There is more controversy around homosexuality over at
Exodus International and the sin of homosexual behavior. Recently, associate professor
of New Testament Studies at Pittsburg Theological Seminary, Dr. Robert A. J.
Gagnon has called for the resignation of Alan Chambers, head of Exodus
International. Apparently, over the last year Mr. Chambers has been reassuring
individual professing Christians that they are secure in their salvation even
if they persist in the homosexual lifestyle.
This comes at the subject from an entirely different angle
but it is far from new. There are two distinct positions one takes with regard
the issue of eternal security. The older position is known as the perseverance
of the saints. This position argues that Scripture teaches us that genuine
salvation results in a radical change of heart that producing a radical change
in living and that this salvation may never be forfeited. In addition, if
anyone abandons the outward change of life, this indicates there never was a genuine
radical change in the heart to begin with and therefore, the person never knew
the Savior. The parable of the sower illustrates this phenomenon well in its
explanation of the different soils. Some soil may receive the Word, but it
lacks the characteristics necessary to nourish it, and by and by, over time,
the seed fails. John the apostle wrote about those who were once in the
community of believers and later defected, “…for if they had been of us, they
would have remained with us…” (I Jn. 2:19) I Peter 1:5 says that our salvation
is not up to us, but rather, that it is guarded, protected, preserved, and
kept, not by our own will or power, but by the very power of God Himself. That
is true assurance. As Keith and Kristyn Getty sing, “No power of hell, no
scheme of man, can ever pluck me from his hand. Till He returns, or calls me
home, here in the power of Christ I stand.” Amen!
The other version of eternal security comes at the subject
from a very different perspective. It dismisses the lack of true change in a
person’s life as inconsequential to the genuineness of regeneration,
conversion, and repentance. Another Getty song expresses it well, “This the
power of cross, Christ became sin for us, took the blame, bore the wrath, we
stand forgiven at the cross.” Death is crushed to death! The power of the cross
is not limited to its power to forgive sin, to release the debt we owe, but
also to free from the power of sin. Oh, how deep the Father’s love for us, that
He should give His only Son to make a wretch His treasure. Behold the lamb upon
a cross, my sin upon His shoulders, ashamed I hear my mocking voice….it was my
sin that held Him there. Christ died not
in vain. Why should I gain from his reward? I cannot give an answer. But
this I know with all my heart, His wounds have paid my ransom! There is nothing
so glorious and mysterious as God’s work of salvation in His only Son. What
does it become when we reduce it to mere words that ring empty and are devoid
of true transformation?
The OSAS (once-saved-always-saved) position is a perversion
of the doctrine of perseverance. The idea that fruitless Christianity is a real
possibility is a concept that is entirely foreign to the teachings of
Scripture. Jesus said it at least a couple of different ways in the gospels of
John and Matthew. In John 15:5, Jesus taught without ambiguity that everyone
who abides in Him brings forth a large amount of fruit. The entire section when
read in context serves as a sharp contrast between Jesus’ own view on fruit of
biblical conversion and the modern OSAS perversion.
In Matthew 7:13-29 Jesus explicitly teaches that only those
who hear God’s word and act on it will enter the kingdom of heaven. He goes to
great length to demonstrate this teaching in his analogies of straight and
narrow gates, his indictment against false prophets, and His construction
illustration for building a house that will stand when the great tests come.
Not everyone who calls Me Lord will enter, but rather, those who do the will of
my Father, says Jesus. If OSAS were true, Jesus would never have been able to
say this!
The apostle Paul wrote about this in Galatians as he
attempted to strike a balance between the sinful tendencies of perseverance
(legalism) and liberty (antinomianism). Here Paul draws up a list of specific
works of the flesh. Porneia is one of those behaviors that Paul condemns in the
strongest of language. This is a very broad word covering all kinds of various
sexual behavior that goes against the express design of God in creation for
human sexuality. This would include homosexual behavior. Paul clearly believes
that the people who practice these sorts of behaviors will not inherit the
kingdom of God. The focus of the participle in this case is on “the one
practicing, doing, performing” these things. There is a stark contrast between
light and darkness, freedom and bondage, flesh and spirit in Paul. There can be
no doubt that those who practice homosexual sin, which is porneia, are clearly
in grave danger of judgment. Paul says that the one’s practicing these things
will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Finally, Paul clearly says in I Corinthians 6:9 that
homosexuals will not inherent the kingdom of God. The NT text could not be
clearer about God’s view of homosexual behavior. Without ambiguity, it is placed
alongside other sins like adultery, fornication, lying, slander, etc. As such,
it is insufferable and intolerable that Christians should accept this behavior
in this lives. It is a behavior we all must eschew and debar. Hence, it follows
that anyone coming into the Christian group must show repentance from all sin,
to include the sin of homosexuality.
This being the case, what can we say about the exchange
between Dr. Gagnon and Mr. Chambers? The better question has to do with Mr.
Chambers’ authority for establishing and managing Exodus International in the
first place. The greatest problem with parachurch
organizations is just that; they are parachurch. No ministry should operate
apart from a local Church. Every ministry must
be a ministry of the Christian group, coming under the jurisdiction of a
Session or Board of Elders, Pastors, and the Church itself. As a ministry,
Exodus International should come under the authority of Church Elders, not a
board of directors. This would ensure that the ministry could be held
accountable as it carried out its mission of service to the believing community
and evangelized the world. The idea that individuals can spring up and do their
own thing without coming under the authority of godly leaders and elders is as
American as it gets and is far removed from Scripture. If that were the case in
this situation, the local leadership of the Church could review the teachings
of Mr. Chambers and take corrective action.
Dr. Gagnon is right to be concerned and he is right to speak
out. Exodus International wears the label “Christian,” and what happens there,
by implication, is “Christian” in nature. Homosexuals that are told that they
are saved regardless of how often they engage in porneia are unmercifully being
deceived. It matters not that one plead ignorance in this case. The result is
the same. Mr. Chambers should be subjected to correction and if he refuses, as
it seems he is doing presently, he should be subject to church discipline as
outlined in Matt. 18:15-18, Gal. 6:1, 1 Cor. 5, and Titus 3:10-11.
We will begin to see
how the New Testament texts use deep-rooted values and codes to uphold a
faithful and obedient response to God, and to sustain the new community in its
quest to be conformed to the image of Christ and no longer to the society from
which it had separated itself.[1]
So says David deSilva in his work in Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity.
The point is that the group was far
more prominent in Greco-Roman culture than it is in many western cultures today
and that is especially true in American culture. The extreme individualism of
American culture is really quite antithetical to the culture in which the NT
documents began to exist. This fact has served as a serious impediment to the
American Christian’s ability to understand the text of NT Scripture. If we had
a better grasp of the “group” we
would be in a much better place to understand how the audience of the NT saw
themselves within the context of the Christian group. Notice that deSilva
implies the existence of a group was in large part dependent on the members of
that group upholding the group’s value system. In other words, if enough
members defected from the value system of the group, the very survival of the
group would be threatened. This rings true today when so many have abandoned
the values of biblical Christianity while still attempting to maintain their
status within the Christian group. One way of departing from a group would be
to abandon its value system. This would result either in the member voluntarily
defecting from the group of being censured from the group. The honor-shame
society of the NT lent itself well to group culture. If an individual engaged
in behavior that violated the group’s values, the group would shame the person
as a means to correct them and bring them back into conformity. However, if the
individual persisted in their shameful behavior, the group would censure the
person, effectively excommunicating them from the group along with all the
privileges that came with being part of the group. Nothing was more stinging
than to lose face in the eyes of the group. This kind of thinking is somewhat
foreign to American culture, at least for the most part. However, the teachings
of the NT imply that these practices were more than merely the product of their
culture.
Group think seems
to be built on eternal values. The imperatives of Christ and Paul along the
lines of excommunication only make sense in light of group culture. It is for
this reason that the modern Church would be well-served to revisit this perspective
sooner than later. As it relates to the Chambers’ case, the Christian group
could shame anyone espousing the OSAS perversion of the doctrine of perseverance,
bringing them back into doctrinal conformity to the truth as expressed in
Scripture. The word conformity is a good word. However, when you read it in
modern culture, you catch a negative connotation. You feel it as soon as you
say it. Non-conformist sounds noble, more honorable, more attractive than the
word ‘conformity.’ Yet, the very foundation of the church is built on
conformity to the truths revealed by the Son of God Himself. Refusal to conform
to His word is a sure indication that there has been no heart-change. The fruit
Jesus talked about was conformity on the part of His true disciples, his true
followers, true members of the Christian group. If parachurch organizations
were part of the Christian group, perhaps it would be easier to manage false
teachings and deceitful practices. Perhaps we would have a more effective
mechanism for correcting those within and protecting the sheep from those
without. No ministry should be an island unto itself.
[1] David
Arthur deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament
Culture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 18.
No comments:
Post a Comment