Homosexuality, Christianity, and the Gospel – Part 3

Apr 17 | Pastor J.D. | Comments Off |

III. Politically, should the church just stay out of this issue? In other words, should homosexual marriage—even if we are personally against it—be a ‘freedom of conscience’ issue in our culture?

This is the third in a four-part series about the issue of homosexuality. Click here for parts one and two. This series is modified from my notes from our latest Equip forum, whose videos—with a personal testimony from a friend of mine—you can view here.

In this country we have freedom to believe what we want about homosexuality. Is legally recognizing only heterosexual marriages therefore a violation of the freedom of conscience? There are 3 possible responses to this. I’ll give you the line of thinking on each of these, and let you decide. To note, we can disagree on this point and still be in fellowship in the church.

1) “The church should always stay out of politics.”

“We should be about the gospel and the gospel only,” this position says. “I know what I believe, but Christians should stay out of politics. This is not our fight.”

I have a lot of sympathy for this position. We only have, as a church, the bandwidth to be “about” a handful of things. Politics is a skunk—if you touch it even casually, you smell like it the rest of the week. I could preach one sermon on “who to vote for” and that’s all the community would hear for 3 years. They’d ignore the other 153 sermons I preached.

On the other hand, you don’t want to be the Southern church in 1860 refusing to deal with the “slavery problem” because it’s political. Some will object to putting same-sex marriage in that category. But if this issue is as impacting on future generations as we believe that it is, don’t Christians have an obligation to speak up? If you care about people’s suffering, won’t you have to speak up about government policies that contribute to it?[1]

2) “Homosexuality is wrong, but this is a freedom of conscience issue. We shouldn’t be forcing Judeo-Christian ethics on everyone.”

The reasoning here often goes something like this: “We may think that homosexuality is wrong, but we can’t make illegal all the things we are opposed to as Christians. Should lying be illegal? Or dishonoring our parents? Should people be required by law to go to church? If we tried to legislate things like this, we’d be uniting the state with the church, which is bad for both. Legislating Christian morals is dangerously close to legislating Christianity…but genuine faith can’t be forced. People are—and should be—free to believe what they want, and yes, even to make choices that we think are bad.”

Besides, what if the tables were turned? It might seem fine for Christians to prevent homosexuals from marrying, but that’s only because Christians are in the majority. What if, 50 years from now, Muslims became the majority religion in the United States? Would we want Muslim morals being dictated to us by the government, preventing us from eating pork, or forcing women to wear head-coverings? Of course not! In the same way, we shouldn’t be forcing non-Christians to live like Christians. It just doesn’t make sense.

3) “Recognizing marriage as an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman is both (a) within the government’s jurisdiction and (b) in the best interests of the country.”

Let’s unpack those two clauses one at a time:

(a)…within the government’s jurisdiction

Often people—Christians and non-Christians alike—will say that no religious viewpoint should be allowed in lawmaking, but that is impossible. All laws are based on values, and values are almost always based upon some religious viewpoint.[2] A lot of it we take for granted. For example:

• Most Americans eat meat, but won’t eat humans. This is built on the assumption that there is a fundamental distinction between a human and an animal.
• Most of us assume that children are given to parents to love and rear as they see fit, but that they are not property. Children have less ‘rights’ than an adult, but more than a chicken. Again, that is value judgment.
• Martin Luther King (against the voting majority and the laws of his day) appealed to a higher law to condemn bigotry.
• Both sides of the abortion debate appeal to “religious” values: the pro-choice advocate asserts the sovereign right of the woman over her body above all things; the pro-life advocate argues the intrinsic right of the baby to life. It is impossible to remove all value judgments from the discussion

“From where do laws derive their legitimacy?”

1. It is from the will of the majority?

• The problem with this answer as absolute is that there are rights that supersede the will of the majority. If a majority of women get together and decide that blondes should not be allowed into colleges, that doesn’t mean it should become law. Or, on a more serious note, if one race decides to enact laws that favor that race, then those laws can be overturned on the basis that they are unfair and un-Constitutional.

2. From scientific research?

• The problem with this as absolute is that science has been ineffective to provide a consistent and compelling set of ethics. Historically, science divorced from an external ethical directive has led to horrible excesses in eugenics. It is hard to offer a clear, compelling delineation between horses and humans based on science alone.

3. From the Bible/the Judeo-Christian ethic?

• The problem with this as the basis of our laws is determining who gets to interpret the Judeo-Christian tradition.
• Even Christians who subscribe to the Judeo-Christian ethic cherish freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.

None of these three is sufficient in itself. The Framers of our Constitution recognized a place for all three. Thus, it is not inappropriate to appeal to some Judeo-Christian principles in legal matters. Many laws that we take for granted have their basis in a Judeo-Christian worldview and have been historically defended as such.

The Framers also recognized that God had established certain institutions/individuals with jurisdiction over various “spheres” (The term “spheres” was later spelled out by the Dutch political theorist Abraham Kuyper, though the idea is present in the minds of the Founders[3]):

• The individual has certain sovereign rights which are not to be interfered with by government—for example, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
• God created the family with “authority” in certain spheres, such as the prerogative to rear and discipline children.
• The government also has various spheres of authority.

The Framers of our Constitution recognized the same kind of construct, accepted the Creator-defined viewpoint of family and individual, and limited government’s scope.

Objection: “Well, marriage as being between one man and one woman is too ‘conservative Christian’ of a viewpoint to serve as a the basis for a legal recognition of marriage.”

• World religions have stood in relative agreement on this. As noted above, no significant challenge was presented within Christianity until the 1970s. 4

(b)”…in the best interests of our country.”

1. Studies consistently show that the mother/father unit is the best environment for the rearing of children.

Sociological studies demonstrate this decidedly. Wayne Grudem cites six such studies—all secular—which confirm the following four benefits for children with a mother and father:[5]

2. Homosexual union leads to confusion about gender identity among children, which is one of the most important elements of a child’s identity.

Once the fundamental differences between men and women have been obscured, gender formation becomes confused. This is seen in the epidemic of masculinized women and feminized men within the homosexual community.

3. The endorsement of homosexuality leads toward greater sexual immorality.

Once the rational basis for marriage has been removed, any ethics regarding it become arbitrary. If marriage is nothing but a social construct, then my obligations toward it become nothing other than what I decide about it in the moment. When marriage loses its historically, religiously, and societally accepted shape of “one-man/one-woman” for life, other sexual ethics, like sexual faithfulness within marriage or sexual abstinence before marriage, lose their compelling power.

Evidence bears this out. In 2010, The New York Times reported that most homosexual unions remain intentionally “open” after their marriage. Homosexual marriages are 5 times more likely to engage in extramarital sex during marriage.[6]

4. The breakdown of the family has historically led to the breakdown of society.

Wayne Grudem writes, “every human nation on earth, every society of any size or permanence at all, has recognized and protected the institution of heterosexual marriage.” He cites a leading anthropologist (J. D. Unwin) who studied 86 failed societies, noting that no society was able to flourish after 3 generations once “strict marital monogamy” was abandoned.[7]

5. Any argument used to legitimize homosexual marriage can be employed to argue for consensual polygamy, pederasty, or incest. [8]

Listen to those who seek to defend homosexual marriage and ask yourself if they same reasoning could be used to legitimize consensual polygamy, pederasty, or incest. The weight of the defense for legitimization could be, and in short order may be, applied to such cases.

This observation is not merely hypothetical. As Robert George notes in the Harvard Journal of Theology, “In their statement ‘Beyond Same Sex Marriage,’ more than 300 ‘LGBT and allied’ scholars and advocates—including prominent Ivy League professors—call for legal recognition of sexual relationships involving more than two persons.”[9]

Thus, if we define marriage as a “faithful sexual relationship defined by mutual love” (as homosexual marriage advocates normally do), we have no grounds on which to deny these others. To say that polygamy and incest are wrong is a moral inconsistency.

Concluding Thoughts

My conclusion is that the government has the responsibility to protect the institution of marriage, an institution established by the Creator in the creation. Government did not invent marriage; government recognizes the institution established in the creation. To fail to to do so has devastating consequences for society.

Believing the government should only recognize an exclusive man-woman union as marriage does not mean we must insist that homosexuality itself be made illegal. The issue is the preservation of the institution of marriage, not the legislation of sexual ethics.

That said, what Washington decides does not affect what we will do. We will continue to preach the whole counsel of God and extend the offer of salvation to all who will hear it. We have never looked to Washington, or Rome, for permission or validation for what we do.

I do fear the loss of freedom of speech that would inevitably accompany a validation of same-sex marriage. Already, you can see the direction the tide is going. Robert George wrote in the Harvard Journal of Theology:

“Already, we have seen anti-discrimination laws wielded as weapons against those who cannot, in good conscience, accept the revisionist understanding of sexuality and marriage: In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was forced to give up its adoption services rather than, against its principles, place children with same-sex couples. In California, a U.S. District Court held that a student’s religious speech against homosexual acts could be banned by his school as injurious remarks that ‘intrude[s] upon the work of the schools or on the rights of other students.’ And again in Massachusetts, a Court of Appeals ruled that a public school may teach children that homosexual relations are morally good despite the objections of parents who disagree…. 

The proposition that support for the conjugal conception of marriage is nothing more than a form of bigotry has become so deeply entrenched among marriage revisionists that a Washington Post feature story drew denunciations and cries of journalistic bias for even implying that one conjugal-marriage advocate was ‘sane’ and ‘thoughtful.’ Outraged readers compared the profile to a hypothetical puff piece on a Ku Klux Klan member. A New York Times columnist has called proponents of conjugal marriage ‘bigots,’ even singling an author of this Article out by name. Meanwhile, organizations advocating the legal redefinition of marriage label themselves as being for ‘human rights’ and against ‘hate.’ The implications are clear: if marriage is legally redefined, believing what every human society once believed about marriage—namely, that it is male-female union—will increasingly be regarded as evidence of moral insanity, malice, prejudice, injustice, and hatred.” [10]

Homosexuality, Christianity, and the Gospel – Part 2

Apr 17 | Pastor J.D. | Comments Off |

II. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

This is the second in a four-part series about the issue of homosexuality. To see part one, click here.

 Again, the following material is a copy of my notes from our latest Equip forum—you can view the videos of that forum here. My talk concluded with a testimony from a friend of mine, who has dealt for years with same-sex attraction. His testimony is better than my entire talk.

WHAT’S SO WRONG WITH IT?  WHY IS IT CALLED AN ‘ABOMINATION?’

The objection here is basically this: “They aren’t hurting anybody. If people love each other and enjoy that sort of thing, why does it matter?”

1) God’s laws are never arbitrary, but that doesn’t mean they will always readily make sense to us.

God says all kinds of things to us that initially baffle us. If God never offends you, you have to ask whether you are really hearing Him or remaking Him in your own image. When He offends us, we have to decide whether He is Lord or we are. If you’re the kind of person who has to agree with God before you’ll obey Him, I don’t think you “understand” lordship!

2) The creation has a design, and the Bible tells us that the Creator designed sex for a very specific purpose (1 Cor 6:16–18; Ephesians 5:31–32; Genesis 2:24–25).

Sex is a profound union of two people. That unity is total, and one of complements (different beings):

Sex: A Total Unity

Sex is an organic union of two bodies that is meant to be matched by union in every other way— emotional, financial, etc.—and that for life. That union is ultimately what produces more life. When a husband and wife have intercourse, they are renewing their total-life commitment. They are literally opening up themselves to one another. The two, both separate, become part of an organic whole. The word that is used for their union in Genesis 2:24 (“and they shall become one flesh”) is e’had, the same word used for the “oneness” of the Trinity (Deut 6:4).

Sex: A Unity Of Complements

In Genesis  2:18, the Hebrew word for the woman is e’zer, and is a very difficult word to translate. It literally means, “like opposite him.”[1] Eve was like Adam, but also very different. God created the sexes very differently. We all know examples, right? My wife is built differently, she processes things differently, she has enough pillows on our bed to put Bed, Bath and Beyond out of business.

These differences are by design. Each of us reveals a different and complementary dimension of the image of God, and we are a fuller picture of the image of God together than we are separately. God designed marriage that way because He wanted us to learn to love “the other,” and not merely someone just like us. A lot of philosophers recently have discussed the importance of learning to love the “other” in society—without that kind of love, they say, we tend to gravitate toward people like us (of our same culture, same education), and then to justify ourselves by excluding and looking down on people who are unlike us.[2] Marriage is a way to teach us, in the most intimate ways, to love and appreciate and be patient with the “other.”

Kathy Keller says,

“(Biblical) marriage is a full embrace of the other sex. We accept and yet struggle with the gendered ‘otherness’ of our spouse, and in the process, we grow and flourish in ways otherwise impossible. Because, as Genesis says, male and female are “like-opposite” each other – both radically different and yet incomplete without each other. I have had homosexual friends, both men and women, tell me that one of the factors that made homosexual love attractive to them was how much easier it was than dealing with someone of a different sex. I have no doubt this is true. A person of one’s own sex is not as likely to have as much Otherness to embrace. But God’s plan for married couples involves embracing the otherness to make us unified, and that can only happen between a man and a woman. Even at the atomic level, all the universe is held together by the attraction of positive and negative forces. The embrace of the Other, as it turns out, really is what makes the world go around.” [3]

BUT AREN’T PEOPLE ‘BORN’ THIS WAY?
HOW CAN SOMETHING THAT COMES ‘NATURALLY’ TO SOMEONE BE CALLED ‘WRONG’?

What we’re talking about in this question is “same sex attraction” (SSA), or being sexually attracted to people of the same sex. What causes people to experience SSA has been much studied, and without a lot of really conclusive evidence. A lot of factors contribute—genetic pre-dispositions, environments, past experiences, etc.

I have heard enough testimonies from people who struggle with SSA to know that for many of them, in their perception the attraction was never a “choice.” What caused it was unclear. But I want simply to point out that the genetic disposition toward something does not mean it is morally neutral. Studies have shown connections between genetics and—to name just a few—alcoholism, violence, and rape. Personally, I am genetically inclined towards selfishness. But we would never say that these things are morally neutral.

Christians call this the “doctrine of original sin.” We don’t have to choose sin; we come by it honestly. But Christian morality is not established by our genetic dispositions; instead, it is established by the Creator’s design, which stands in judgment over our dispositions.[4]

CAN’T WE JUST AGREEABLY DISAGREE ON THIS ONE?

We can always disagree in love. But the question that is being asked here is, “Christians disagree on baptism, worship styles, Calvinism, speaking in tongues, whether or not it is okay to see R-rated movies, how far is too far before you’re married, and scores of other secondary issues, yet they exist with these divided opinions—even within the same churches and ministries. Can’t we place this issue in that same category?”

Here’s why we don’t believe this is an issue Christians can disagree on and still stand together in fellowship (as they do on so many other issues): We believe that the God we claim to love considers this practice to be an abomination to Him (Romans 1:26–27), and we can’t say that we love God and have fellowship with what He finds abominable.

Think of it this way: What do you personally find abominable? Could you be in open fellowship with someone who practiced that very thing? We love both God and the homosexual too much to turn our head to what angers the one and destroys the soul of the other.

That doesn’t mean we can’t be good neighbors, loving and protecting the homosexual. Jesus told us to love our neighbors, and that includes homosexuals. When a man asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus’ answer was, essentially, “Whoever is in pain right in front of you” (Luke 10:25–37).

---

Homosexuality, Christianity, and the Gospel – Part 1

Apr 16 | Pastor J.D. | Comments Off |

The issue of homosexuality is a very personal issue, and for many, a very painful issue. Most of us know someone who either identifies as homosexual or feels same-sex attraction. They may be our friends, coworkers, roommates, sons or daughters or spouses.

As Christians, it is crucial that we be aware of what the Bible says and how the gospel speaks to this issue, so that we can better minister to those around us.

I want to attempt to help you do so by looking at four major questions. I’ll tackle each of these questions in its own post:

I. What does the Bible actually say about homosexuality?

II. What are the major “objections” to the biblical view?

III. Politically, should the church just stay out of this issue? In other words, should homosexual marriage—even if we are personally against it—be a ‘freedom of conscience’ issue in our culture?

IV. What should the attitude of the Summit Church be toward homosexuality and homosexuals?

The following material is a copy of my notes from our latest Equip forum—you can view the videos of that forum here. My talk concluded with a testimony from a friend of mine, who has dealt for years with same-sex attraction. His testimony is better than my entire talk.

 I. WHAT DOES THE BIBLE ACTUALLY SAY?

GENESIS 2:18–25

 God establishes the standard for sexual and romantic relationships in the Garden of Eden: one man, one woman, united for life. This is the ideal. In many ways, this is the most important text, because everything else will be measured against it and every sexual relationship that “falls short of it” is “sin.”

THE LAW OF MOSES

The Law very clearly condemns same-sex practices and union. For instance, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination…” (Leviticus 20:13 ESV, cf. Lev. 18:22) [1]

• Note: I’ll go ahead and say this up front: the text does not say that “homosexuals” are an abomination to God. Ultimately, all sin is an abomination to God, including the sin of greed, which Jesus mentions ten times more than He does sexual sin. God loved the sinner so much that He came to earth to die in our place. In the cross you see both God’s hatred of sin (it was so wicked He put it to death) and His love for the sinner (He took that death into Himself).
• I wish that churches that scream, “God hates gays” would go away forever, because you don’t die for someone that you hate.

Here’s what one researcher said: “These Hebrew Testament texts are so clear that even proponents of homosexuality don’t deny them. Instead, they attempt to discredit them by pointing out the irrelevance of Old Testament regulations for believers today.”

• Some say that the Law has a lot of other stuff in it that we don’t keep anymore: Anybody ever wear polyester? Anybody ever trim the sides of your beard? Or enjoy a Big Mac with extra cheese on it? All of these are condemned in the Law. This objection says, “See, you don’t keep all the Law, and this indictment of homosexuality should go in that category.”
• Others argue that Jesus Himself never mentioned it, which they take to mean that He believed it to be an archaic sexual ethic that God’s people should move beyond. Like I’ve told you before, it’s as if the OT shows God in His junior high years: He’s a little cranky, but He grew up in the New Testament.

Let me show how a proper understanding of Jesus means that these interpretations cannot stand.

SO WHAT ABOUT JESUS?

1) Jesus said He “fulfilled the Law,” not abolished it (Matt 5:17–20). 

That’s an important distinction. Fulfilled means that the Law was an incomplete picture of God that pointed forward to Jesus. When Jesus came, He freed us from the Law, but not by abolishing it, or reversing it, or saying that it was wrong. He freed us by fulfilling it. He gave us, in Himself, a more perfect picture of God.

He fulfilled its images.

• The sacrifices, the ceremonies, everything in the Law pointed to Him (Luke 24:46–47). He didn’t reverse those images: He fulfilled them.
• We also don’t sacrifice lambs annually to atone for our sins (Leviticus 1:4) or live for a week every year in a tent at the Festival of Booths (Leviticus 23:33–43), even though the Old Testament Law requires it. This is because the true and perfect Lamb of God—Jesus Christ—was sacrificed once for all sins (John 1:29). He was the fulfillment of the OT system of animal sacrifices (Heb 10:11–12). He was dispossessed from His home and temporarily clothed in human flesh, thus fulfilling the Festival of Booths.
• He fulfilled that law; He didn’t just dismiss it. That is a crucial distinction.

He heightened its morality (Matt 5:21-48).

• Jesus didn’t abolish morality; he heightened it. For example, He says, “You’ve heard the Old Testament rule, ‘Don’t commit adultery’… but I tell you to look upon a woman lustfully is adultery (Matt 5:27–30).
• The same is true for murder. The law tells us not to kill; Jesus told us not to look upon someone with hate in our hearts (Matt 5:21–22).
• He took a question about divorce (Matt 19:9) and said, “You think as long as you obey the technicalities of the Mosaic divorce law (Deut 24:1–4) you’re okay… but I’m telling you that God’s intention for marriage was a man and woman united for life, separable only by death!” Jesus didn’t abolish the laws against adultery and murder, he fulfilled them, showing us that the point is not just “not committing the acts;” the point is the purity of heart.

So someone might say, what about laws like Leviticus 19:19 that say, “You shall not . . . wear a garment of cloth made of two different kinds of materials.” (i.e., no polyester) How did He heighten that morality? No white after Labor Day?

• This commandment was given to Israel as they prepared to go into the Promised Land, as a symbol of their separation from the Canaanites. Israel was to remain holy, as their God was holy (Lev. 19:2), but the “holiness” of things like different fabrics or dietary restrictions wasn’t lasting. These were temporary images, fulfilled by Christ. In us, He is the “new creation” that is un-mixed and untainted by the garment of sinful flesh. Even this restriction was fulfilled in Christ.

In the same manner, Jesus “fulfilled” the sexual laws.

• Jesus showed us that sexual purity is more than just not having sex with our neighbor’s wife; it is an absolute oneness of spirit and body in an exclusive relationship according to the Genesis 2 pattern.

Jesus did not come, hat in hand, conceding that the Old Testament God was backwards and uninformed or had been wrong about His condemnation of same sex union. That would have been “abolishing” the law. What God finds “abominable” one day He does not suddenly find agreeable the next. Jesus fulfilled the law; He did not reverse God’s moral sentiments.

2) “But why,” you ask, “didn’t Jesus speak directly against homosexuality?”

• The short answer is, He didn’t have to! Jesus assumed the moral tenets of the Mosaic Law, as did the people He spoke to. There was no question among his audience about the sinfulness of homosexual practice. That had been well attested to in the Law (There is no room for doubt that 1^st century Rabbinic Judaism held it to be sinful).
• You cannot separate Jesus’ teaching from its Old Testament backdrop. His every word, He said, has its anchor and meaning in the Old. So, when He says “The sum of all the commandments is to love God with all your heart, mind and soul,” and “love your neighbor,” what that looks like is fleshed out in the Old Testament law.
• Besides, you can’t say him not bringing it up implies agreement, because, as we know, where he disagreed, Jesus “was not shy about expressing his disapproval of the conventions of his day.”[2] One thing you can be confident of with Jesus: If He had disagreed with the commonly accepted interpretation of the OT law, he would have said so (Matthew 22:29).
• For instance, Jesus did not directly speak against bestiality, genocide, child molestation, or gang rape. The moral wrongness of these things was assumed based on the basis of Mosaic Law.[3]

3) Positively, Jesus affirmed the Mosaic Law on marriage as between a man and a woman (Matthew 5:32ff; Mark 10:7–11, et al).

• You can establish what is right by delineating the wrong or affirming the right. In this case, Jesus chose the latter. He positively affirmed the Genesis 2 understanding of marriage. What falls short of the positive ideal is “sin.”
• Jesus said that all “sexual immorality” (porneia) was sin (Mark 7:21–23), which would be anything that falls short of that Genesis 2 ideal—one man with one woman in a lifelong, exclusive commitment.

4) Jesus’ followers, to whom he committed the job of explicating his teaching (John 14:26), were abundantly clear on the issue when it became relevant to address it (Romans 1:26–27, 1 Cor 6:9–11, and 1 Tim 6:10).

As opposed to Jesus’ Palestinian context, in Paul’s Greco-Roman context, homosexuality was more commonplace. So here we see Paul addressing it:

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

~Romans 1:26–27, ESV

In these verses, Paul ties homosexuality to idolatry. Idolatry is rejecting the Creator’s designs and seeking to satisfy ourselves in other, alternate ways. Homosexuality, Paul says, is a graphic depiction of this. Men and women exchanged the natural order—that is, God’s design as revealed in the creation narrative—in favor of unnatural and sinful sex. As Richard Hays, New Testament professor at Duke Divinity, has said, “When human beings engage in homosexual activity, they enact an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality: the rejection of the Creator’s design.” [4]

Now, some have argued that what is sinful here is the “unnatural exchange.” In other words, committing homosexual acts when you are in reality heterosexual. Thus, it is not homosexuality that is wrong, but unnaturally choosing homosexuality. (In fact, by this interpretation, what would be wrong would be for them to unnaturally choose the heterosexual lifestyle!)

The problem with this re-interpretation is (1) that Paul is not speaking about individuals in Romans. He is speaking about humanity as a whole, about our inherent tendency to exalt the created over the Creator and to ignore his supremacy. Paul is talking about the pervasive effects of the Fall. (2) The second problem is that every major Greek writer and philosopher uses the exact phrase Paul uses here to refer to homosexual acts, not confused or stilted heterosexuality (including Plato, Philo, Josephus, and Plutarch).[5]

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [11] And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

~1 Corinthians 6:9–11, ESV

The ESV translates two terms together as “men who practice homosexuality.” The first is malakoi, which literally means “soft men,” and refers to the passive homosexual act. Use outside of the NT unanimously reflects this meaning. Some translators render this “male prostitutes,” but there is a specific Greek word for “male prostitutes,” and Paul opts for this more generic term. [6]

The second term is arsenokoitai. This is actually a strong connection to Leviticus 20:13, which in the Septuagint reads, “meta arsenos koiten gynaikos” = “whoever lies [koiten] with a male [arsen] as with a woman.” Paul apparently borrowed the language of Leviticus to coin a term that literally means, “men who lie with men.” Some have tried to argue that these terms refer to prostitution, pederasty, or rape, but there is no textual basis for this sort of argument. Besides Paul’s use of the term here, later usage confirms the meaning plainly as intercourse between men. [7]

Note: While some advocates of homosexuality concede that the above passages are indeed a clear indictment of homosexual practice, they maintain that that the “trajectory” of Scripture points to a growing acceptance of it, and thus “matured” Christian society should therefore accept it. A “trajectory” hermeneutic works like this: there are certain things about which no “explicit” command is given, but we can nonetheless see a trajectory on this subject in Scripture.

For example, polygamy is never explicitly condemned in the Old Testament, but there is a clear trajectory toward the acceptance of the one man/one woman marriage. Or, while we find no command to abolish slavery in the Bible, we perceive in the Bible the principles that ultimately would lead to an undoing of slavery (Gal 3:28). So while the NT never says, “All governments should immediately abolish slavery,” it is very clear that the trajectory of biblical thought points in that direction. Some advocates of homosexuality argue that the same is true regarding homosexual practice.

The problem with that claim, however, is that to plot a trajectory you have to show a real progression of thought. But the Bible’s “trajectory” concerning sexual ethics doesn’t budge. In fact, when Paul commented on same-sex intercourse, he deliberately used language from Leviticus (arsenokoitai) to condemn it. And when Jesus was challenged about marriage, he went all the way back to Genesis to remind His hearers that the pattern was normative and had not changed. [8]

CONCLUSION 

It is scarcely possible to imagine the Bible being clearer on the sinfulness of homosexual practice. The only way to avoid this interpretation is to approach the Bible with a decided agenda—and, of course, when you have an agenda, you can make just about any interpretation work in your mind.

It is important to note that the Church has maintained this position unanimously for two millenniums. As Richard Hays has said, “Far more emphatically than scripture itself, the moral teaching tradition of the Christian church has for more than nineteen hundred years declared homosexual behavior to be contrary to the will of God. Only within the past twenty years has any serious question been raised.”[9]

 

---

What Counts as Plagiarism in a Sermon?

Apr 13 | Pastor J.D. | 17 Comments |

Here’s an article from Piper on plagiarism I ran across recently.

The question of plagiarism in sermon preparation is rather tricky, primarily because we are interpreting a document (the Bible) which has been interpreted by thousands of people for the last 3000 years. Almost everything we say, especially relating to Christo-centric interpretation, Greek and Hebrew linguistics or historical context, comes from commentaries and other sermons.

A while back I did a study of the official “rules” of plagiarism in preaching. They’re really hard to nail down. There are lots of articles written about it–people seem to agree that you don’t have to acknowledge every single instance when you gain an insight from someone else–after all, there is nothing new under the sun. On the other hand, we can’t copy another’s work and ideas and represent them as our own.

While people generally agree on the above, knowing exactly when something needs to be cited is the rub. “Jesus paid a debt He didn’t owe because we owed a debt we couldn’t pay.” That’s not a verse… but does that idea need to be cited to Anselm and the phrasing back to my middle school camp speaker (who plagiarized it from someone else)? “Jesus is the true Noah, the ark in which we found shelter from God’s wrath.” That idea is not directly in the Bible. I think I heard it 1st from Darrell Gilyard and most recently Tim Keller. Does it need to be cited? Does John Piper need to cite Jonathan Edwards when he advances the idea that God’s glory is demonstrated by our delight in Him?

So, I generally operate by the following rules for myself:

1.     If I ever preach the gist of another person’s sermon, meaning that I used the lion’s share of their message’s organization, points, or applications, I give credit. I don’t ever think it’s a good idea to preach someone else’s sermon… but in those rare times when you feel like you just can’t help it, you have to give credit. A sermon is a major thought unit. If it’s not yours, you have to acknowledge where it came from.

2.    If I glean an interpretation of a passage from someone, but the organization of the points, application and presentation are my own, I generally do not feel the need to cite. After all, if it is a ‘new interpretation,’ it is probably heresy. We should be generally clear, however, that we are learning from others (this is the tricky part—how much and how often so to be honest and yet not overly cumbersome). And usually, I do not cite which commentary or author gave me the interpretation of a Greek or Hebrew word. Thus, I did not feel the need to explain when I learn a Hebrew or Greek nuance from MacArthur, Carson, Keller, Kidner, Kittel, or whomever.

Should you ever credit someone who illumines your mind to the real meaning of a passage? I think sometimes you should. For example, I learn a lot from Tim Keller and I’ll hear him interpret a passage in a way that blows my mind, but one that seems so natural and obvious to the text that I’m sure it is right–and it is so obvious that I wonder how everyone doesn’t see it that way. Often I’ll acknowledge my indebtedness to him, but if the title, organization, and wording of points  and application are my own, often I won’t.

Piper says it this way: “To base the structure of your sermon on someone else’s sermon, but to use your own words, is plagiarism. The author on whose work you are basing the structure of your sermon would need to be cited.” That is tough, because sometimes I feel like someone’s outline cannot be improved on, or it flows so logically out of the passage that you wonder how you could be faithful to the text and use any other outline! When I come up with the exact same outline they did, I feel like that outline is now mine and the texts, not just theirs. But, I try to be zealous and cite… though, admittedly, probably not often enough.

3.     When I take a direct point or a line or the creative wording of a truth from someone, I feel like I should cite. I obey this rule usually. The first 19 times I said “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him,” I cited Piper.  Now I only cite him on that phrase every other time. People at my church know where I got it from. A newcomer might think I am trying to imply that I made it up. But I would annoy my congregation to death if every time I mentioned it now I said, “As John Piper says…”

4.     When I give a list that someone else has come up with or offer some piece of cultural analysis, I feel like I should cite. Again, a list or an organizational scheme is a thought unit. The truths inside that structure may not be unique to that person, but the organization of the presentation of those points is.

5.     If I hear a story told by someone else that reminds me of a story of your own, and I tell that story from my own life, I don’t think I need always to identify where I got the idea for that story from originally. I frequently hear intros and applications for which I find corollaries in my own life. Sometimes I feel the need to cite where the idea originated, and sometimes I don’t… it’s kind of a gut thing that depends on on how truly unique the idea was. For example, Tim Keller tells a story about how he hated classical music in college and only studied it to graduate college to get a job to make money, but now he uses his money to go to classical music concerts because he has learned to love it. He uses that to explain the difference between Gospel-change and religious change. I found an analogy to that in my own life with a Drama/Theatre class I took in college. I didn’t make that up. I really took the class. Should I cite Keller as the inspiration for that story? Not sure. Probably. The first time I told that to my church, I noted that I had heard that explained by Keller. The 2^nd and 3^rd times I did not. Maybe I should have. It is a pretty unique story, but one I find corollaries to in my own life and that illustrates a very non-unique point quite well.

I once read Spurgeon to say that you should master a few authors to the point that you can predict what they will say before they say it. I heard Peter Kreeft and Keller say the same thing. And I have done just that. My dilemma is that I have listened to Tim Keller now so much that I tend to plagiarize him before even hearing him teach through a particular passage! By that I mean I know how he’ll spin a passage even before I hear him do it, and I will sometimes end up doing that even without hearing him teach on it. There’s a reason for that–I think he’s right in how he interprets the Bible. BTW, I told him that once, and he laughed and said he was the same way with Ed Clowney. And Ed Clowney was personal friends with Savanarola, and used to steal from his sermons, too.

I try to be as transparent as I can with my congregation that I am heavily indebted to some particular theologians and teachers, and even some friends. Recently these have included Keller, Lewis, Piper, Kreeft, Packer, MacDonald, Luther, Edwards, Powlison, Welch, Stanley, Driscoll, and others. We also publish a manuscript each week in which I try to be a little clearer about sources I am drawing from about various points. I’ve found that most of these guys are heavily indebted to their own set of people they draw from.

I want to be zealous so as not to represent myself as more brilliant and original than I really am. The truth is I have had only 3 truly original ideas in my life, and they were not really that good. Almost all the others have been learned from the historic church, both ancient and modern.

What are your thoughts? Can you help me think through this?

Stop Asking Jesus Into Your Heart

Apr 11 | Pastor J.D. | 13 Comments |

If there were a Guinness Book of World Records entry for “amount of times having prayed the sinner’s prayer,” I’m pretty sure I’d be a top contender. For many years I struggled to gain an assurance of salvation. I have since learned that I am not alone. “Lack of assurance” is epidemic among evangelicals.

In this book I show that faulty ways of presenting the gospel are the source of much of the confusion. Our presentations of the gospel are not heretical, per se, but they often mislead. “Asking Jesus into your heart” or “giving your life to Jesus” often give false assurance to those who are not saved and keep those who genuinely are saved from it.

In this book I unpack the doctrine of assurance, showing that salvation is a posture we take to the promise of God in Christ, a posture that begins at a certain point but that we maintain for the rest of our lives. Along the way, I answer tough questions about assurance: “What exactly is faith? What is repentance? Why are there so many warnings that seem to imply we can lose our salvation?” I attempt to handle these with respect to the theological rigors required, while not losing sensitivity of a pastor or the communicative technique required to teach these things to teenagers. I weave through the book my own personal, often comically tragic struggle.

Chapter titles are:

1. Baptized Four Times
2. God Wants us to Have Assurance
3. Jesus in My Place
4. What is Belief?
5. What is Repentance?
6. Why Does the Bible Seem to Warn Us So Often About Losing Our Salvation?
7. The Evidence We Have Believed
8. What to Do When You’re Worried You are Not Saved

Panel of Summit Pastors and Elders Talk about the Dating (DTR) Talk

Apr 06 | Pastor J.D. | 5 Comments |

A few weeks ago over 900 college students packed into an auditorium that sat 450. This was the result. Warning: Raw, Candid and Unedited Footage!

 

Older Entries Newer Entries

Archives

Select Month May 2012  (12) April 2012  (15) March 2012  (9) February 2012  (14) January 2012  (20) December 2011  (14) November 2011  (13) October 2011  (14) September 2011  (26) August 2011  (18) July 2011  (16) June 2011  (10) May 2011  (13) April 2011  (13) March 2011  (11) February 2011  (12) January 2011  (13) December 2010  (13) November 2010  (12) October 2010  (15) September 2010  (15) August 2010  (13) July 2010  (14) June 2010  (12) May 2010  (20) April 2010  (19) March 2010  (16) February 2010  (18) January 2010  (26) December 2009  (14) November 2009  (18) October 2009  (19) September 2009  (23) August 2009  (19) July 2009  (17) June 2009  (20) May 2009  (18) April 2009  (18) March 2009  (15) February 2009  (17) January 2009  (22) December 2008  (20) November 2008  (13) October 2008  (18) September 2008  (17) August 2008  (21) July 2008  (15) June 2008  (16) May 2008  (18) April 2008  (2)

Additional Summit Links

• Facebook Join the Summit Church Facebook fan page and get weekly updates on Summit news and events in your Facebook feed!
• Vimeo See all the recent videos from the Summit Church

Web Design by Merkados