Note: I wrote the piece with the above title as an expression of some very deeply held feelings.
I was direct, confrontational, and perhaps “hyperbolic.”
Believe me, it cuts both ways. I have been accused of no longer being a Christian simply because I believe God gave the role of spiritual leadership to men.
But quite frankly I am tired of having to defend my own feelings. I never should have hit the “publish” button.
I deleted the post.
Please read carefully. Do not put words in my mouth. I have a hard enough time defending my own statements. I refuse to try to defend statements I have not, nor would I ever, make.
The landscape regarding LGBT behavior and religious freedom just got a lot more complicated. Up to this point in the recent debate the question pressed most forcefully was one of belief, or orientation. It was argued by the LGBT promoters that a person could not be discriminated against because of their orientation. The argument was tied closely to that of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960′s. That argument drew both praise and condemnation from the African American community. Some saw the connection as legitimate, others saw a vast discrepancy between being born black and the choice of a homosexual lifestyle. That argument was prominently on display recently in a decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court to rule against a photographer who had refused to take pictures of a same-sex marriage. The photographer stated that it was against her religious beliefs to support same-sex marriage, and referred the lesbian couple to other photographers who would comply with their wishes. That was not good enough for the lesbian couple; they sued, saying that the original declination by the first photographer amounted to discrimination. The Supreme Court agreed.
The thrust of the Supreme Court decision was that in a civil society sometimes we have to go against our feelings in order to create an equal playing field. With the landmark legal decisions of the Civil Rights Movement clearly in view, the court argued that if a company is serving the public at large, the company does not have the right to limit its services to only those who agree with it. The photographer could cease to offer any wedding services, and thereby comply with the law, but if she offered wedding services to heterosexual couples, she had to offer the same to same-sex couples.
The first amendment to the constitution just got blown out of the water.
First, the photographer was not arguing that the couple did not have the right to get married, nor to have their wedding photographed. She was arguing that she should not be forced to support, and promote, that wedding by taking their pictures for them. Here is a critical issue, that if not overturned on appeal, destroys the very foundation of the right of free speech. It was not the orientation of the couple that offended the photographer, it was their behavior. She said she had no issue with taking portraits of LGBT people – that would be analogous to refusing to serve black people at a lunch counter. What she objected to was being forced to use her studio to support (promote) the behavior of the couple in getting married. So, just as a restaurant cannot deny service to a person because of their race, they can still deny service to an African American or Hispanic, or Asian, or Native American, or Anglo for that matter, if that person attempts to enter their place of business without a shirt or shoes, or because they are falling down drunk.
In my opinion this is what the SCONM totally ignored, and their unanimous decision does not speak at all about the photographers right to object to behavior that she clearly views as abhorent specifically because of her religious convictions. If a Christian cannot object to homosexual behavior on religious grounds, on what basis can we object? And that, my friends, is exactly what I believe the “Homosexual Agenda” is blatantly trying to coerce through these legal rulings.
Second, at what point would the SCONM rule that a company does not have to comply with the demands of a customer? What if an atheist walked into a devoutly Muslim catering firm and demanded that they prepare a roast pork dinner for his company? Well, you could argue that if pork was not on the menu then the caterer would not be forced to prepare it. But that obscures the point: the photographer in this situation did not have “Illegitimate Weddings for Same-Sex Couples” on her menu. What she offered was photographic services for weddings. If she did not recognize the event as a wedding (which she obviously did not, and for religious reasons), then the service was simply “not on the menu.” What if a white supremacist walked into a Jewish advertising agency and demanded that they design, create, and produce handouts and flyers for the next Ku Klux Klan meeting? What if a group of hate-filled Christians walked into the offices of a pro-gay magazine and demanded that they publish an ad in their magazine that stated, “God Hates Fags.” Would the SCONM side with the homosexual oriented magazine or the hate-filled Christians?
Yeah, I thought so too.
All during the fight for equal rights for same-sex couples there has been a war of words between promoters and detractors. On the one hand there is the belief that there is an all encompassing “Homosexual Agenda” and there are those who flatly deny such a thing exists. I believe that this case proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that, at least for some homosexuals, there clearly is an all encompassing agenda, and that agenda will not be completed until all voices of religious dissent are silenced. With this ruling the SCONM has stated that religious beliefs DO NOT matter in the effective functioning of society. Religious beliefs, especially Christian religious beliefs, must be subverted in the cause of promoting so-called equality and justice. The only problem is, the hard-core LGBT promoters do not want equality – they want the power to suppress and remove any objections to their lifestyle.
The Supreme Court of New Mexico just made it a lot easier for them to do so. Now, the question will turn to religious groups themselves. If a single individual cannot “discriminate” against homosexual behavior on religious grounds, on what constitutional ground can a church (which promotes those biblical teachings) stand if it refuses to perform or to permit homosexual weddings to take place in their facilities? The individual is simply a inter-connected part of the whole. If the fruit of the tree is poisonous, how long will it be before the entire tree is declared poisonous?
Stand by, folks. This will get very interesting. Jesus warned his disciples that they would be hated, not just ridiculed or made fun of. If Christians stand firm on this issue the secular world will unleash a torrent of vitriol the likes of which have not been seen since Adolf Hitler decided to eradicate the Jewish people. Of that I have no doubt. The question will be whether we as disciples of Christ have the moral integrity and the strength of character to stand and face the hatred of the world.
The question we will be forced to answer is, which do we love more – the praise of man or the blessing of God?
A few hours ago I posted a response to the Supreme Court Ruling overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and refusing to uphold Proposition 8 from the state of California. That post can be found here. While working out at the gym another thought occurred to me that this ruling might have a curious and unexpected consequences for soft-feminists within the church.
To begin, let me define my terms. I consider hard, or radical, feminists to be those who push, not only for equality for males and females, but for actual superiority of the female over the male. Modern day radical feminists would include any past, present, or future president of the National Organization of Women and Planned Parenthood. Males can be radical feminists as well. Anyone who argues that a female has the unrestricted right to murder her unborn child fits into this category. Some might be more radical than others. Radical feminists have little or nothing to do with the Bible; they view it as ancient and silly myth. Radical feminists tend to be radical secularists. And, to be more to the point, radical feminists have been in bed with the radical homosexual agenda for many years (pardon the pun).
Soft feminists, (often referred to as “egalitarians”) on the other hand, can and do claim an affinity for the Bible. It is a tenuous love affair, because they have to pare and trim certain texts that they find patriarchal and misogynistic. So, a large portion of the Old Testament is out, as are the passages in the letters of Paul and Peter that are viewed as being denigrating to females. However, certain other passages are held to be deeply formative for soft feminists – especially those in which Jesus speaks or acts favorably to females, and, interestingly enough, Galatians 3:27-28 written by the famed patriarchal misogynist the apostle Paul. This passage communicates to them their core belief: men and women, while biologically different, are ultimately equal in every respect. No soft feminist would argue that male and female have ceased to exist as different genders. The two have simply ceased to exist as different “persons” in the church.
Just so we are all on the same page, let us quote the passage in question:
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (RSV)
Even though there is absolutely nothing in the letter to the Galatian Christians discussing church leadership or male/female roles or gifts within the church; even though there is absolutely nothing in the letter to indicate that Paul is addressing an issue that he very specifically dealt with in other letters (1 Cor. 14, 1 Tim. 2, 3; Titus 1; Ephesians 5); and even though the derived interpretation is directly opposed to those passages, the soft feminists see in Gal. 3:27-28 their ultimate “trump card” as it relates to male/female relationships, and especially male/female gifts and responsibilities vis a vis the church. In this interpretation Galatians 3:27-28 is the last, and most profound, statement in the Bible regarding the differences between the sexes, and that statement is that there is no difference spiritually speaking.
Ah, but, here is where it gets really interesting. Soft feminists, at least some of them, tend to be very literal and strict when the issue of homosexuality is addressed. (Males especially so.) Because they accept most of the Bible, especially the creation account of Genesis 1-3, they view marriage as sacred. Male and female join as one to create not only another physical child or children, but a special spiritual bond that is viewed as holy in the eyes of God. To many soft feminists the idea of homosexuality is abhorrent. And, interestingly enough, they refer to passages in the Old Testament and the New Testament (some written by the horrible patriarch and misogynist Paul) as evidence that homosexuality is a sin.
So, what do soft feminists do when radical feminists and the radical homosexual lobby quote Galatians 3:27-28 as further proof that God has fully accepted homosexual marriage – as the United States Supreme Court has just made clear in a secular sense?
Here is my question: If Galatians 3:27-28 is the “trump card” that overturns passages in the Old and New Testaments that specifically address the roles of male and female in regard to certain spiritual natures, how can you argue that Galatians 3:27-28 is not the “trump card” that overturns passages in the Old and New Testaments that are “homophobic” and no longer culturally acceptable?
Soft feminists cannot argue that gender is pre-determined and homosexuality is a choice. Homosexuals have argued for years that their behavior is just as ingrained in them as “male” and “female” is ingrained in our biology. (This, of course, raises serious issues with the bi-sexual and trans-gender crowd, but victimhood loves company, so minor and major differences of logic are often overlooked.) Soft feminists cannot argue that the apostle Paul is accepting “maleness” and “femaleness” or anatomical difference, but that he is only pointing to spiritual equality within specific gifts and roles in the church. Let us remind ourselves of the passage, “There is neither male nor female…” What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
You see, from a strictly logical point of view, the homosexual lobby has a stronger claim to Galatians 3:27-28 in the sense of the apostle Paul breaking down all previous beliefs than does the soft feminist (egalitarian) crowd. If Paul is clearly and unambiguously stating that there is “neither male nor female” then homosexual marriage is simply a non-issue. We are all one in Christ. In this interpretation bodies and gender do not matter. The only thing that counts is what is in our heart. In other words, if God called them to exercise their love through an emotional bond with someone of the same anatomical structure, who is the soft feminist-but strict heterosexual to object?
Obviously I reject this argumentation in toto. I reject the soft feminist (egalitarian) interpretation of Galatians 3:27-28 as well. That interpretation is bad theology built upon wretched exegesis.
But I must say I enjoy watching those who use Galatians 3:27-28 and argue that women should have the same roles as men in terms of church leadership squirm and try to argue around the use of Galatians 3:27-28 when used by someone who is arguing that homosexual marriages are blessed by God and should be blessed by the church.
If you take a passage out of context to win your argument, don’t be too surprised to find that someone else is using that same passage to win theirs.
This particular topic cuts into several hot-button socio-political issues being debated in the church today, so I know I am treading on thin ice, out on a broken limb and cruisin’ for a bruisin’. But I will share these thoughts anyway, maybe not because they offer any clarity, but simply because some things need to be discussed and since this is my blog I get to set the topic.
One phrase that I hear quite frequently in discussions regarding several different topics is something like this, “How can you tell me I cannot exercise my God given calling simply because I am (a) __________________?” and you can fill in the blank with any of a number of supposed “victims” of the status quo. That might be a female, a homosexual, a divorcee, a professional musician or dance performer, or a repeat sex offender. There really is no limit to a real or imagined victimhood. Rather than pick on one of these truly “hot as blue blazes” issues, I will shift the conversation somewhat and discuss a somewhat arcane question, but a question that I believe relates back to any and all of these other particular situations.
One issue that has divided Churches of Christ for about a century is that of whether a congregation should have, or even can have, a “professional” ministry staff or if they should operate on a “mutual edification” process in which every male in the congregation is allowed to, and often is encouraged to, lead in the worship service including teaching class and preaching. A “professional” preacher is defined as one who has been to a training school, either a college, university or preacher training school, and who receives full compensation for his service to the congregation. Most who serve in mutual edification congregations do not accept any payment for their preaching/teaching services.
To begin with, I want to say I share a lot of sympathy with those who believe in mutual edification. I think sometimes those of us who are “professionally” trained tend to look down upon, or otherwise overlook, men and women in the congregation who are both capable and qualified to lead in significant ways. As with virtually every profession, there can be a measure of hubris the creeps into the heart of every practitioner.
That having been said, however, I have significant issues with those who claim that there is no Scriptural warrant for a paid, “professional” ministry position (for reference see 1 Cor. 9:9-14 and 1 Timothy 5:18 where Paul quotes the Old Testament Scriptures and even quotes Jesus in proclaiming that those who preach the gospel should get their support for doing so.) One of my main concerns is that in my professional training I have learned just how easy it is to twist and distort any passage of Scripture to mean what you want it to mean. Racists have been doing this for years. So have those who advocate building nuclear bomb proof shelters in their backyards and hoarding 15 years worth of food in order to survive the coming nuclear war (I often wonder – if the destruction is that total, what good would 15, or 50, or 100 years worth of food do? You just cannot argue with stupid). Another concern is that just because you have an opinion, a poem and a verse of Scripture, that does not mean you have been “called” to share that passage, poem and opinion.
The point is, those who hold an extreme position have to do so by doing two things. One, they have to ignore, twist, or explain away many clear passages of Scripture that contradict their opinion. Two, they have to magnify their own personal sense of investment in the debate so that, if someone disagrees with them or, more accurately stated, disagrees with their conclusions, then that person is described as a “hater,” “phobic” or worse and so the objector’s point of view is discounted a priori. So, if someone attempts to defend the use of a paid, professionally trained minister, the discussion gets hijacked into an attack on the qualifications of the one advocating the mutual edification position. Now, the mutual edifier may truly be inept and unqualified to teach and preach. But his talents and qualifications have nothing to do with the passages of Scripture which allow for, if not support, a paid “professional” minister.
As I mentioned above, this scenario has specific applications with those who advocate for absolute and undifferentiated equality for females as males, and for those who advocate for the acceptance of homosexual behavior, and for those who advocate for more and more entertainment styles of worship. Are there spokesmen who defend such movements as Christian, Godly and Scripturally supported? Absolutely! But, before everyone simply nods their heads with these prophets of relaxed (or erased) doctrinal teachings, let me remind you of the history of false prophecy in the Bible. It started in the Garden of Eden and it continued right up to and including the desert in which our Lord was tempted and the Garden of Gethsemane where he endured his final battle with Satan. The apostles warn frequently and fervently for those who have been enlightened by the Spirit not to be taken by by a spirit of false prophecy. The prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel in particular had to deal with the effects of false prophecy. The historical books of the Old Testament recount many tragic stories where God’s people listened to and believed false prophets. Just because someone says, “Thus says the Lord” does not make him or her a prophet of God. We have to use our keenest senses to determine whether a prophet is speaking the words of God or the words of the Deceiver.
To go back to the main title of this post. I do not doubt that many are hearing a “calling” to do whatever it is that they are advocating. My question to them is, “How do you know it is the voice of God you are hearing, or the voice of a false and deceiving prophet?” God would not command you to do something that He has prohibited for thousands of years. The last time anything even remotely similar to these advocates are promoting did occur, it took a miraculous vision of a sheet and some unclean animals to convince the recipient. And, lest I be misunderstood, God was trying to get Peter to do something that God predicted would happen several thousand years earlier to Abraham. And if there are several, if not many, passages in the Bible which contradict this “voice” you are hearing, what makes you think that God has suddenly changed his mind? Is the voice you are hearing not, in fact, your own just cast in a different tone and amplified in volume?
I ask the question because the stakes are so high. If you are right and God has changed his mind, then I need to correct my thinking and get in line with God. But if I am right and the prophets of change are wrong, then there are many people who are at risk of following the thief as he leads them from the Good Shepherd’s safe fold.
We all are wagering something in this discussion. What is it worth to be wrong?
In my last post I wanted to make the following points: (1) The Boy Scouts of America is not a Christian organization, and it should not use claims of Christian doctrine to support its denial of membership to young men who claim to be homosexual. While the Boy Scouts may teach such concepts as honor and respect, in many other areas the teachings of the Scouts are clearly antithetical to Christian beliefs. I know mine is a minority conclusion, but I cannot help but see the logical implications to many of the core disciplines within the Scouts. (2) The fact that the militant homosexual lobby was able to coerce the Scouts into accepting young Scouts who are openly homosexual is just a precursor to the process of forcing the Scouts to accept adult leaders who are active in the homosexual lifestyle. It is well documented that a majority of Scouts and Scout leaders are opposed to the homosexual lifestyle, but that means nothing to those who would force their deviant views onto others. I closed with a question – at what point does this evolution of societal norms call the church to proclaim the concept of heresy again? A related question would be, what exactly is the meaning of heresy?
I want to begin by drawing a parallel to another issue facing the church today, one that many have accepted as just a normal progression of what the church needs to do to be “relevant” to the predominant western culture today. Notice the argumentation that is used to defend and to promote the position that women are to have equal roles in the spiritual leadership of the church:
- References to Old Testament norms of male spiritual leadership are invalid because we live under the New Covenant.
- Jesus clearly involved many women in his ministry.
- The apostles lived under a patriarchal society, therefore their teachings regarding male spiritual leadership are not relevant in our egalitarian society.
- In at least one instance (the Pastoral letters) it is argued that the author was not Paul, was not apostolic, and therefore not authoritative for the modern church.
- In regard to the Corinthian letters, Paul was confronting a pagan culture where the role of women was vastly different from what women would be doing in the church today. Therefore, the letter of 1 Corinthians is not relevant to the role of women in the church today.
- Galatians 3:27-28 clearly redefines relationships within the body of Christ, therefore we are to count everyone as equal.
- How can you possibly deny the freedom of a woman to serve in a capacity she feels called and gifted to serve the church?
Now, note how the militant homosexual lobby has picked up on those very points to advance their agenda:
- References to the Old Testament are not relevant, as laws concerning homosexual behavior were addressed to Canaanite fertility cults, and we are not living under the Old Covenant today anyway.
- Jesus did not condemn homosexuality in any of his teachings – in fact he taught love and acceptance of all people.
- The apostles lived in a Jewish culture that was homophobic due to the influence of the Levitical purity code, therefore their teachings against homosexuality are culturally bound and are no longer relevant to our more permissive society.
- It follows that Paul’s teachings against homosexuality in Romans and 1 Corinthians are directed against the pagan fertility cults practiced in the first century, and since those cults are no longer relevant today, the condemnations of those behaviors are no longer relevant today.
- Galatians 3:27-28 clearly redefines relationships within the body of Christ, therefore we are to count everyone as equal, and we are certainly not to exclude those who live in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual.
- How can you possibly deny the freedom of a gay man or lesbian woman who feels called and gifted to serve the church, especially since their sexual nature is a gift from God himself, and something that should not be ridiculed or condemned?
Many people get angry when these parallels are pointed out. While they are all for women being put forward as ministers, preachers, deacons, and even elders within a congregation, they are morally repulsed by the idea of two men or two women marrying each other and publicly promoting their union in the church. When the parallels are pointed out they stammer, “But the equal position of women is just different than blessing the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality is condemned in Scripture, women using their God-given gifts is not condemned!”
Different in degree perhaps. But I question whether the arguments for blessing the homosexual lifestyle and for promoting the elevation of women over men in the church are all that different in substance.
Just a question, but if you accept those seven points in regard to women’s role in the church, how can you deny those six points in regard to accepting practicing homosexuals as members and especially leaders in the church?
If you question my logic or my sanity, simply consider the path of the Episcopal/Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Each of these denominations long ago accepted the increased role of women in the work and worship of the church. Each did so with the aforementioned reasons front and center. They wanted to be relevant, they wanted to be sympathetic to the needs and gifts of the women in their churches, and they wanted to be seen as being responsive to the changing culture. And each of these denominations are now facing the battle of what to do with practicing homosexuals who use the very same arguments to promote the elevation of homosexuals as priests, bishops, and even archbishops. It is not surprising to many analysts that the more expansive and “affirming” these denominations become, the greater the losses in their memberships. While some former Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians simply drop out of church altogether, it is fascinating to me that many of them are “returning” to the Roman Catholic church. They see in Roman Catholicism something that their denomination surrendered a long time ago – an adherence to the word of God and to the power of church tradition.
When you base doctrine on Scripture alone (Latin, Sola Scriptura) you have a very solid foundation. But, it is not without its weakness. When you allow every person and every group to interpret that Scripture in any way they see fit you are bound to have disagreements and sometimes serious divisions. However, when you add the power of church tradition to the equation you brace that written foundation with a historical foundation. That is why, in the discussion of what books were to be considered a part of the canon and which were to be discarded, one primary “rule of thumb” that was used was “that which is believed always, everywhere, and by all.” Here you have the expanse of time (always), geography (everywhere) and general agreement (by all). Those who refused to accept this three-fold criteria were labeled “heretics.”
What an old-fashioned, out of date, hateful and derogatory word. Heresy – it even hisses when you say it. I would argue that if the church is to survive with any degree of health we had better learn how to say the word and apply the word judiciously and effectively.
In the New Testament the word is used to identify a division – even the church was labeled as a heresy of the Jewish faith. But soon the word came to mean not just a division, but a dangerous and rebellious division – one that was anti-Christian as much as it was un-Christian. It meant that a church, or a group of churches, was forced to examine a teaching, and those who promoted it, seriously and if it failed to meet the three-fold criteria of “everywhere, in every place, and by all” it was deemed to be an “evil spirit” and it was repulsed.
Today we do not speak of heresy very much, if at all. We are told, “do not judge, lest ye be judged.” We are told to be loving and kind and affirming and welcoming. We are told to never, ever, ever offend anyone, lest our good name be drug through the mud. We frame all of our decisions on how they will be viewed by a very narrow group of non-believers, instead of how they will be judged by God.
Somewhere in this path the concept of truth and fidelity to Jesus and to his church, that which has been believed “always, everywhere, and by all” has been forgotten, or consciously discarded. I am deeply concerned with the direction of the Church of Christ today. The scuffle over worship styles has degenerated into a fight over the role of women, and it will become a war when the issue of homosexuality finally explodes.
If we do not return to an understanding that some teachings are sound and some are heretical, that some teachers are healthy and some are destructive, that some practices are truly matters of opinion and some are matters of critical obedience to Jesus and his commands, the church will continue to lose members and, more important, lose its purity in the sight of God (see Rev. 2-3). That means we are going to have to call some teachings heretical, and some teachers heretics. Some people will be offended, many will leave. Or, perhaps the faithful will have to leave.
But if the church ceases to be the church, what difference will it make if everyone stays?
Before I begin, this is the first of two posts along a very wide ranging subject.
The big societal news this week was the decision by the Boy Scouts of America to allow openly homosexual boys to join, or remain, in their scout troops. I have written several blog posts concerning the intersection of culture and religion (and the fog that modern Christians must fly through in order to make Christian decisions) and so this is not a topic that I energetically seek, but it is also not one that I shy away from. It is part and parcel of being a leader in a group that seeks to be a discipling group for Jesus Christ.
I have a couple of reactions about this decision, reactions that may be surprising to some. First, on one level the decision does not really surprise me, nor does it deeply bother me. The reason for this is quite simple and has nothing to do with why so many other people are upset about this decision. I just do not regard the Boy Scouts of America as being anything related to a Christian organization, and I am somewhat offended when defenders of the BSA push Christianity as the basis for keeping openly homosexual boys out of their group. The BSA is an organization that is antithetical to Christianity in many respects. It is a meritocracy where one earns respect and standing by accomplishing certain tasks and winning certain badges and honors. Disciples of Christ lead by serving others, and there is no such thing in the New Testament as “earning” merit badges or attaining higher levels of power through climbing the next highest step on the ladder of rank. I seriously doubt Jesus would bless the Boy Scouts.
The Boy Scouts were started as, and continue to be, a junior para-military group, complete with various ranks; the doctrine that is drilled into the troop members has little to do with New Testament Christianity. Americans shudder when we read stories of the “Hitler Youth” and how the Nazis were able to indoctrinate an entire generation of young people with the National Socialist propaganda. Well, all you have to do is create a youth organization that promotes a certain belief system, fluff it up with all kinds of badges, medals, patches and awards, cover it with a veneer of religion, nationalism and patriotism, and voila, you can teach those young people anything you want them to believe. Now, membership in the BSA is voluntary whereas the Nazi Youth was mandatory, so the parallel is not exact, but the basic pattern is the same. The marriage of religion with the quasi-militarism of the BSA has always made me squeamish. I have always questioned its validity, and no one has ever been able to show me how joining the Scouts makes a boy a better Christian. A better soldier some day – possibly. A better Christian? I cannot see it.
Finally, and I admit this is a personal issue, but I have never been a witness to a very positive example of Boy Scouts. I grew up in northern New Mexico, and on more than one occasion while my family was up in the woods camping we would be witnesses to a troop of Scouts on a weekend camping trip. No sooner would they pile out of their pickups and vans than they would pull their BSA approved hatchets out of their back packs and start flailing away at any Aspen or pine tree that happened to be in their path. That, and other examples of hooliganism convinced me that I never wanted to be a part of the Scouts, and I have never had any experience that has convinced me that what I witnessed was out of the ordinary. Scouting leaders may claim that the Scouts produce fine upstanding citizens, but my guess is that Scouting had very, very little to do with the production of those citizens. Families and churches…absolutely. Boy Scouts – nah.
(Now, before some Scout decides to rip into me, I realize my experience may be in the minority – your mileage may vary.)
So, please, defenders of the BSA – do not use Christianity as a reason to be upset about this decision. You let that train leave the station a long time ago.
But, there is another aspect of the the decision to allow homosexual males into the BSA that does trouble me. Stay with me here, this will take some time to work through. The BSA has always said that it is a private organization, and as a private organization, it reserves the right to set membership standards they feel are necessary. The homosexual lobby/promoters have viewed the prohibition against admitting homosexual youth to be discrimination. Up to this point the BSA has been consistent in not allowing either youth or adults who profess a homosexual desire to be a part of their membership. As a result of this recent decision, young men who are sexually drawn to other young men must be allowed to be a part of a troop. Here is where things get tricky. The BSA still will not allow an openly homosexual adult to lead a troop. So, intentionally or not, the BSA has set up a dual standard. Young men may be openly homosexual and they are to be welcomed, but openly homosexual adults are not allowed. Therefore, as any freshly minted lawyer can easily point out, the BSA has rejected their earlier claim of a uniform moral standard. The upshot of this is that no judge in the United States is going to rule in favor of the BSA when the next lawsuit is brought against them for discriminating against adult homosexuals. The BSA just shot themselves in the foot with a shotgun, whether they intended to or not.
It is one thing to admit a young man who is struggling with his developing sexual urges. It is another thing entirely to allow an adult who is actively living a homosexual lifestyle to lead and mentor these confused young men. The militant homosexual lobby just won a huge victory, and it was accomplished with the compliance of the group that was supposedly opposed to the practice of homosexuality.
Now, this is what upsets me – what we have just witnessed is the forced capitulation of the majority of BSA members because of the vocal agitation of a few very powerful lobbyists. And my question is, where will it stop?
I am not at all convinced that the BSA should have a question on their application regarding the sexual tendencies of pre-adolescent males, period. But, that having been said, if you do not like the rules of one particular group then go start a group that befits your belief system. Membership in the BSA has always been optional. If a family does not like the prohibition against homosexual behavior (or inclination) then they are free to start an openly gay scouting group. The ability of the militant homosexual agenda to force compliance with their belief system upon private organizations is deeply troubling to me, as it should be to everyone.
I must end this post here, but this leads to my next question: at what point must the church disavow certain departures from its established doctrine as heresy, and what will happen to that church when it is challenged by the evolving norms of the society in which it finds itself?
It is an argument that is repeated endlessly. In the debate over homosexuality vs. heterosexuality someone who advocates the acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle will say, “The Old Testament may condemn homosexual behavior, but Jesus came to inaugurate a new relationship with God, and Jesus never condemned homosexuality.” Because the argument is so frequent, and on the surface has a degree of truthfulness about it, those who advocate for heterosexual relations, and monogamous heterosexual relationships at that, must learn how to respond to it.
Point number one: it is true that we have no recorded teachings of Jesus explicitly rejecting or denouncing homosexuality. However important that may appear on the surface, that point is really much ado about nothing, or at the most, much ado about very little. We have no explicit teachings from Jesus about abortion, nuclear warheads, genetic engineering, or driving while intoxicated. (Jesus could have at least given us a directive about riding a donkey while intoxicated!) Yet, Christians and non-Christians alike will agree that abortion is wrong, that nuclear warheads need to be destroyed, and that driving while intoxicated is a moral evil. So, to say that “Jesus never condemned X, Y or Z” is only to say that (a) we do not have any record of him denouncing X, Y or Z, and (b) if Jesus had addressed every single moral issue and every single permutation of every single moral issue the world’s libraries could not contain the books necessary, and as human culture is constantly changing, Jesus would still have to be on this earth giving his explicit approvals and denunciations.
End result – this is simply not that definitive of an argument. It would have to be augmented with other, more specific arguments.
Point number two: this may sound harsh and bitter, and I do not intend it that way – but I really do not think that those who use this argument are really all that concerned about what Jesus did have to say, even if he had condemned homosexuality. The fact of the matter is that we do have several teachings of Jesus regarding marriage and male/female relationships, and he always returns to God’s primary reasons for creating male and female, and that is for the fulfilling of human loneliness and for reproduction. Now, before everyone gets their knickers in a knot, yes, it is possible for same sex friendships to fill a person’s longing for companionship. But, and this is a huge but, after God had created the male he said, “It is not good for man to be alone.” (Gen. 1:18) Now, at this point God had an infinite number of possibilities open to him (our God is a God of infinite possibilities!) The answer to the loneliness of a male was not to create another male, nor to magically create a child, or whatever unseen option that God had open to Him. The solution that God chose was to create a female that was “like” the male, but also very different. When Adam saw his life’s mate he realized that he was complete, and it was at this point that the inspired author interjects this little editorial phrase, “This is why a man leaves his father and mother [note the heterosexual union] and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24, HCSB). Note, therefore, what Jesus had to say about marriage and divorce:
Haven’t you read, He replied, that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female, and He also said: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? (Matthew 19:4-5).
So, Jesus very clearly did teach about heterosexual relationships, especially in regard to monogamous and unbroken marriage.
It is my personal opinion, but I truly believe that even if Jesus had condemned homosexuality, those who advocate for it would simply dismiss his teaching as outdated, legalistic and unenlightened. Am I being too harsh? Those epithets and worse are all attributed to the apostle Paul, who very clearly labeled homosexual behavior as being sinful (Romans 1:24-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 – notice that Paul explicitly says, “Some of you were like this” indicating that change from any sinful lifestyle is possible).
End result – those who advocate for a homosexual lifestyle disregard Old Testament teachings regarding homosexual sins, as well as New Testament teachings regarding homosexual sins, so I personally find it very difficult to accept that even if Jesus had specifically condemned homosexual behavior that it would have changed the debate to any great extent.
The end of the matter: I readily grant that we have no recorded words of Jesus on the specific subject of homosexual behavior. To me that is simply a non-issue. We do not have the explicit teachings of Jesus on a myriad of subjects, and yet we make moral and ethical distinctions based on the entirety of God’s written word, not just the ipsissima verba of Jesus. I will discuss the issue with anyone who so desires to keep an open mind regarding the subject of biblical sexual standards. But if we are going to discuss biblical teachings regarding sexual mores, then we have to include all biblical teachings, including the explicit teachings of Jesus regarding heterosexual marriage, the purpose of male and female union, and the original purpose of having a female and male mated together.
As I mentioned in my last post, I believe this debate over the issue of homosexuality will be a defining moment for the church. The members of the Lord’s church must respond with the dignity and respect that this issue demands, and that is also demanded of a disciple of Christ, but we must also stand firm in our convictions. Either monogamous heterosexual unions fulfill God’s original purpose for human beings, or they do not. We must not equivocate. But we must not be hateful or mean-spirited in our defenses, either. Let us be wise as serpents, and yet as innocent and gentle as doves.
You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church…and Rethinking Faith by David Kinnaman, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011.
At the outset I must admit a certain degree of discomfort in reading this book. Most of it comes from the title, You Lost Me. As I interpreted the title it appeared to me that the author would join with the multitude of authors who are bashing the contemporary church and are listening exclusively to the next generation(s) to fix all of the identified problems with the church. There is a sense in which the title, You Lost Me is a reflection on this youth infatuated mindset. Notice the implied accusation – you, the church, the ones who should have it all together in a nice neat little package that fits all of my needs and my wants – you are responsible for losing me, the center of the whole entire known universe. I recoil from that accusation. If that kind of accusation could be leveled at anyone, how many and with what fervor could certain individuals make that accusation against Jesus.
After reading the book I am partially convinced that this is not what Kinnaman had in mind. I say partially, because a large portion of the book is devoted to listening to the cries and complaints of those who have left the church. I understand the methodology – Kinnaman and his group at Barna desperately want the church to listen to a generation that is finding the church (and sometimes even Jesus) to be something they can do without. Kinnaman himself is passionately devoted to getting the message of Jesus out to a new and doubtful generation. He just wants the rest of us to be as “in tune” with the coming generations as he seems to be. He genuinely has a gift at understanding young people, and I applaud his efforts at teaching the rest of us who might be a bit blind or deaf to what the coming generations are saying.
With that goal in mind, I would recommend this book to all who are concerned with the youth of their congregation. I would definitely read this book along with his earlier book, Unchristian. I feel that the first book was more valuable, as the topic of that book was how non-Christians view the church and how we might be able to respond to them. This book is about those young people who, at least on some level, had a connection with the church and a vibrant faith, and for one reason (or a host of reasons) decided to leave the church. Reading the book is painful, because if you work with young people for any length of time you will recognize the stories of the young people Kinnaman profiles through your own experiences. I saw several of my friends and former students in this book, and even occasionally saw myself.
A couple of weaknesses – at least from my limited point of view. One, I never really resonated with Kinnaman’s description of the young people as “nomads, prodigals and exiles.” It seemed like he was trying to come up with a somewhat biblical way to describe these young people, and the descriptions just seemed stretched to me. I kept having to remind myself of what each group really was, because to me there was way too much overlap between the groups as he has defined them.
Two, and this relates back to my discomfort with the title, Kinnaman only tangentially places any kind of blame on those who are leaving. In other words, it remains the church’s fault that young people are leaving, the church is going to have to change, the church is the source of the problem, the church is forcing all these wonderful, saintly, kind, and most of all, brilliant young people out of its doors. This was the part of the book that just kept grating on me. To be fair, towards the end Kinnaman does in a round-about way mention that these young people are responsible for their own decisions, but it is a very subtle and almost apologetic acknowledgment.
At one point I wanted to scream, The church IS exclusive! Get over it! In an appraisal of the younger generations that I’m sure will turn most of them off, I have to say that in many respects the group of young adults from 18 – 30 represent one of the most narcissistic, inwardly focused generations I have ever seen, and that is saying quite a bit because I came along right at the tail end of the baby boomers. But stop and think about these generations – from what have they ever been deprived? What hardships have they ever faced? These were the children whose parents got into fistfights so they could obtain a Cabbage Patch Kid. These are the children who have had a cell phone virtually from the time they could talk. They have been coddled, breast-fed and then spoon fed their whole lives. They have been protected and over-protected. They do not go out without a helmet, knee pads and elbow pads. If their feelings get hurt they sue. If they get a bad grade they have their parents confront the principle. If they get a bad job review they leave – if they stay in a job long enough to get a job review. Yes, a large part of their problem relates to their parents and grandparents (the aforementioned baby boomers) but to even remotely suggest that this group of navel gazers has all the right answers and the church should somehow contort itself to make itself more “attractive” to this age group is just preposterous. Maybe that is not what Kinnaman is saying, but I know that is what many others are saying, and maybe I just misread Kinnaman.
Throughout this book I kept hearing a sub-message, “the culture has changed, the church needs to align itself with the culture to be relevant again.” I reject that premise. The culture into which the church was born was immoral, unjust, sexually dysfunctional and economically challenged. So what did the apostles and early disciples teach? “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.” In other words, the early church leaders said the church, God’s manifestation of his Kingdom on earth, was different. If you wanted to be a part of culture and the world, so be it, but do not claim to be a part of Christ or of his church. Joining Christ meant you left this world – not literally, but your heart, your mind, your soul was transformed. I am sure a lot of the early converts realized how radical Christianity really was and they high-tailed it back to their comfortable ways – just like people turned their backs on Jesus and walked away from him once they discovered that he really meant “cross” when he said “cross.”
I do not buy the concept that the church has to be more tolerant or accepting of homosexuals to keep from hurting someone’s feelings. I do not buy the concept that the church must relax its teaching on gender just because a few 18-30 year olds find it exclusionary or old-fashioned. I reject the call to rewrite 2,000 years of church doctrine just because someone with all of two decades of existence (or less) finds it to be out-dated or somewhat stuffy. They are more than welcome to leave the church if they so desire. It is tragic when they do, and I am not saying the church should push them out. But when they leave, they should not have the temerity to blame the church for their decisions. Every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess – but they will not be able to tattle or pass the blame.
I would like to end on a positive note, because I do feel the book is a valuable read. Kinnaman does offer some valuable suggestions along the way. I found chapter 11 to be particularly beneficial, but it was also in chapter 11 that Kinnaman returned closer to a classic view of the church and moved further away from the “let’s make the church look like contemporary culture” strain that moved ever so slightly beneath the earlier chapters. Just to tease a little, in chapter 11 Kinnaman stresses relationships, a biblical view of vocation, and a return to the way of wisdom. These are solid responses to the problem, and, as I mentioned, I found them particularly beneficial.
I want to stress that this review is purely my own response – your mileage may vary. I enjoyed the book, I recommend the book, and I suggest you listen to what Kinnaman is saying. I just wish he had offered more in response to these young people by way of challenge. There is a reason God expected young people to look up to, listen to, and respect the wisdom of their elders. Youth is full of folly, and nowhere is that folly more evident than in the narcissistic views of our youngest adults. The church will not long survive if we follow their lead. The church may be in trouble now – but let’s make sure the cure is not worse than the present disease.
I dunno. Maybe its just because my twig got bent when I was a little kid, but I get amused at the weirdest things. Some of which are decidedly NOT funny to others, which tends to get me into far more trouble than I deserve. Like, for instance, when I point out that women spend billions of dollars on make-up, push-up bras, tummy flattening girdles and impossibly high pointy spiked shoes, and yet are incensed when men comment on their appearance, some women just get positively apoplectic. It’s a good thing I can out-run some of them in their pointy high heeled shoes, or I would be flogged with their push-up wonder bras.
Another oddity that is simply mind boggling to me is how liberals and conservatives love to bash each other, all the while blithely ignorant of the fact that they are philosophically identical. Both sides would disagree with me here – but that just lends credence to my theory.
Take egalitarian and complementarian positions for example. On the one hand we have a group that says women should be treated equally to men in all respects, but especially in regard to church leadership. There is no difference between men and women (as they exegete Gal. 3:27-28) so men and women ought to be able to serve equally in positions of leadership.
It should come as no surprise that egalitarians dislike complementarians, those who believe that men and women have distinct, albeit complementary, roles to fill in the church. What I find amusing here is that egalitarians save some of their most hateful venom for women who are complementarians. They simply cannot comprehend how as woman could acquiesce to this horrible miscarriage of justice. In their mind every woman should listen to them and leave such misogynistic churches immediately. That some women choose to remain in these bastions of chauvinism is bothersome to the egalitarians, but at least they can explain it by telling themselves (and anyone who will listen) that these poor women are so brow beaten that they cannot even think for themselves. They just blindly go along with whatever their slave-owning master-husbands tell them to think.
But what really riles the egalitarians up is when a woman defends the concept of complementarianism. Here is where the affirming, kind, gentle and compassionate egalitarians absolutely flip their wigs. How dare a woman actually suggest that God has specific roles for a man and a woman to play, and that the male should be the leader. Do you think that African American females were excoriated for supporting Mitt Romney? Try being a complementarian female and see how you get treated by the general media – or by the predominant gate keepers within mainline Christianity today.
But let’s flip the coin. Complementarians are quite convinced that egalitarians are out to destroy the world, or at least the church, with their heretical inversion of biblical authority. Every book, author or preacher is given a screening so invasive it makes the TSA look like a bunch of boy scouts. Many other disagreements are tolerated so long as a “good brother” is sound on the “women question.” However, lurking behind all of their bravado and machismo is a disturbing and (to me, just slightly) humorous paradox. Many complementarians will call anyone a leader as long as he has, um, shall we say for decency’s sake, external reproductive features.
In many congregations if a woman stood up to distribute the emblems of the Lord’s Supper a small revolt would take place. But, replace that woman with an 8 or 9 year old little boy who was baptized just last week and not a peep of resistance would be heard. Why, you retort, we are training that little boy to be a leader! Okay, help me out here. We would never invite that 8 or 9 year old boy to make decisions in a men’s business meeting, or to cast a vote in an elder’s meeting. I doubt we would ask his opinion about the hiring or firing of a preacher. I seriously question whether we would entrust him with the leading of a Bible class or other ministry simply based on his baptism. Yet, we routinely place such youngsters “at the table” or let him lead a prayer or read a Scripture so he can be a “leader” in the church. It is for that very reason that we say a woman, or an 8 or 9 year old female who has just been baptized, cannot perform such things.
What does passing a tray of bread or grape juice or reading a passage of Scripture have to do with leadership? Am I the only one who sees the incongruity here?
Apparently not, because many “egalitarian” churches have made the move to allow women to serve in many visible capacities. They have seen the paradox, but instead of searching for a theologically informed response, they have simply pieced together a practical band-aid that allows women to think they are being treated equally and at the same time salves the conscience of a few “compassionate” males.
Lest I be misunderstood here, I am not arguing for the practice of allowing women to serve as worship “leaders.” I would be considered a complementarian, although I am not truly comfortable with the term. I believe emphatically that God has given the role of spiritual leadership to the male gender. I want to be clear about that.
What I am arguing against is the false idea that visibility in the worship service is somehow equal to leadership. Let me put it this way – visibility in a worship oriented service should be limited to those who have already demonstrated spiritual maturity and leadership, not as a proving ground to somehow develop that leadership!
I will be bold here, and I will undoubtedly get myself in all kinds of trouble with some readers. It is my opinion (hopefully theologically informed, although that may be debated) that the biblical concept of leadership is based on a prior history of service, measured and tempered by maturity, and it is therefore critical that we define and develop servants before we elevate them into positions of leadership. What we are doing to our young men is a huge disservice at best and is spiritually fatal at worst. We baptize them, give them a Bible, teach them how to give a 5 minute devotional, let them serve at the Lord’s Table and, voila, presto-chango they are transformed into a leader. Many cannot even shave, but we routinely stick them in front of a crowd and croon, my, what a wonderful Christian leader!
The tragedy is that many, far too many, buy into this false coronation and a few years later when life slaps them upside the head these “leaders” have been destroyed. They get chewed up and spit out – first by the world and then by the church that no longer looks at them with awe but instead with contempt. They have failed marriages and broken families and shattered dreams and destroyed faiths because they were told and they believed they were something that they never were. They were told they had achieved spiritual maturity when they needed to be told they were little infants. They were told they were leaders when they had not even mastered the art of marching in formation. They never were given a chance, but they are given all the blame, and the church looks for the next newly baptized young man to begin the process all over again.
So, as bizarre as it may sound, both egalitarians and complementarians fail at a crucial point. This point is not about gender – although I do not want in any way to minimize what I believe is the clear teaching of Scripture. The point where egalitarians and complementarians fail equally is on the biblical concept of leadership. Anatomical appendages and the rite of baptism do not combine to confer the mantle of leadership. Leadership is learned. Leadership is earned. Leadership is a honor that should be given to few and honored by all. If every male is a leader simply by virtue of baptism then the entire concept of leadership evaporates, and it is “every man [will do] what is right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25).
Actually, the more I think about it, this is not funny at all.
Several issues/questions have prodded me to think about this particular topic. At the risk of perhaps giving too much or too little background, allow me to set the stage just a little bit.
It is not at all uncommon today to hear the argument being made that one’s culture can be suggestive, if not determinative, in the ways in which one practices Christianity and/or worships within a Christian community. To a certain degree I am in full agreement with that argument. For example, the American church has done great harm by exporting an American, and in particular a “southern” American concept of church when a missionary moves to a foreign culture and establishes a congregation. What might be perfectly normal in a congregation in Texas or Alabama just seems comical to impose on a church in Africa or India, or Germany, for that matter. However, worse that being comical it can be and often is detrimental to the vital faith of that culture. We must be wiser than that as we seek to grow self-sustaining indigenous congregations.
Now to the part of that argument with which I disagree. In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian congregation(s), four times he specifically mentions that what he is teaching them is indeed what he teaches in every congregation in every place (4:17, 7:17, 11:16 and 14:33). I will let you read these passages in your favorite translation, but the message is clear: there are certain doctrines or practices that Paul teaches or are commonly accepted in “every” or “all” churches. The context indicates the teachings include a variety of subjects, but whether the culture is Jewish or Gentile, whether the language is Aramaic, Greek or possibly even Latin, whether there was a history of synagogue worship or no worship at all, some things were so important to Paul that he insisted on a uniform behavior.
That is shocking to many people today. Whether the issue is “contemporary worship music” or the question of women assuming leadership roles within the congregation or the acceptance or non-acceptance of practicing homosexuals, a common argument is that we live in a different culture from that of the 1st century Palestinian world, ergo the biblical message must be “culturalized” to our modern way of life. Stated gently, it is said that Paul wrote in a different world in a different time and we must not allow his culture’s shortcomings to affect ours. In reality what I hear and see is this: “We live in such an enlightened and intellectually superior world that we cannot possibly expect to behave like that backward, patriarchal, homophobic culture” (said with a rolling of the eyes and a condescending wave of the hand).
If Paul could write to a thoroughly Hellenized, blue-collar pagan city like Corinth and tell those Christians that he expected them to act in certain ways like the cultured intelligentsia of Athens and the devout Hebrew religious of Jerusalem, then yes, I think it is absolutely certain that Paul would expect a certain uniformity among congregations today, and across the intervening generations.
If we are to read the Bible in context, and if we are to place ourselves in a position of humility under the text and not a position of arrogance over the text, and if we follow the message of Paul’s writing within the letter to the Corinthians then I will stake my claim that we must conclude that while some cultural differences are allowed, many others are not.
Let me be clear here. I am NOT arguing that other passages such as Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 do not exist. Yes, there are matters of indifference just as there are matters of irreducible faith. And, NO, Paul would not allow us the opportunity to impose our opinions where another’s faith is at stake. But in Paul’s mind there was a clear “both/and” involved here. There are some things that cannot be accepted just because one’s culture would seem to indicate that doctrine or practice is permissible.
The way is narrow here, and the air is thick with fog. As Paul would say, in the contemporary church we see as in a mirror darkly. I think we need to proceed with all due caution. We need to do our exegesis thoroughly and fairly. We need to listen as intently as we speak. But, that having been said, we cannot alter the text simply because it disagrees with our personal inclinations.
I believe those four passages within the context of the first letter to Corinthians communicate volumes to our contemporary situation. Read them carefully. Look at the context in which each was written. Then ask yourself, if Paul was so adamant about the behavior of the Corinthian disciples matching the behavior of the other congregations that he taught/established, what does that say about our walk of discipleship today?
I believe that is a question that must be asked and answered in the contemporary church.