The Siamese Sins: Low View of Scripture & Failure to Discipline

An alarming snapshot indeed but not a surprising one. I wanted to comment on a few of these and then briefly point out what this sort of folly and vanity exists in the first place. Notice that groups like the Assemblies of God, the PCA, an Southern Baptist all witnessed either a significant increase in those accepting of homosexuality and/or have a very high percentage that accept it. The Assemblies of God experienced a remarkable 62% increase in just 7 years. The SBC experienced a whopping 30% increase over the same timeframe. And I have no earthly idea what is going on in the PCA but it cannot be good. I have always held the PCA in high regard but clearly the elders are neglecting more than their share of responsibilities when 49% of their members believe that homosexuality is acceptable. 

This is what happens when you have weak men in the pulpit and weak elders and deacons in leadership. Weak reactions to homosexuality lend credence to Christians (supposedly) who are waffling on this issues. The preacher must thunder away without any hint of softness on these issues. He cannot afford to stammer, shutter, and fumble over his words when discussing the blatant sexual sin that is homosexuality. He cannot appear to be weak in any way. Loving yes, but firm, resolved, even extremist where this culture is concerned. We are beginning to discover which men are called as shepherds and which ones are hirelings. The hireling wilts, stammers, stutters, looks for a way of escape. He wants to please men and God. His worse nightmare is controversy. His is not a godly shepherd. He is not only a poor excuse for a shepherd, he is even a poorer excuse for a Christian and even a worse excuse for a man. Where are you O man of God? These numbers indicate we need you something fierce!

Now, a look at the second bit of information and we begin to connect the dots. If you want to understand why it is that the top survey is what it is, you need to look no further than the bottom survey. You can ignore the top lines in the graph for the most part. If you really want to know peoples' opinion of the Bible, just ask them if we should take it literally, not if they think it is the Word of God. The latter expression has become so nebulous it provide nearly nothing of meaningful value when used. But when you ask people if you should take the Bible literally, now you are asking them something. And make no mistake about it, this is not a literary question. This is not a poll for scholars. This is a poll of the common folks. Literally to them means something far different than literary devices. And here we see that the views of Scripture are, as we would expect, extremely low. You see, I can believe that the Bible is the Word of God without taking that statement literally. In other words, it isn't literally the Word of God. And yes, if you don't believe me, go test my claim. 

The point I am making is simple. The Church can ill-afford to bring in new members and retain old members that adopt the sort of thinking expressed in this survey. If Bible-Believing Churches want to protect themselves and thrive for Christ, they must insist that members hold to a high view of Scripture consistent with historic Christian orthodoxy or be removed from membership. Nothing less will do. Second, the Church must insist that members affirm a Christian ethic, to include sexuality, or be removed from membership. Nothing less will do. No you cannot be a member of a local genuine Christian community and hold a low view of Scripture. No you cannot be a member of a local genuine Christian community and affirm homosexuality. The solution is simple. For the godly shepherd and the godly congregation, this is not too difficult. For the man pleasers and the culture lovers, such a task seems daunting. I would suggest you close you doors. If cannot hold to a high view of Scripture and affirm the Christian ethic, regardless of how embarrassing it might seem to our blasphemous culture, then please close your doors and stop calling yourself a Christian because your not!

Finally, Churches need a reaffirmation process annually for all members. Members need to understand that if they depart from the confession that governs their membership, it could be grounds for excommunication. Furthermore, they have an on-going obligation to disclose any such changes to the elders. Additionally, they need to positively reaffirm the confession no less than annually in some way shape or form and they need to do so formally. This will protect the integrity of the memberships of local congregations.

The Weak Preachers of an Intolerant Culture

Robert Gagnon on Tim Keller

The link above contains some very sober remarks from Robert Gagnon about Pastor Tim Keller at Christ Redeemer in New York City. Gone are the days when these men could be counted on to simply stand up and speak the truth. I applaud Robert Gagnon for being courageous enough to honor his profession and more importantly, His God, Christ, the Church, and to love the rest of us, especially Keller, by sharing the truth. Gagnon's type are becoming rare these days. There are a few remaining that we can count on to stand up for Christ and not wilt at the slightest pressure from this culture.

What on earth do we think is going to happen when real persecution shows up in this country and all we have, for the most part, are these men in our pulpits who are so concerned with being credible, respectable, and honored by a culture that has turned its nose up to Christ while claiming to love Him? These men are hyper-sensitive about every controversial issue in our culture.

NEWFLASH: The gospel of Jesus Christ is the most controversial issue we could ever talk about when it is talked about correctly, as revealed in Scripture.

The Shame of Sin

The concept of shame is dealt with throughout Scripture. In fact, when one looks at the NASB95, they will notice that the word appears 130 times in 120 verses. The psychological concept of shame is often confused with, and even used interchangeably with the concept of guilt. But according to Psychology Today, they are not the same. Guilt is a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense a person has committed. Shame, on the other hand, is the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, etc. 

In the Mediterranean world, the concepts of honor and shame have historically played very significant roles in how the communities relate within themselves and with other communities or groups. Seneca, a first-century Roman statesman and philosopher, wrote: “The one firm conviction from which we move to the proof of other points is this: that which is honorable is held dear for no other reason than because it is honorable.” The deontological approach to ethics is hard to miss in statements like this one. The focus of ancient people on honor and dishonor or shame means that they were particularly oriented toward the approval and disapproval of others The difference between modern western cultures and the Mediterranean cultures is remarkable. The notion of shame remains in every culture because of the image of God indelibly stamped on the conscious of man. But fallen man has reacted to and managed that condition in diverse ways. I am concerned with what I observe in western culture, and in American culture in particular. Moreover, I am far more concerned with the lack of attention the Church dedicates to the idea of sin and shame and how sin is talked about these days from the pulpit and in the Sunday school class. We simply don't want anyone to feel bad..about anything...anything at all or so it seems.

In his warning of coming judgment, Zephaniah writes, Gather yourselves together, yes, gather, O nation without shame. (Zeph. 2:1) What is interesting about this passage is that Zephaniah uses the construction lō niksāp which carries the sense of shamelessness here. The idea seems to be that the behavior of the nation is one of unethical shamelessness, which is itself contrary to the values of the holy and the sacred. The consequence of this condition is divine wrath. In fact, change is urged before the "burning wrath of the Lord comes upon you." Now, there is a concept we don't talk about any longer: the burning wrath of God. Is it any wonder that modern liberal theology has rejected the God of the OT and attempted to look at Christ as the corrector of a very bad projection of Jehovah? 

The God of the OT is Christ. The burning wrath of God mentioned in texts like this one is an accurate description of the God that is, not the God that was, or perhaps according to some wishful thinking scholars, the God that never really was. I cannot help but wonder how far this sort of thinking has progressed in the minds of pastors, elders, teachers, and others in the Christian Church of today. 

Contrary to the idea that the God of the OT is a very poor projection of the God that Christ represented, the writer of the Hebrews reminds his audience: "Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; for our God is a consuming fire." (Heb. 12:28-29)  Our sacrifice is to take on the nature of reverence and awe and not the sort of frivolity we see in liberalism, in contemporary evangelicalism, and more specifically, in the hip attitude of pop-Christianity that is reflected in the mega-church, rock star pastor model. In this model, God is supposedly just like my earthly daddy who lets me get away with anything and everything and spoils me to no end. Now, if ever there was a projection of god who is not, it is that one.

Paul writes to the Church at Philippi, For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. (Phil. 3:18-19) Paul describes the ungodly in almost unmentionable terms. He says that these people are enemies of the cross and that their glory is in their shame. That is a profound and remarkable description. To say that your most prized possession, that which you have or are is actually in your shame. What sort of people would actually place the most prized and lofty goal within the sphere of shame? It is the unbeliever that does this in a variety of ways. You may ask, how it is the unbeliever could be guilty of such decadence. 

American culture, and much of the Church with it, has all but removed the notion of shame. The psychological nonsense of self-esteem has fought and won the battle of making sure we all feel good about ourselves in a vacuum. In other words, the worse thing in the world that we could every do is feel bad about ourselves for any reason whatsoever. The greatest sin is to judge someone else's actions. No one is perfect. We all make mistakes. Everyone gets a trophy just for trying or even pretending to try, or better yet, just for showing up. This thinking has served to destroy the very concept of shame and as produced a culture that is rapidly descending into moral chaos. 

The stigma of a number of things has been purged from American culture and even the Church all for the sake of self-esteem. In the Church it is called grace or the love of God. Either way, the behavior and the results are the same. As the world goes, so goes the Church because, well, in modern American Culture, for the most part, the Church is the World and the World is the Church. You could here the Church saying "I and the World are one." How does this impact the Church?

I think a few examples for how this lack of shame impacts the Church will suffice. Let's begin with the view of divorce within the Church. Divorce used to carry a stigma with it. To be sure, some of that stigma was grounded in hypocritical legalism. Nevertheless, divorce used to be a very serious issue in the culture and in the Church. The Church used to hold that divorce was prohibited except in cases of unrepentant adultery. And if you ignored this teaching, you could very well find yourself in an excommunication session. Today, even conservative churches sit by in silence and worse, find ways to justify the divorces of their friends. I know of one church where an illicit divorce occurred and nothing was done because certain power contributors threatened to split the congregation. Of course the pastor, more interested in his small kingdom, was more than willing to compromise the biblical teaching on the subject. This is a common occurrence in the Christian community and it is shameful.

Whatever happened to drunks and whores? In American culture, we call it alcoholism and well, sexual liberation. Alcoholism is a disease and whores have become extinct. And this is all because we don't want to feel shame about our behavior. And of course we don't want to feel any shame is because we are supposed to feel good about ourselves just for the sake of feeling good about ourselves. 

The most recent purging of shame comes by way of the homosexual movement. This movement has gone from being acknowledge as a disgusting act of morally perverse sex to something that even the president of the United States praises and the entire culture celebrates and it has done so in record time. The homosexual, in the name of financial protection at first, advocated for legal status alongside married folks. We knew then as we surely know now that this was not the real issue. The gay agenda seeks to force the entire culture to celebrate what is actually classified by Scripture as moral decadence. What is worse is that this movement is attempting to destroy the very fabric of the Christian faith by forcing it's way into the Christian community. It is a sad state of affairs when Christians have to continually qualify their comments against gay sex by affirming their love for the homosexual and by saying silly things like, "I have friends that are gay so I am not homophobic or anything like that." And then they go on to speak against the idea of gay sex or gay marriage while going out of their way to overemphasize God's love for the homosexual. I direct to a very enlightening and power sermon by Voddie Baucham right here. In addition, Janet Mefferd recently interviewed Voddie here. The former is a sermon and the latter is a fantastic interview. 

I am not advocating a Westboro Baptist Church approach to this subject. There is a difference between outright hatred and direct, godly rebuke, as well as a message that is so toned down it fails to correct or confront anything. The safest thing for the Christian to do is insist on treating these sins the way Scripture treats them. Illicit divorce in the Church must result in rebuke and if necessary excommunication. Alcoholics are not sick, they are drunks in need of repentance and redemption. Sexually liberated women are whores without discipline in need of Christ. They stand before God as corrupt offenders, not misunderstood victims of the product of their culture. They are the product of their own wicked heart and the fall. Homosexuals engage in unnatural and perverse sex. It is not love. They are the most promiscuous group of people the world knows. Their sexual acts are so reprehensible for the most part that we cannot even talk about the things they do to one another. All these groups are adamant that they be viewed differently. They are shameless in their sin, enemies of the Christ they claim to love, and love only themselves. 

The message of the Church has to be biblically faithful and accurate. It is THAT message and that message alone that brings hope and has the power to change lives. We must confront the sinner with their sin, for what it is, and describe their sin and their condition to them the way God describes it. They are not good people trying to find their way. They are not seekers trying to discover meaning and purpose in life. They are enemies of the cross of Christ. They are not neutral concerning the divine commandments, the divine law, the divine revelation of God in Scripture. They hate God and all that He stands for. Because of this, we must confront them with the same message of repentance that Jesus confronted the unbeliever with! Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

The Southern Baptist Convention & Homosexuality

Recently, the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission met in Nashville TN. I was not at the meetings and therefore can only comment on the reports and quotes that are subsequently being published by those who were there. I must confess that I am not just disappointed by many of the statements that were made, but I want to bring it up a level and ask why such a conference, or dicussion or event if you will, was necessary in the first place. Why should the Church spend time, money, and resoures discussing an issue that has been forever settled (and that without ambiguity) with men who have been busy doing everything they can to completely destroy the very gospel we are supposed to love and are sworn to uphold? Let's establish this truth before we even get into the discussion. And "this truth" is the fact that not every question is morally neutral. Some questions are by nature out of bounds. The proof that I shall offer is located in Romans 9:19. The forbidden question is, "Why does God find fault if no one can resist His decretive will?" Paul informs us that this is a forbidden question because it calls into question the very right of God to carry out his purpose. In other words, the question challenges God's sovereignty. Some questions are simply not permitted. But we are not dealing here with questions are we? No, we are not. We are dealing with men like Matthew Vines who do not have questions.

The "gay-christian" movement does not have questions. One article put it this way when it comes to the disagreement between Southern Baptists and Homosexuals: "No concessions were made, but leaders on both sides expressed surprise at how the two agreed to coexist. Put another way: The old emphasis on “Love the sinner, hate the sin” has become more a version of simply “Love all sinners. Ask questions later.” If you think that those in the "gay-christian" movement are sincere people with sincere questions about the Christian teaching on the subject of gay sex, you are either incredibly naive or woefully deluded. Matthew Vines has written a book on the subject that supposedly answers all the questions anyone ever had and he has set out, all by himself and his massive experience of oh, 25 years living or so to reverse thousands of years of Jewish and Christian sholarship.

“I do want to apologize to the gay and lesbian community on behalf of my community and me for not standing up against abuse and discrimination directed towards you. That was wrong and we need your forgiveness,” said North Carolina megachurch pastor J.D. Greear, drawing applause. Statements like this are just incredibly silly. Apparently, Mr. Greear thinks that his gesture will effect gays enough to make them more open to the gospel and perhaps more likely to repent. Or, perhaps Mr. Greear does not have a biblical view of gay sex? One thing is certain, we can't tell based off statements like this where he stands on the issue of gay sex. It is a red herring statement that seeks avoid the hard issue in the room. What is that issue? What does the Church do with "gay-christians?"

Greear statement may sound pious, and charitible. At a minimum, Mr. Greear's comment has nothing to do with the supposed question facing the committee. Greear went on to say, “We have to love our gay neighbor more than our position on sexual morality.” This is one of the most disturbing statements coming out of the conference. First of all, the Christian position on sexual morality is a position on divine truth. It is a position on the authority of Scripture. It is a position indelibly related to the gospel. It is a position touching of the very nature of the very God Who Himself has redeemed us by the blood of His Son. Mr. Greear seems to think this is a political issue and his theological ignorance and inability to reason from A to B is nothing short of scandelous. Gay sex is revealed in Scripture to be an abomination before God as well as a violation of nature. To use this kind of language with people who are insistent on stubbornly rejecting the revelation of divine Scripture cannt help but reduce and downgrade the vile nature of sexual behavior that even led to the supernatural destruction of cities at the hand of God Himself.

"Even the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., the veteran culture warrior and president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., seemed to have a change in tune, if not an outright change of heart." I cannot judge anything that Dr. Mohler said, but clearly the reporter observed something noticeably different about Mohler's disposition toward homosexuality. That is even more disturbing than Mr. Greear's comments because I would expect a mega-church pastor like Greear to make remarks just like that. Mohler is quoted as saying, “Early in this controversy, I felt it quite necessary, in order to make clear the gospel, to deny anything like a sexual orientation,” Mohler told the crowd. “I repent of that.” To call this sexual orientation is to lend crediblity to the gay argument and to bolster their agenda, not to mention, it does not serve to encouarge those Christians who are still courageous enough to stand firm against the movement. Sexual orientation is nothing more than a sophisticated way of referencing homosexuals who have perverted and unnatural sexual urges. 

Christian ministers should not be in the business of dressing up sin so that our language is less offensive to the offender. Our interest is to accurately describe sin to be precisely what it is, not to soften it up or make it more sophisticated. Are some people born with the unnatural sexual urge of homosexuality? Maybe. I am not a scientist. As a theologian I say the question is irrevelant. It doesn't really matter. That fact does not change the fact that homosexual sex is described is an abomination and a perversion of nature by Scripture. And Scripture's definition and description of homosexual sex is really all that matters. This is why Mohler's comments are so very disappointing and disturbing.

Justin Lee's tweet is the most revealing and very likely reflects the strategy of most of the gay attendees at the conference: Justin Lee Tweet - Frustrated LGBT people at home, please know that I am at #ERLC2014 having as many conversations as I can to bring nuance behind the scenes. 4:05 PM - 27 Oct 2014

Lee's tweet indicates that he had a strategy for attending this conference as is likely the case with most gays. The homosexual does not enter these discussions with pure interests of searching for truth. The homosexual is not interested in the truth because Scripture defines them as natural born enemies of God. They will pervert the truth of God everywhere they come into contact with it. That is what the unregenerate do. Lee was there to influence people, as many as possible, to support the "gay-christian" idea. That was his purpose for being there. That was Matthew Vines purpose for being at the conference. 

The apostle Paul told the Ephesian elders, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." 

Would Paul have invited us to have a conversation on this topic? Do we think any one of the apostles would have been open to a conference that brought together Christians and false believers? Is it okay for us to extend such hospitality to people whose passion, whose number one focus is to change the gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ top to bottom by perverting and corrupting the gospel and Christian doctrine and including in the Church a form of sexual behavior that has been recognized by centuries through divine revelation to be an abomination and that, without ambiguity? Paul called them savage wolves. Would a shepherd ever invite savage wolves in among the flock for a discussion about their diet? 

John wrote, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds." Homosexual sex is not an issue that is open for discussion. Homosexual marriage is not an issue that is open for discussion. The Church's only response to these quibblers is found in Matt. 18:15-18. They are to be rebuked openly, sharply, and continuously until they repent. They are not part of the Christian community and have no business participating in a discussion that should be between Christians.

Noah: Hollywood’s Theology

I finally sat down and too the time to watch the movie that I have read about for months now. The reviews have been in for some time and from I what I had read, Christians did not like this movie. However, I was not convinced by what I read that Christians had a really good reason for hating it the way the articles I read seemed to imply. My initial thought was that the movie probably took a few liberties here and there but was probably close to the biblical account as far as it goes. Well, I could not have been more wrong. From the very beginning, the movie Noah showed very little similarity to the biblical record of what actually happened.

First, I want to focus on the positives. Trust me, that won’t take much space. Men were depicted as exceedingly wicked. There was a great flood produced by the wrath of God. There was an ark. There was a man named Noah. All the animals were gathered into the ark. I am probably missing a small element here and there but that is the gist of it. The details of Noah ignore the biblical account almost entirely. I did notice that Hollywood managed to get the scene of Noah’s drunkenness mostly right as a detail. Clearly, Hollywood had some objectives in mind when they created this project.

The inclusion of mystic components, such as the watchers is clearly a departure from the biblical record itself. Most of the information is derived from the Pseudapigraphal books of Enoch in conjunction with the typical Hollywood creative creative liberties. This calls into question the accuracy of the biblical record itself, which is perhaps one of the main objectives of the movie.

The second component of the movie is the complete inaccuracy of details. The movie depicts Shem with a wife, Ham as single and Japheth as a child. These are not in keeping with the biblical record. It would not be quite a big deal if modern Christians actually read the Bible like it meant something to them, but most do not. I can see thousands of pastors and Sunday school teachers now having to clear up the incompetent and confused “Jesus lovers” now. Yes, a bit of sarcasm is in order I think. If you have been a Christian for a few years and don’t know enough about Noah that this movie confuses you, then you deserve a little scorn. Grow up and stop being so lazy. If you are interested in what God has to say, then prove it.

In addition, there were eight souls on the ark during the flood. Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. The movie records Noah, his wife, Shem and his wife, Ham, Japheth, and Tubal-cain. That is 7 souls: two there were missing according to Scripture and one that was the product of Hollywood imagination. According to Scripture, Tubal-cain and Noah were half brothers, with Lamech as their father.

As the movie goes on, Noah is depicted as fanatic who sees the wickedness of not only all “those” men, but also the wickedness in his own heart. In one scene in particular, Noah is depicted as saying something very profound: the wickedness is not only in them, but it is in us as well. While his wife sees inherent good in humans, especially in her own children and her self, Noah sees the wickedness as clearly as a man can see it. And Noah is right! But Noah goes beyond what is considered biblical and begins to suffer delusional thoughts that all men are supposed to die with the death of his youngest son. This makes very little sense and the attempt to pain Noah is such a light can be viewed as nothing other than Hollywood’s attempt to take a swipe at traditional Christianity.

One final point worth making is the interesting circumstances surround Ham. While Ham was clearly a heterosexual in the film, one cannot help but wonder if the movie attempted to take a backhanded swat at Christians in a most underhanded way. One of the “gay Christian” tactics that is used by people like Matthew Vines is that traditional Christians want to force gays to be alone and lonely. One cannot help but feel empathy with and sympathy for Ham when Noah shows little concern that he will not have a partner. I could not help but feel like the gay influence was saying in this scenario: you see, this is how we feel. In addition, it was obvious that Noah was painted in the worse possible light with is complete lack of emotion regarding Ham’s circumstances. He was depicted and cold, distant, and uncaring. This is exactly the approach used by homosexuals that desire to eradicate Christianity by insisting gay Christianity is a possibility.

In addition, as one listen listens to Noah’s story of creation during the flood with his family gathered around him, theistic evolution is surely in view as the images flash across the screen. The message from Hollywood is obvious. The Biblical account can be recast and retold in a number of ways.

The movie Noah takes a swipe at the Biblical record from a variety of perspectives. Not only does it mix the Bible with the Pseudapigrapha, it mixes it with modern scientific hypotheses as well. The Bible as it is simply cannot be trusted to provide a realistic and accurate account of what really happened. Other sources are required. This is antithetical of course, to the Christian view of the reliability and sufficiency of Scripture. If I were to capture the learning objectives of Noah, they would be as follows:

·      Introduce contradictory accounts of Noah and the flood in order to help people understand that they should not rely solely on the Bible as their source for human history.

·      Recast Noah as a delusional man with extremist and radical ideas of his mission from God.

·      Look for opportunities to paint modern Christianity as delusion, uncaring, cold, bigoted, and extremist just like Noah.

·      Depict the liberal, high, lofty view of man as the loving, caring, right attitude about man and use Noah’s wife as the instrument. This furthers the cause of an anti-biblical philosophy of leadership and props up modern feminism.

·      Help Christians feel the pain of the consequences of their rejection of homosexuals, using Ham, a heterosexual as a model of that hurt and Noah as an example of just how uncaring and callused the Christian position is.

As one can see, the aims of the movie Noah are clear:

1.    Doubt the Bible

2.    Religion is delusional

3.    Christianity is uncaring and callused, inhumane even.

4.    Man is the measure of all things.

Ben Corey, John MacArthur, and A Gay Thing

In my last post I wrote about Ben Corey’s issue with John MacArthur’s perspective on how Christians should deal with the professing Christians that also claim to be gay. I wanted to return to this issue briefly to point out a couple of things that I did not mention in my most recent post.

Returning to 1 Corinthians 5 where we have the case of what I think is a man that has married his former stepmother. The Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures prohibit such an act in the strongest of language. Paul uses a word that I think is vital to this discussion. It is translated immoral in the English translations of our Bible but in the Greek the word is pronounced PORNEIA. This is very broad Greek word that means any kind of illicit sex whatsoever. In other words, in sex outside of the context of marriage as defined by God would be classified as PORNEIA. Adultery, fornication, pedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality, and so forth would all be included in this definition.

Now, the interesting thing is that this word is used to describe an illegitimate marriage. It was immoral in Jewish culture as well as Greco-Roman culture for this sort of arrangement to occur. The sin was no less serious than if the two were carrying on an affair. However, an affair is highly unlikely because of the public nature of this incident. What man would allow his son to humiliate him by having sexual relations with his wife? It is much more plausible to think that these two were in a relationship and that the father had either died or was no longer in the picture. Paul called the arrangement immoral and ordered that the man be removed from the community immediately and without hesitation.

Now, I want to draw your attention to this word PORNEIA as another biblical author uses it. Jude 7 uses a form of PORNEIA, specifically, EKPORNEUW, which means debauchery. THE NAS translates it “gross immorality.” What does Jude mean by gross immorality? How can we get a glimpse into some of the behavior that is classed as gross immorality? It is really quite simple; Jude references Sodom and Gomorrah as his example. Our next step then is to understand the sin of these two cities so that we can understand Jude’s characterization of this behavior he is referencing.

We get a glimpse of God’s attitude toward Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen. 18:20, And the Lord said, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.” For those who wish to take a casual approach to this issue, I suggest you read the story in Genesis 18-19 very carefully. So far we have recognized that Jude was inspired by God to classify the behavior of Sodom and Gomorrah as immoral. Second, God has said to Abraham that their sin is exceedingly grave.

As the messengers of the Lord arrive in the city, Lot recognizes their uniqueness and compels them to spend the night in his home with his family. The men of Sodom, all of them, surround Lot’s home and demand that Lot send the men out to them so that they may have sexual intercourse with them. Now, some modern scholars have attempted to recast this story in an attempt to defend homosexual behavior. Perhaps the most developed is Morschauser’s contention that when the men say they want to “know” the visitors, they are expressing distrust in Lot’s ability to protect the city from spies and they want to “interrogate” the men.^[1] The problem with this view is that the Hebrew word “to know” always connotes sexual relations when used with a personal direct object. In fact, when Lot offers his daughters, Morchauser argues that he offered them as hostages just in case the men were spying out the city. The problem again is that Lot uses the same word “to know” in the context of his virgin daughters. They have never known a man! Hence, such an interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah, while creative, has nothing to commend it and should be dismissed as modern liberal bias.

Lot referred to the act of homosexual sex as he pleaded with the men of Sodom not to do this “wicked thing.” But the men would have none of Lot’s pleading and began to force their way into his house. It was at this time that the angels smote these men with blindness and rescued Lot and his family from the wrath of God that was to be poured out on those cities.

Jude refers to the men of Sodom and Gomorrah as behaving immorally when they went after strange flesh. This is a reference to homosexual behavior. Jude actually uses the idiom ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, which means to engage in unnatural sexual intercourse (BDAG). There can be little doubt about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah when it is read without bias in its historical context and allowed to stand on its own two feet. Paul spoke about homosexual sex and stated plained that it was unnatural. In Rom. 1:27 Paul refers to same sex relations as indecent and shameful acts that are disgraceful and a violation of the natural function of the human body.

Wolves have existed from the very inception of the Church. In fact, wolves were here long before the Church was born. We have always had to contend with them. They have had a history of being more sneaky, more stealthy than what we are witnessing today. Today, they show up with their new ideas of what Christianity is supposed to be about, plant seeds of doubt about established doctrine, play on the dissapointments of thousands, and use their counter-Christian thinking to gain acceptance. They begin with the end in mind. Ben Corey, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren and several others have twisted, bent, rehaped, and contorted nearly every ounce of histroric Christian orthodoxy in an attempt to hi-jack Jesus and His gospel. They are not the only problem in my opinion. What is just as much a problem are the silent pastors, teachers, professors, and Christians who refuse, for whatever reason, to call these false teachers and heretics out publicly. We have a duty to honor God by standing for truth, defending the truth, proclaiming the truth living the truth, and teachers others the truth. Its about time we got on with it and stop worrying so much about how unpopular and marginalized we will become. Persecution is a way of Christian life. We need to let that settle in and get used to it.

---

^[1] John H Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 93.

John MacArthur, Gay Christians, and the Hypocrisy of the New Christianity

Recently, John MacArthur was asked a question about how a Christian parent should respond to learning that their child is gay. John gave two basic courses of action based on two very different scenarios. First of all, if your child is a not a professing Christian, you essentially do nothing other than love and continue to give them the gospel. However, it is the second scenario that has Ben Corey over a Patheos seeing red these days. According to MacArthur, if a Christian parent has a child that is professing to know Christ while at the same time embracing the gay lifestyle, that is a very different animal.

In the case of gay children who profess Christ, we must take a very difficult path. Confessing that Christ reigns in your heart is the single most serious and solemn confession any human could ever make. It is not to be done lightly. Those who are aware of the presence of sin must confront any Christian that professes Christ and that has sin in their life. Our children are not excluded from this treatment simply on the ground that they are our children. MacArthur follows the text faithfully even if it is painful. And for that, he should be respected and applauded. Our spiritual family takes precedence over our temporal family. Our love for God trumps our love for our children. These false professions must be dealt with seriously, up to and including excommunication if they refuse to repent of their sin or admit that they do not know Christ. There can be no middle ground.

Well, according to Ben Corey, John MacArthur has it all wrong. On his blog Corey writes,

What troubles me about MacArthur’s advice, and so many who think like him, is the horrible inconsistency that often is used when it comes to shunning. One of the key passages folks use to support shunning comes from 1 Corinthians 5– the unfortunate truth, however, is that Paul lists several sins he thought were shun-worthy. Folks like MacArthur have lifted sexual immorality out of that passage while completely ignoring the rest of what Paul taught.

First of all, at best Corey demonstrates that he does not know John MacArthur or Grace Community Church very well. People are not removed from the community only for sexual immorality and to imply that is ridiculous. I mean, how would Corey know? And if he doesn’t know, is such a statement slanderous of John MacArthur. Surely it is. Second, are we really to believe that Corey believes in the practice of Church discipline for all these sins? I have communicated with Corey personally and I can tell you that he does everything he can to give homosexual sex a pass. I could not even get him to admit that homosexuals should have to abstain from sex until marriage even if such a thing were truly possible. No, there is more to Corey’s objection here than meets the eye and the hypocrisy only comes into more focus as he continues with his objection.

Corey then wonders if MacArthur would excommunicate someone making $200,000 as an annual salary if they did not tithe or give to charity. Clearly, this demonstrates that not only does Corey not know MacArthur’s views on these subjects he doesn’t seem to understand what Scripture teaches about them either. Tithing was a Jewish practice never carried into the Church and it never involved money. In addition, the amount of money Christians contribute to the Church giving is a matter of individual conscience and if between that person and God. The Church is not to police a person’s giving. It is something that each person should do as their own heart directs and as they have ability. This is Paul’s teaching to the Corinthians in 2 Cor. 8-9.

The more pressing issue is twofold: excommunicating family members and Jesus teaching on family relationships within the context of the kingdom. In Matthew 18:15-18 Christians are commanded by Christ to go to any brother they see committing a sin. There is no caveat. Jesus did not give us permission to treat blood relatives differently. In the kingdom, we are all family. If that brother does not repent of his sin, we are to take witnesses. If that brother does not repent after hearing the witnesses, we are to take it to the church. If they do not repent after hearing it from the church, they are to be excommunicated and treated like unbelievers because of their obstinate disposition. Corey attempts to bring in a variant reading in the text to personalize the sin but the variant has little to commend it.

Paul dealt with this in real life but in a more urgent way in 1 Cor. 5. First, Paul acknowledged that there was immorality among the Corinthians and that the immorality was of a very serious nature. Apparently a man had taken his stepmother as his wife. This was forbidden not only in the Jewish religion but in Roman culture as well. The punishment was severe. It does not matter if the son was having an unfair (unlikely) as Corey thinks this might make the situation worse, or that he had married his father’s wife. Moreover, it does not matter even if the man’s father had died. The act was still considered reprehensible. Paul’s action was swift and decisive, “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” 1 Cor. 5:13. Not only this, Paul told the Corinthians that in such cases, “But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” (1 Cor. 5:11) Not only were Christians not to allow people in this community that were living immoral lives, but they were not to eat with immoral people if they were also professing to be Christians. According to Paul, we may eat with immoral people so long as they do not profess to be Christian.

Paul gave the very same instructions to the church at Thessalonica: If anyone does not obey our instruction ^ain this letter, take special note of that person ^band do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. (2 Thess. 3:14) John said the same thing in 2 John 10-11, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.”

I now want to turn your attention to Jesus to see what Jesus actually said about Him impact on families as opposed to what men like Ben Corey claim Jesus said His impact would be on families. Jesus said in Matt. 10:35-37, “For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. Jesus knew that devotion to Him, to His life, to His teachings would cost even intimate families their intimacy and their loyalty and even their bond.

Jesus also said that brothers and sisters and fathers and mothers would hate their Christian blood relatives so much that in some cases they would have them killed: “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. This is a far cry from the one-sided picture that Ben Corey paints of the Jesus we have all heard about but apparently not all of us accept Him for who He is. And He is precisely Who Scripture reveals Him to be.

The problem with Ben Corey, the emergent church, and the young know-it-alls who are out to redefine everything that has already been defined is that they have an idea already in mind. They already know, before reading a single text about Jesus, about God, about Christianity what they want them and it to be. They want a very specific kind of Jesus, God, and Christianity. And nothing is going to get in their way of having it; not even divine truth.

You do not love people by allowing them to remain ignorant and lost in their sin. It used to be that these people thought that we could win them with our love and acceptance. They thought that if we just lived a certain way around unbelievers that unbelievers would be attracted to our Christianity and give up their wicked behavior and join the group. Now they don’t even care if the wicked give up their behavior. In fact, they argue that the wicked should be able to continue in their wicked behavior. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. These people are not fellow believers within the Christian community with minor differences from historic orthodox Christianity. They are wolves seeking to subvert the truth of the gospel top to bottom.

I mentioned hypocrites in my title. While Ben Corey and the emergent like to refer to conservatives like MacArthur and reformed Christianity as modern day Pharisees because of our ethic, what they fail to see is that they are the ones that resemble the Pharisees. You see, the Pharisees ignored God’s word and set up their own standards and then judged everyone, not based on God revealed truth, but based on their own traditions and rules that had gone far beyond anything Scripture taught. When one of these former fundies criticizes a pastor because he drives a car of a certain value or a Christian because they earn a certain income, they are guilty of doing exactly what the Pharisees did. They have established an ethic of their own and imposed it on others. Moreover, that ethic is the result of twisting the Scripture. In fact, I have even had conversations with professing Christians at Patheos who were SHOCKED that heterosexual sex outside of marriage was a sin as well. Now, unless this person was a brand new Christian, they were entirely ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. How can someone claim to love Jesus and be so disinterested in His teachings, His ethics, and His values?

When Ben Corey says the Church must accept homosexuals as they are and challenges the view that homosexual sex is a sin, and demand that we receive them as regenerated believers, he is setting up his own standard and judging everyone else according to it. You see, the Pharisees were not wrong because they were conservative. They were not wrong because they had a particular ethic. They were wrong because their views subverted God’s word. They were not wrong because they were not accepting of others. They were wrong because they rejected what God accepted. It is not ipso facto wrong to reject someone. There is a place for that. It is wrong to reject what God accepts and to accept what God rejects. Ben Corey and the emerging church is guilty of resembling the Pharisees because they are accepting homosexual sex when God rejects it. I am reminded of the prophet that said woe to them that call evil good, and good evil.