, or think she shouldn't be a priest because she's a lesbian."

Well that makes so much more sense than what Paul wrote about what someone the "right person":

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1Ti 3:1-7)

I mean who wants someone like that when you can have someone like Mary Glasspoool, someone who is so "self-aware". The whole point of the Gospel is for you to feel good about yourself, embrace your sin and find yourself. Kudos to the Episcopal Church for another courageous stand against that great enemy of Christianity: the Bible.

The title speaks for itself

Lutherans to allow sexually active gays as clergy

MINNEAPOLIS – Leaders of the nation's largest Lutheran church voted Friday to allow sexually active gays and lesbians in committed relationships to serve as clergy.

Gays and lesbians are currently allowed to serve as ministers in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America only if they remain celibate. The proposal to change that passed with 68 percent approval.

At 4.7 million members and about 10,000 congregations in the United States, the ELCA is one of the largest U.S. Christian denominations yet to take a more gay-friendly stance on clergy.

The final decision on whether to hire gay clergy in committed relationships will lie with individual congregations.

Some critics of the proposal have predicted its passage could cause individual congregations to split off from the ELCA, as has been the case with other Christian denominations, including the Episcopal Church.

I can't imagine Luther would be pleased at how his name is being represented here. Fortunately for him, he is in glory with our Lord and such things no longer concern him. It is stunning that this wasn't even close. Nearly seven out of ten leaders in what purports itself to be an Evangelical Christian organization voted to embrace sin as normal and in doing so tacitly declare the Word of God to be meaningless.

What now do Christians in the ELCA do? I can't speak for them but I also can't see how people who take the Word of God even slightly seriously can stay in fellowship with something like this. I am not sure how schism is avoidable, nor do I see how schism should be avoided. The Gospel is a call for sinners to repent and trust in Christ, not a call to embrace sin as normal and something to celebrate. Several verses of Scripture come to mind here...

Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Rom 1:32)

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty." (2Co 6:14-18)

Please join me in prayer for our Lutheran brother and sisters in the ELCA, faithful in Christ, who are now faced with a church that has abandoned them by abandoning the Gospel.

Dealing with sin through psychology

There is some major news that impacts the world of Christian counseling. It is being reported all over the place and I read an in-depth article about it this morning in the Wall Street Journal. The article is titled: A New Therapy on Faith and Sexual Identity

… in a striking departure, the American Psychological Association said Wednesday that it is ethical -- and can be beneficial -- for counselors to help some clients reject gay or lesbian attractions.

The APA is the largest association of psychologists world-wide, with 150,000 members. The association plans to promote the new approach to sexuality with YouTube videos, speeches to schools and churches, and presentations to Christian counselors.

I am not sure what to make of this. I am not a big fan of psychology in general and I am really not a fan of it when you blend it with Christianity. Christian counseling often is treading a fine line between the truth of the Gospel and worldly solutions and techniques. I found these passages to be especially troubling...

According to new APA guidelines, the therapist must make clear that homosexuality doesn't signal a mental or emotional disorder. The counselor must advise clients that gay men and women can lead happy and healthy lives, and emphasize that there is no evidence therapy can change sexual orientation.

But if the client still believes that affirming his same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions, the APA says. That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God.

"We're not trying to encourage people to become 'ex-gay,'" said Judith Glassgold, who chaired the APA's task force on the issue. "But we have to acknowledge that, for some people, religious identity is such an important part of their lives, it may transcend everything else."

What concerns me here is that people receiving therapy like this are going to find themselves in a weird situation where they compartmentalize the sin in their lives without really confronting it. It also seems to be a capitulation that the issue of homosexuality is not inherently wrong, but may be something incompatible with religious observance. I am certainly not an expert on psychology, but I can’t help but wonder if this methodology is really proper from a Christian counseling standpoint. From the article I read, it seems that an early part of this counseling is showing that homosexuality tendencies are deeply rooted. I should say so, they are rooted in sin for thousands of year and generation after generation of sinful humans.

People who have made homosexuality a part of their lifestyle don’t have a self-image problem or a mental disorder or a chemical imbalance. They have a sin problem. I think that needs to be dealt with before you can start any sort of counseling. Many people, myself included, have serious issues with sin. That doesn’t mean it can’t be worked through with prayer and support, but it is not something to be compartmentalized, it instead needs to be sanctified. I am not sure that men can lust after men, even if not acting on that lust, and be healthy.

What do you think? Is it appropriate to counsel homosexuals in such a way that it allows them to more or less accept their homosexual proclivities while at the same time suppressing them so they can fit in with a religious community?

Is sin not a salvation issue?

See, I thought that it was.

When I browse around the news, I come across all sorts of stuff that gets me upset. Sometimes I read things that are just tragic. A news piece titled At 1 Lutheran church, gay, partnered and preaching is one of those tragic stories. This is how the story starts off:

MINNEAPOLIS – Brad Froslee was installed as pastor of Calvary Lutheran Church at a special Sunday service attended by dozens of his fellow pastors, as well as Froslee's proud parents and grandmother, all devoted lifelong Lutherans.

But the Minneapolis Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America officially lists Calvary's ministry as vacant. That's because, sitting with Froslee's family at his installation ceremony in February, was his male partner of 5 1/2 years — living proof that Froslee has flouted the ELCA's prohibition on non-celibate gay pastors.

This is kind of a self-described “Don’t ask, don’t tell” ministry. We will pretend that a person openly living in a sinful lifestyle is our “pastor” and the ELCA will pretend that he is not there even though they know he is. The ELCA is considering changes to allow homosexuals in “committed relationships” to serve in the clergy. I am not sure what that means. A “committed relationship” in this case means that they have been consistently committing sin with the same person for years. I am not sure that consistently engaging in sin without a whiff of repentance is a quality that is listed in Scripture for elders.

"In the City for Good," reads a banner on the front of the church, a symbol of Calvary's mission of social justice and outreach to distressed communities. When it came time last year to replace the married couple who served as co-pastors the last 13 years, Calvary's lay leaders wanted someone who would help realize that mission.

"We're a church that's serious about being real about issues of crime and poverty and racial and social injustice," said Josh Moberg, a stay-at-home dad who's president of the church council. "And Brad had experience working with diverse and poor communities. The identities seemed like a good fit."

So they replace a married couple who are “co-pastors”, which should set off warning bells, with a homosexual living in blatant and unrepentant sin. I would suggest to Mr. Moberg that before they start getting serious about their understanding of “injustice”, they need to start getting serious about sin. They need to worry about “being real” about the Gospel. I understand and applaud their desire to help the disadvantaged but not when they set aside the Gospel to do so. I wonder why they even bother with the pretense of being a Christian ministry at all when they ignore the Word of God? I wonder if anyone has ever heard a message like the one Peter preached at Pentecost that ended with “Repent and be baptized”

What is truly tragic is this section:

Rev. Peter Strommen, a pastor from Prior Lake, Minn., who led the task force that proposed the policy change, said it's an attempt to officially recognize the lack of consensus across the ELCA.

With rapid social change on gay rights even in recent weeks, including the sudden legalization of gay marriage in Vermont and Iowa, he said the Lutheran church must find a way to proceed amid strongly divergent viewpoints.

"We've tried to stress here that this is not a core issue of our faith," Strommen said. "It's important. But it doesn't get to the level of the risen Christ and salvation."

What is the risen Christ and salvation about if it is not about sin? Christ came to save people from their sins, the Holy Spirit comes to convict people of sin and change hearts. Christ didn’t die on the cross and rise on the third day so that you can embrace and wallow in your sins. Mr. Strommen should crack open that leather book on his shelf with “Holy Bible” on the cover and read Romans 1:

Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:32)

Not only those who do such things but also those who approve of them. Instead of calling on this lost man claiming to be a minister of the Word to repent, he seeks to enable and encourage his behavior. I need to be in prayer for the faithful remnant that is sticking it out in the ELCA among all of the rejection of the Word of God, people who are trying to hold the line while remaining loyal to their denomination. I fear that the fight they are waging was lost decades ago. I also need to be in prayer for men like Brad Froslee and Peter Strommen, in prayer that God will work in their hearts. The Gospel is not a weather vane that changes direction with the cultural winds. It is the bedrock, the unchanging declaration of man's sin and Christ's redemption.

Updated list o' sins
(just in time for St. Patrick's Day!)

What does the church really need to focus on in these days? Why the sin of ecological insensitivity, natch!

The Roman Catholic church has come out with new, modern sins for Catholics to avoid. Just when you thought it was safe to not recycle that milk jug, now you have to go to confession for your littering. I wonder if all American Catholics will have to repent in the confessional for being citizens of the ecological evil empire?

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Thou shall not pollute the Earth. Thou shall beware genetic manipulation. Modern times bring with them modern sins. So the Vatican has told the faithful that they should be aware of "new" sins such as causing environmental blight.

The guidance came at the weekend when Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the Vatican's number two man in the sometimes murky area of sins and penance, spoke of modern evils.

Asked what he believed were today's "new sins," he told the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that the greatest danger zone for the modern soul was the largely uncharted world of bioethics.

"(Within bioethics) there are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control," he said.

The Vatican opposes stem cell research that involves destruction of embryos and has warned against the prospect of human cloning.

Girotti, in an interview headlined "New Forms of Social Sin," also listed "ecological" offences as modern evils.

In recent months, Pope Benedict has made several strong appeals for the protection of the environment, saying issues such as climate change had become gravely important for the entire human race.

Under Benedict and his predecessor John Paul, the Vatican has become progressively "green."

This is not to make light of the need to be responsible stewards of the environment. But merely recycling and drinking environmentally friendly coffee is not enough to assure salvation. Rome has a fundamental misunderstanding of sin, and that has led to lists of does and don'ts that mislead people into a false sense of self-righteousness. Rome's big failing is the issue of authority, church over Scripture and priest between man and God in the spot rightfully held by Christ. Sin is not an individual act, but a state of being. No human priest has the right to tell one that their sins are absolved because of confession to a man.

The report also laments how rare it is for Catholics to go to confession these days...

Girotti, who is number two in the Vatican "Apostolic Penitentiary," which deals with matter of conscience, also listed drug trafficking and social and economic injustices as modern sins.

But Girotti also bemoaned that fewer and fewer Catholics go to confession at all.

He pointed to a study by Milan's Catholic University that showed that up to 60 percent of Catholic faithful in Italy stopped going to confession.

In the sacrament of Penance, Catholics confess their sins to a priest who absolves them in God's name.
But the same study by the Catholic University showed that 30 percent of Italian Catholics believed that there was no need for a priest to be God's intermediary and 20 percent felt uncomfortable talking about their sins to another person.

Is it any wonder that when the Roman church makes sin so incredibly confusing that people stop going to confession? Or maybe it is because individual Catholics no longer buy into the authority of the church? Or better yet, perhaps Catholics are reading their Bibles and realizing that the Roman priesthood caste is unbiblical and unnecessary for those who are in Christ? We can only hope.