An Open Letter To A Fellow Brother In Christ

I tried to post this on Facebook as a response to a fellow brother in Christ in the Facebook forum: Den of Christian Apologists. However due to technical issues, I was unable to do it, so instead I'll respond as an open letter to my fellow brother in Christ. So to protect his identity I'll simply refer to him as: Fellow Brother. 

*** 

Hi Fellow Brother,  

You said: 

"Any argument that supports the ban on gay marriage from Christ's point of view is an argument from silence or "inference" which is the same exact thing. ... Inference is still an argument that has nothing concrete, otherwise it would be fact."

In my previous discussion with you Fellow Brother I showed you an example of an argument from silence. Jesus does *not* need to talk about homosexuality in order to have his views on it shown. Matthew 19, is *not* an argument from silence, nor is it an argument from inference. It is a conclusion from a proper exegesis of Scripture. At worst, arguing against homosexuality from Matthew 19, is an “inductive argument” that is “the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning). When we hold John 8:58 and 17:5, that is he is God and 2 Timothy 2:13b, that is God cannot deny himself, to be true then God’s original design for sexuality and marriage leaves zero wiggle room. God is God; any compromise on his standard will compromise that and that is simply impossible for God to do, that is God cannot compromise on his nature; in sum God cannot decide not to be God. Therefore taking this into account, Jesus’ non-support of homosexuality is *fact*. The assumed inductive argument is really a deductive argument. That is linking “...premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning)  

Premise #1: God cannot deny his nature and he designed sexuality to be heterosexual in nature as that what his nature declared to be very good, (cf. Genesis 1:31).  

Premise #2: Jesus is God (cf. John 1:1) 

Conclusion: Jesus cannot deny his nature and since he designed sexuality to be heterosexual in nature as that what his nature declared to be very good: (cf. Genesis 1:31); and therefore *any* alternative sexual orientation, including but not exclusive to, homosexuality, violates his nature, i.e. is a sin. 

In sum: Jesus is against homosexuality and thus any behaviors that spins from it may it be sexual or political (i.e. legal marriage) is a no-go; and we as followers of Christ should likewise represent that. Just as an ambassador of a country represents the policies and values held by their country, we are ambassadors for Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:20) and therefore we represent the policies and values held by Christ. 

And then just as I posted Part 1 of my response, because Facebook didn’t allow me to post my entire message in one shot forcing me to partition my response you (without waiting for the rest) responded as follows:  

"Jesus never said gay marriage is wrong and yet you assert He did. There is no difference, only selective reasoning and at the least blind ignorance."

Translation: Did not!  

This, Fellow Brother is not a valid argument. And then you advised me to not read “...Wiki for the record, that's a bit elementary.” Let’s translate that: “I’m not going to see what your ‘elementary’ recourses state, I am going to attack the medium of the message and not look at what the message is.” Again not a very good apologetic tactic.

You then wrote a big paragraph where you added within:  

”...we'll pick the laws of Leviticus that suit our needs and toss out the rest."

Some of the Levitical laws were exclusively for the OT Jewish people, i.e. eating shrimp; others were universal to everyone Jew or Gentile, such as homosexual behaviour. There are two Hebrew words that are translated into ‘abomination”: Sheqets (Shelfish - Lev. 11:12) & Tow`ebah (Homosexuality - Lev. 18:22). I didn't do an exhaustive search into which verses are declared 'Sheqets' while other are 'Tow`ebah', but considering that in the main stream eating selfish is often brought up when arguing for homosexuality I'll use Lev. 11:12. 

"Sheqets' means: “detestable thing or idol, an unclean thing, an abomination, detestation” (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8263&t=NASB). Tow`ebah means, a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable in a ritual and or ethical sense. (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8441&t=NASB) So homosexual behavior according to Old Testament Scripture is a disgusting, ethic; or a disgusting ritual, or both: a disgusting unethical ritual. And the wrongness of this disgusting unethical ritual is reestablished by Paul, in the new covenant, via Christ’s authority (cf. Acts 9:15-16, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-11).  

So as I said in my previous post: “By proxy of the authority given to Paul by Christ to speak Scripture, homosexuality is explained to be a bi-product of a corrupted original design, (cf. Romans 1:26-27). Of which again isn’t a new decree but an old one carried over from Moses.” The same Moses who spoke Scripture by authority of God, who is Christ. Moreover, Paul also reestablished God's decree that the requirement to keep “The Law” such as those pertaining to dietary laws was completed in Christ, (cf. Matthew 5:17, Acts 10:9-16, Galatians 2:16). I am sure that you won’t disagree that Paul declared, or mimicked Christ’s declaration that “...man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” - Galatians 2:16. Why then do you fight against his words, via his authority given to him by God himself to speak Scripture regarding homosexuality?  

You said: 

"I have a Degree in Religion and Masters in Divinity and Counseling."

So what? 

You said: 

"What about slaves in your home? Paul seems to think women shouldn't lead and having slaves is just."

You are guilty of a “bait & switch”. We are talking about homosexuality and you, in a defense of your view on this subject redirect the conversation to other and irrelevant subjects, (that is subjects that are irrelevant to the discussion of homosexuality). This is a common tactic by many (but not all I’m sure) pro-gay activists; and all who present these arguments are guilty of ‘bait & switch’. 

But since you brought it up I’ll address only one of your side-topics, slavery, as the “women in leadership” issue is too complicated to discuss as a tag-line on a discussion on homosexuality. You asserted that Paul “...saw slavery as just.” This is simply not true; but lets pretend that he was pro-slavery; it doesn’t negate the morality of homosexuality. Someone can be in support for something that is not good and be correct regarding the ungodliness of another view; but as I said this is just to illustrate the point, as Paul was not pro-slavery.  

Moreover, you rehashed your fallacious type of argument, namely that Paul was pro-slavery whereas if he wasn’t “...he would have spoken against it...”. Just as Jesus doesn’t need to say the words “I am against homosexuality” for us to know that he is against it, Paul doesn’t need to say “I am against slavery” for us to know that he is against slavery. Another brother in Christ informed you that slavery was an institution in the first century that simply couldn’t have been abolished overnight. Paul had one topic on his heart, salvation for the lost and Christ as LORD in the lives of everyone. Our fellow Christian brother who I alluded to above asked you for references for your view that Paul supported slavery and you provided him: Ephesians 6:5-8, Colossians 3:22-25, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18 and Philemon. 

Paul is Gospel focused; when he instructed Christians who were slaves to not disrupt the flow of society it wasn't because he was in support of it. He wanted his readers to put Christ ahead of the social institution. In sum serve with great passion (Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22-23) their ‘earthly master’ so to show Christ and his love, (Ephesians 6:6, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18). In sum serve your earthly master as a means of serving Christ. Paul’s concentration is to redirect the persons’ attention from considering themselves as an slave to an earthly master to as a slave to Christ. (Colossians 3:24) Paul also reiterates that wrongs will be taken care of by God (Colossians 3:25). Given the surrounding context Paul is suggesting that slavery is wrong and it will be dealt with. 

And with Philemon Paul states “[for] perhaps he [Onesimus] was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” - Philemon 1:15-16. Paul is arguing that Philemon’s former slave, Onesimus ran away and God used that situation to bring him to faith in Christ through Paul. Paul then says to Philemon to take Onesimus back, but as a brother in Christ, not as a slave.   

Paul had to pick his battles and establishing ones eternal salvation and representing Christ in every situation was the most important battle for him to fight. But he did seem to way in on the subject in Col. 3:25. And then you implied that the church should be involved in current slavery abolishment. Many are: https://www.freetheslaves.net/page.aspx?pid=482 (FYI, read the first line on this webpage.) I believe this ministry is a Christian ministry but even if they are not a “Christian ministry” the point is moot because many members of the “the church” I am sure are involved either in this ministry or others like it and or other ministries, which deal with yet equally important issues. 

Moreover, you asked are not gay people “...marginalized, oppressed, and cast out? Does that not make them the "least of us?” Unfortunately gay people have been marginalized due to their sexual orientation. In the context of Matthew 25:31-46, persons who have been beaten down either metaphorically and or physically would fall into the category of “the least”. And to a degree vs. 45 would in my view apply to many homosexual people.  

However as I stated in a previous discussion, regarding marriage everyone was equal under heterosexual marriage. If a gay man wanted to marry, he was within his full rights to find a woman who would be willing to engage into marriage with him; and visa-versa for the gay woman. Instead however what the LGBT group wants is not equal rights for marriage, but rather marriage reformation. Read what Matthew Vines states on his Reformation Project website:  

“The Reformation Project exists to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Through building a deep grassroots movement, we strive to create an environment in which Christian leaders will have the freedom to take the next steps toward affirming and including LGBT people in all aspects of church life.” (http://www.reformationproject.org/about)  

Homosexual Christians are abel to participate in church life. The only stipulation that any orthodox Christian church would expect from its leadership would be repentance of sin - something that is expected for everyone, irregardless of sexual orientation and nature of sin. So a church can have a homosexual pastor, a pastor who is an addict and so on, just as long as he is not a practicing homosexual, or an active addict or whatever. In sum just as long as they are living according to Scripture. A church can have people who are homosexual, or addicts teaching children’s church or singing in the choir, or sitting on the board of directors, etc., just as long as they are not a practicing homosexual, or drunks or druggies, etc. Again, just as long as they are living according to Scripture. What Vines and yourself are supporting is what Vines states in the first line of the aforementioned paragraph:  

“The Reformation Project exists to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.” 

An affirmation of homosexuality, not just the people who are homosexual. What you want is Biblical support to sin. Persons who are unrepentant of a sin (homosexuality, heterosexual sexual immoralities, drunkenness, etc.) should not be permitted to take up any leadership role in a church, may it be from pastoring a congregation or handing out bulletins to church members on a Sunday morning.   

In Christ,

Ian  

Christians Are Not At War With Gay People and Women

My body-my choice, stay out of my uterus, separation of church and state, bigot, closed-minded, intolerant and hater. Do these slogans sound familiar? If you've ever attended a publicized pro-life event or an event that questioned the morality of homosexual marriage and or behaviour, they should. Many of these types of events have three types of people in attendance:

1. The group who is putting on the event, e.g. a university pro-life campus group and fellow pro-life advocates. 
2. Those who are apposed to the view held by the organizers of the event e.g. the university pro-choice campus group and fellow advocates, but who want to open a dialogue.
3. Those who likewise do not support the views held by the organizers of the event, e.g. the pro-choice campus group and fellow advocates, but who want to shut down any discussion in a vain attempt to keep their views coming under scrutiny. 

I take issue only with those in the third camp. These people simply do not want to discusses the issues because they don't want to have the morality of their positions questioned; but they will with obliviousness wipe over your views with one or two superficial quotes or name-callings, and then plant their flag of perceived victory. These people come in three forms:

1. Sign-bobbing and slogan chanting protestors. 
2. People who pridefully make it clear that, you are the close-minded, unintelligent, (and assuringly) religious bigot; and you are the one who can't be reasoned with, and so they won't even begin to try. 
3. Those who simply do not think about their argument before putting it forward. You could say to these people, "Jesus is against homosexuality" and they'll accuse you of three things: A) making an argument from silence. B) Unjustly declaring the falsity of every religious system until you have studied every one of them; and C) arguing that a person who has not experienced an unwanted pregnancy, or has not experienced same-sex attraction cannot speak on the morality of such issues.

However, despite the differences between these three camps, they all share a common denominator. All three camps believe to varying degrees that they are being victimized. In The Independent an Oxford student proudly advertises that she "...helped shut down an abortion debate between two men...".[i] Why? Because her "...uterus isn't up for their [discussion.]"[ii] Let me translate this or you: 'I helped shut down an attack on me.' Of course she wasn't implying that she felt physically threatened by a discussion on abortion, but rather a perceived threat of another human being taking control of her body. Consider what she says:

Access to abortion impacts the lives of women, trans and non-binary people every day, and the threat pro-life groups pose to our bodily autonomy is real, not rhetorical.[iii]

This again is merely her perception as it simply is not true. The pro-life advocate is not seeking to usurp control over anyone's body. Moreover in Bloomington, Indiana, Christian Pastor and Apologist, Douglas Wilson gave nearly a three hour lecture on homosexuality from the Biblical perspective. He was repeatedly interrupted with shouts, jeers, ad-homonym attacks and chants. At one point in the first section of his lecture entitled Creation Sexuality, some members of the audience stood up and loudly accused him of supporting slavery. They paralleled his non-support of homosexual marriage to marginalizing African people.[iv] Are pro-life and pro-natural marriage proponents attacking women and gay people with their relative messages? No. In the Christian Scriptures the Apostle Paul explains what the battle is truly over:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Ephesians 6:12 (KJV)

The pro-life and pro-natural-marriage proponents wrestle not against human beings but against leaders (principalities [GK. ἀρχή])[v] with an agenda, and its the agenda that we are fighting. We are battling against human choice (powers [GK. ἐξουσία])[vi], but a choice that is in the direction of unGodliness (wickedness [GK. πονηρία])[vii]; and it is the unGodliness that we are fighting. In sum we are fighting against the morals of the supreme unGodly ruler (rulers [GK. κοσμοκράτωρ])[viii]. The pro-life and pro-natural-marriage proponent is attacking the morality of the practices of homosexual behaviour, gay-marriages and abortion.

The ungodliness of abortion by demand, is the perceived right of divine authority that a women has over another human being.[*] This is the view that the pro-life advocate is fighting against. Even many of the chants that pro-choice advocates recite state this fact. Take for example, the slogan: My Body, My Choice. Every pro-life advocate should be 100% in agreement because this is the very message that the pro-life advocate supports. That is it is my body and therefore it is *not your* choice. The woman nor a man or a child has the moral right to take the life of another human being. Nobody, but God is God, and as such has the right to act as if they are.

People have the right to make choices for their own lives. If people want to be reckless and participate in dangerous sexual behaviour then they should feel free to go a head and do it; but it doesn't mean that their choice is wise and that others should support their choice. Of course nobody - gay or straight - are immune from STIs (sexually transmitted infections) like HIV, hepatitis or chlamydia; and there are many heterosexuals who have been stricken with these diseases for a variety of reasons of which sexual misbehaviour is just one. However take note of what the Canadian Aids Society reports regarding HIV among gay men:

Since the early 1980s, AIDS has had a direct impact on gay men. Men who have sex with men account for nearly 80% of all AIDS cases reported in Canada and 46.4% of the cases reported in 2001 affected that same population.[xi] 

In 2010 Health Canada wrote: 

Starting in 1979 and up to December 31, 2008, there had been 21,300 AIDS cases reported to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). Since reporting began, the MSM [men who have sex with men] exposure category has accounted for the largest proportion of total AIDS cases among adults...[x] 

This is just one piece of the evidence that shows how, among many other acts (e.g. drunkenness and drug abuse) homosexual sex is dangerous. Regarding same-sex marriages, marriage is the connection of two things that go together, by not just choice but also by nature. The homosexual person will argue that a same-sex partner is by nature their natural partner. Men and women fit not just physically but metaphysically. Men and women are different but our differences is what makes us compatible. In sum two rights do not make a circle and neither does two lefts; you need one left and one right to make a complete circle. It is the morality of the legal recognition of homosexual unions that is being discussed.

A word to the pro-choice and the pro-gay advocate

The next time you are confronted with a pro-life advocate or a natural marriage-proponent don't take an offence to their message; they are merely addressing your claims. Try opening a dialogue and with pleasantness and maturity address their claims in return.

______________

[*] - This of course does not negate the fact that for a lot of women, the choice of abortion is spun from despair and fear. Many women will have, very understandable reasons for desiring to have an abortion, but that does not mean that their reasons justify killing someone. Irregardless the belief of a right to kill someone, may it be at the pre-born or post-born stage is a belief that they have that right; and nobody has that right but God. 

***

[i] - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-helped-shut-down-an-abortion-debate-between-two-men-because-my-uterus-isnt-up-for-their-discussion-9867200.html - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[ii] - Ibid., - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[iii] -Ibid., - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[iv] - http://www.canonwired.com/bloomington/ - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[v] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G746&t=KJV - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[vi] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1849&t=KJV - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[vii] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4655&t=KJV - accessed November 19, 2014.
[viii] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2888&t=KJV - accessed November 19, 2014. 

[ix] - http://www.cdnaids.ca/hivaidsandgaymen - accessed November 20, 2014

[x] - http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/epi/2010/9-eng.php - accessed November 20, 2014

The Gay Christian Movement Is Putting Pleasure Before God

 

Today's culture can ... be characterized by Paul's words. In Paul's second letter to Timothy, Paul states that there "...will be terrible times in the last days. People will be... lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God..." - 2 Timothy 3:1, 4. Of course both secular and religious systems that value pleasure before God have always existed since sin came on the scene, and they still exist today. However today there is an ideology running rampant within the walls of the Christian church that suggests that what God pronounces as sinful is good if the sin is something innate.[i]

The above quote is from an article I recently wrote that is entitled The Gay-Christian Movement Is Mixing God's Goodness With Evil. The 'evil' that the article discussed was the amalgamation of the sin of active homosexuality with one's identity as a Christian. Members of the Gay Christian Movement preach that someone can be both a practicing homosexual and a practicing Christian. I do not go into why that simply is impossible, but instead I went into why one should not tie their sin (e.g. homosexuality) with their Christian identity. However there is some ambiguity in the above citation. It begins to concentrate on: ones focus on their pleasure rather than on God; and then its focus changes to: homosexuality as something innate. In the aforementioned article I argued why the alleged innateness of homosexuality does not determine homosexuality being good but I didn't highlight how Paul's words in 2 Timothy 2:1 & 4 also apply to homosexuality. I am going to do that here. 

The relationship between homosexuality and Paul's words to Timothy is not homosexuality itself but rather the person, but not as a homosexual but as a sinful human being. Scripture is clear that homosexuality is something that is condemned as sinful. In Moses' time the homosexual act was declared evil (cf. Genesis 19) and declared a capitol crime (cf. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). Paul reminds his readers that among many different choices of lifestyle people who chose the homosexual lifestyle will not inherit the kingdom of God (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). He also explains the origin of the sinful nature which gives birth to a variety of sexual immoralities of which homosexuality is merely one, (cf. Romans 1:18-32).

Unwrapping Romans 1:18-32

Although we as God's creation naturally know God we do not glorify him or recognize him as God (cf. Romans 1:21). What causes us to recognize God's existence but not give him glory or recognize him as God? We naturally suppress the truth of God, (cf. Romans 1:18-20) namely "God’s invisible qualities [such as] his eternal power and divine nature..." (cf. Romans 1:20). We reject God's omnipotence and its implication on reality and His nature that is the standard for moral choices, His divine wisdom, His divine will (His desires to have things done in a certain way) and so forth. This deliberate abandonment of God-focusness caused futile and foolish intentions on our part, (cf. Romans 1:21) resulting in foolish thinking and obliviousness to that very fact; in sum we claim to be wise, but our actions speak of a different story. Instead of being God-focused we turn and offer glory and divine recognition to the created order, (cf. Romans 1:22-23). 

How did God respond? He let us go. If we human beings want to abandon Him as our God and give worship to inanimate objects (cf. Romans 1:22), then so be it. God let us go to not just invent pseudo gods but serve ourselves as our own god. Our rebellion took us over to the degrading of ourselves; of which is evidence of foolish thinking and self-centeredness. The example Paul gives is shameful sexual desires, (cf. Romans 1:24-25), such as just as how many men exchange natural sexual relations [heterosexual] for sexual relationships with each other [homosexual] many women do the same. (cf. Romans 1:26-27).[ii] The last stretch in this fall from God-focusness is to not "think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave [us] over to a depraved mind, so that [we] do what ought not to be done." - Romans 1:28. 

By nature all of us - adult and child alike - naturally lean on our own way of thinking and look out for our own desires (cf. Romans 3:23), and homosexual people are no exception. This is what causes members of the Gay Christian Movement to attempt to reinterpret the portions of Scripture discussed above. The sinful nature is self-centered and so the Gay Christian Movement aims to make Scripture friendly to their desires instead of making themselves friendly to Scripture. In an informal debate between Dr. Michael Brown and gay activist, Matthew Vines, on the relationship between being a follower of Christ and a practicing homosexual, Vines asked Brown: 

...do you acknowledge that there are some people for whom life long celibacy is the consequence of an absolute rejection of a same-sex relationship...?[iii] 

Given the topic of the discussion Vines' question is clear:

'Do you acknowledge that the doctrine, that same-sex relationships are actively sinful necessarily requires the Christian who is irreversibly same-sex attracted to forsake spiritual, sexual and emotional intimacy?'

Listen to the podcast below to hear Brown's answer to that question and the discussion in its entirety; however if I was asked that question my answer would be simple: "Yes. For the true Christian whose sexual orientation has not changed and is something that they simply cannot overcome, life-long celibacy would be the natural consequence." I alluded to the true Christian because it would only be the true Christian who would be aiming to serve Christ in both devotion and deed. For the true Christian who is exclusively same-sex attracted and has not changed on that front, a sexual, emotional and spiritual intimacy would be the sacrifice that he or she would have to make.[iv] This of course does not negate the fact that that the gay man or woman still will desire to be with in an intimate relationship with someone who they are sexually, personally and emotionally attracted to; but ones desires do not likewise negate the consequences for rejecting truth of God's Wisdom and Will, (cf. Mathew 7:21-23).

To conclude picture in your mind a three step staircase with a landing extending from the top step and one protruding from the bottom step. The second and third steps is the stage described in Romans 1:22-28 and this is where society (from the macro perspective) is today; but we are very close to falling completely onto the third step (cf. Romans 1:24-28) - the stage of the complete rejection of the knowledge of God and the complete focus onto ourselves as the god of our own lives. As a society we no longer even try to daily recognize God as God, and give him glory and thanks, (cf. Romans 1:21). Paul's words in Timothy describes today's culture because we are loving pleasure - what we want - rather than God, namely what God wants.

However being on the third step in this staircase of morality is not irreversible. Every Christian, gay and straight ought to take a good look at themselves to determine where on that staircase they personally lie. The landing from the bottom of these three steps is the point of no return, as is the landing at the top of the first step; both these represent the crossing over to eternity were the bottom represents eternal damnation and the top eternal life (cf. Hebrews 9:27); but while any one is on the first, second or third step they are not out of God's reach. As Paul promises if you actively "...declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." - Romans 10:9

_______________

[i] - http://acrazychristian.blogspot.ca/2014/11/the-gay-christian-movement-is-mixing.html - accessed November 7, 2014

[ii] - It is important to note that homosexuality is not the only example one can give for wrong sexual practices; it is merely the example  Paul gave to illustrate his point.
[iii] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-bTqIJP2JI - accessed November 7, 2014

[iv] - This of course does not include close friendships between persons of the same sex. It is very fortunate for someone if they can find that same-sex friend to whom they can develop an intimate friendship and bond with. There is a clear difference between close friends and lovers. The biggest dividing line between the two is sexual intimacy.

The Gay-Christian Movement Is Mixing God's Goodness With Evil

My name is Ian Murray. I am 36 years old and I have made some stupid choices in my life. There was a time when I could have identified with many characterizations described in Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. I was a drunkard, or an alcoholic and drug addict as it would be classified today. I lived on the street as a panhandler. I was despicable, as I used my disability (I am in a wheelchair) to make people feel sorry for me and give me money for food; but I'll give you three guesses as to where their five, ten and twenty dollar bills really went, but you'll only need one - drugs and booze. This made me a swindler. I wasn't satisfied with 'just enough' to get me through the day, I wanted more than enough; this made me greedy. Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 does shed some very unpleasant facets of my life. I am also very happy to pronounced though that today I can identify myself with the word located in verse 11, 'were'. I am no longer a drunk and a swindler. Today I am over 10 years sober from alcohol, drugs and cigarettes and I am the youth pastor for my church.

There is however another part to this story. When I was five years old I truly and wholeheartedly asked Jesus Christ, the son of the living God to come into my life and save me from the consequences of my sinful nature. All through my childhood, preteens and even into my early teens, I was used by God and I saw Christ in my life and many other people did too. However, even though this is the case there was a factor about me that played into my downfall with alcoholism. I had a serious rebellious streak. What does this mean? This means that through my rebellion and all my drug and alcohol use, I was a Christian.

Would it be correct then to say that during that time I was a drunkard-Christian? Or how about a rebellious-Christian, or a swindling-Christian or a greedy-Christian? Of course not. If I was to marry my drunkenness, dishonesty, greed or rebellion with my Christianity I would be saying that those acts are in the same category as my active Christianity, and this is simply not true. Am I cured from my past's transgressions? No. I don't get tempted to swindle people out of their money any more but that life style in all of its evil has left me with daily battles. I still do get tempted once in a while by a beer commercial on television and I can only spend so much time around friends who are enjoying a mere alcoholic beverage with dinner. I classify myself as a 'recovering alcoholic', however I don't classify myself as a recovering-alcoholic-Christian. So instead I state that I am a Christian who is: a recovering-alcoholic and a recovering-drug addict. You may think that I am playing with semantics, but there is a difference. The identity - recovering-alcoholic-Christian - forces me to share my sinful temptations with my Christianity, while the identity - a Christian who is a recovering addict - shows a separation between my Christianity and my temptations to sin. In the same way regarding my choice to begin my journey towards sobriety I don't classify myself as a smart-Christian because such a characterization robs Christ of the credit for the work he did in me through all those who helped me get me to where I am today. As such I am a Christian who eventually made some good choices.

Today's culture can also be characterized by Paul's words. In Paul's second letter to Timothy, Paul states that there "...will be terrible times in the last days. People will be... lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God..." - 2 Timothy 3:1, 4. Of course both secular and religious systems that value pleasure before God have always existed since sin came on the scene, and they still exist today. However today there is an ideology running rampant within the walls of the Christian church that suggests that what God pronounces as sinful is good if the sin is something innate. The face of this ideology is the Gay-Christian Movement and their message is that homosexuality is innate and thus it is not a sin but something to be praised and promoted. This movement is tying together their homosexuality with their identity as a follower of Christ. Many gay activists in one way or another ascribe to the view that someone's sexual orientation is not a choice but something that is a part of the gay man or woman. Members of the Gay-Christian-Movement believe that God made the gay man or woman gay and therefore conclude that being gay must be good. Many disagree that homosexuality is innate, however even if they are wrong and it is a part of someone's being that doesn't mean that homosexuality is within itself good. In fact the alleged innate status of homosexuality advocates for the Scripture's teaching of the corruptness of creation. Scripture is clear that nature was affected by sin (cf. Romans 8:22) and so it stands to reason that one's sexuality (a very natural part of every human being) would also be affected by sin. Homosexuality is then just one form of a corrupted sexuality. As such the prophet Isaiah has a few words for subscribers of the view that homosexuality is good despite God's declaration of it being evil:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, - Isaiah 5:20

Jesus' disciple John states that "[if you] claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, [you] lie and do not live out the truth." - 1 John 1:6 Associating anything sinful with your Christian identity provides strong evidence that the light is off and you are milling around in the dark as you say "I am a Christian." It is however important to never deny your struggles! If you struggle with addiction to booze, drugs or pornography; or if you struggle with homosexuality or any other sexual sin, or pride, or anger, and so forth - come out! John warns that the truth of God is not in you if you do not admit that you are a sinner, (cf. 1 John 1:8, 10). So own your sin but then disown it. John promises us all including you that:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." - 1 John 1:9 

In sum if you are a Christian battle your sin; don't identify with it and certainly don't amalgamate your sin with your Christian identity.

Jesus: Who is the real 'he'?

There are a lot of quotes that are attributed to Jesus, (The Sermon on the Mount - Matthew 5-7, Mathew 19:26, Matthew 26:39, Matthew 27:46, Matthew 28:19, Mark 2:10, Mark 15:34, Luke 2:49“, Luke 4:4, Luke 23:34, John 3:12, John 8:12, John 8:24, John 8:24, John 10:10, John 14:6, John 19:10-11, John 19:30) and so on; and there are a few citations that are attributed to his mouth that he actually didn't say such as the world-renowned John 3:16. Everything Jesus says and what the apostles said is important; everything Jesus says and what the apostles said, is said with a purpose. However there is one thing Jesus said that I'd like to highlight. This is not because I believe that this citation is especially important, but rather urgently important.

Who is Jesus?

This is a very important question to answer as it has eternal consequences. When I was in my local bookstore one day I was being shown the selection of audiobooks, as per my request by a pleasant young man who worked there as a customer care worker. He asked me about what kind of books I'd be looking for and I responded, with a cringe: "Religion", as I know how that word religion is perceived in today's culture; but I knew that in order to conduct business it was a necessary word to use as books about world religions, faith-based books, etc. are in the 'religion' section.

However this man, who I'll call John so to protect his identity didn't just point to the small rack of audiobooks, dividing them for me into fictional and non-fictional, he offered a personal suggestion: Zealot: The Life And Times Of Jesus Of Nazareth, authored and read by Reza Aslan. It was this book that started a conversation between me and him about Jesus. John told me that he took a course on the 'historical Jesus' in university and that in his personal theological journey caused him to convert to Mormonism from Roman Catholicism. Both me and him looked at the other 'religious' books that were on display, many of which pertained to Jesus as we chatted about the big-deal Jesus is - to everyone, irregardless of religion, creed or sexual orientation.

Who Jesus is will depend on which worldview He is filtered through. When filtered through Christian theism Jesus is God (cf. John 1:14). When filtered through Islam Jesus is just a prophet, (cf. Sura 5:72); and John explained that Jesus is one who has a divine personage, a.k.a, a god when he is filtered through Mormonism. Now the religious pluralist will argue that that is okay as long as it helps the believer be happy and live good. However it is important to note there that there is a correct view of Jesus and figuring out who this correct Jesus is literally a case of "life and death". Jesus made this very clear when he said:

...if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins. - John 8:24

When teaching this concept to the youth who I oversee as their youth-leader I paint the picture of Jesus using a power-point presentation when giving his lecture in John 8. I suggest to them picture Jesus when saying the phrase pointing to the slide that had a picture of, or the name of, the "He" that he is talking about. Who is that 'He'? Jesus makes it very clear that if you do not believe that he is the specific "he", you will suffer eternal damnation.

Now as a Christian I filter Jesus through Christianity. Jesus being 'God', not just 'a god' seems to be a natural confusion, especially in light of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. I refer to this as a 'natural confusion' because my heart one recent Sunday jumped when I was going over the memory verse (Isaiah 46:9) with one of my five year old Sunday school students. Isaiah 46:9 is clearly monotheism:

I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

And as you do with little children repetition is a good start in driving home a teaching and things you want them to remember. After going over the memory verse with her, (with actions to help) I got her to say it by her self. What she said was: I am [a] God, and there is no other; I am [a] God, and there is none like me. Of course her being only five years old and in kindergarden, I initially figured she was just trying to get the premise of the verse down; and likewise she didn't recognize the grammatical difference between 'a God' verse 'God'. But this was one mistake I felt that needed to be corrected as it has connotations that are greater than being bad-grammer. I patiently, but directly corrected her that it is important that she learn this verse correctly because there are many people who believe that God is just that 'a God' - and they are wrong. There is only one God, and God is one (cf. Deuteronomy 6:4). What she said to me was surprising:

Well, there is God and then there is Jesus.

When I corrected her that Jesus is God, she expressed that "that is weird". How many people attribute deity to Jesus but in their hearts don't attribute monotheism-deity to Jesus, and more specifically Trinitarian-Monotheism to Jesus? How many people believe what this little girl believed namely that 'there is God and then there is Jesus'?

One objection offered to theists in general by atheists and agnostics is the idea of teaching children the abstract concept of the nature of God and other theological issues, such as heaven, hell, sin and salvation, etc. Some argue that children as young as five years old cannot understand the concepts of God. Others argue that it is wrong to impose onto children such teachings as truth, instead of personalized views: "This is what your mother and I believe."

In an interview with the Huffington Post, world renowned science teacher and agnostic, Bill Nye at first paints a positive view of a belief in God by acknowledging that there are a lot of people who do believe in God and as a result, community and good deeds are encouraged; however he continues to say:

"...we are talking about specific claims that affect the future of science students in the world leader in science..."[i]  

In context Nye is referring to the USA as the world leader in science (or at least in the top three he detracts), and the specific claim he is referring to is about a belief in God. So it can be inferred that Bill Nye believes that a belief in Jesus as the creator mentioned in Genesis 1:1 is detrimental to scientific progress, (as a belief in any supernatural creator in general stumps scientific progress).

So how important is the true nature of Jesus? What affect does the correct doctrine of Jesus have? If Bill Nye is correct then the doctrine of Jesus' deity is only detrimental to scientific discovery. Others argue the belief in God in-toto is detrimental to life in general. If these such people are correct then the doctrine of The Deity, Jesus' deity or any other proposed deity is detrimental to life on earth in many ways. If however the Muslim is correct then a belief in Jesus' deity will result in eternal damnation for the sin of shirk, as attributing deity to Jesus is associating him with God (Allah), (cf. Sura 5:72-73). However if what Christianity asserts is true then it is only those who embrace his triune-monotheistic divine nature and faithfully follow his will (cf. Matthew 7:21-23) that will receive eternal salvation, (cf. John 3:16).

Who is Jesus: A nice guy? A great philosopher? A great teacher? A prophet of God? God? Proverbs 22:6 states: "Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it." This is why it is important to begin teaching this to everyone, including children.  It is true that a lot of Christian teaching is hard to understand or at least accept for children and adults alike; but a hard to accept or understand doctrine doesn't nullify its truthfulness and thus its importance in education.
_________________

[i] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/bill-nye-on-belief-in-god_n_4645891.html - accessed September 1, 2014

The Assembly Of A Bible Study: There is no room for creative liberty!

I had recently wrote an article, located here, where I discussed that although there is no right or wrong time to spend time studying God's word there are times when it is unwise to study Scripture. One such time is when your fatigued and frustrated from the stresses of the day. The reason for this in order to glean the message that God has for us in his word one has to take into account both its historical and philosophical influences. The Bible is a theological book but its theology is not written in a vacuum; it has a historical backdrop and it provides its own philosophy so to understand its theology. This means that Scripture isn't merely a theological book that contains some historical facts and provides various ways to look at various aspects of life - it is a historical, theological and philosophical book. And in order to recognize how these academic studies are knitted together one has to be fully alert in both mind, heart and body.

Another point to consider is that Scripture has an overall message and various acute messages for the Christian to learn and represent. In the aforementioned article, I alluded to the fact that the natural instinct of the human mind is to gravitate to its own form of thinking, a form that is corrupted by sin. Therefore one hard task that the Christian has to overcome is to let the Bible teach them and not have them use the Bible to teach their perspective. Scripture has specific morals and perspectives on various aspects of life; such aspects include views on the nature of right and wrong, various sexual practices, relationships between people in various social roles such as government officials, employers, teachers, friends, family and strangers. Scripture also teaches about the nature of God and how he responds to human sin and obedience and what constitutes as sinful and obedience. It is important to interpret its teachings through its own philosophy instead of the various philosophies adopted by sinful mindset, (cf. Colossians 2:8). In some when Studying Scripture there is no room for creative liberty.

In the article alluded to above I indicated that I have recently gotten into assembling plastic model vehicles and the lessons I learned through the assembly of various models. One of my first models I did was a Ferrari FXX. With this model, my goal was to mimic the picture on the box, right down to the right shade of red and the smallest decal. However the latest model I did, a Kenworth T900 "Australia" truck, things were different. Although I did want to mimic the picture on the box I chose to veer off on the aesthetics and give the body a personalized paint job. The picture on the box required that I airbrush the body of the truck in a rich desert type of yellow. However in order to do this I had to mix three different kinds of base paints in specific portions. The problem was however I didn't have those three base colours nor an airbrush. I didn't want to make the trip back out to the store to get those three paints nor spend over $100.00 on an airbrush and so I compromised. Instead I painted the top half of the body a dark metallic-blue and the bottom half metallic black and then hand painted flames over the bottom half with red and yellow paint.

Was their anything wrong with compromising on the intended aesthetic design of the truck? Considering that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" of course not. I did a simple google image search of the 'Kenworth T900' for inspiration and I was presented with hundreds of pictures of this truck with a variety of paint-jobs ranging from white or dark-green with decorative stripes to solid colours like dark blue or red. However what if I compromised on a physical aspect of my model T900 by neglecting the trailer hitch, also known as the fifth-wheel? Outside of making it look incomplete, nothing as I am not going to invest the money into building a box for my toy truck. However what if Kenworth compromised the physical design of the T900 and left out the fifth-wheel? The T900 would loose its purpose, that is to haul heavy loads.

Is there anything wrong with compromising on the facets of Christian theology? Truth is not akin to a paint-job for a vehicle; it is akin to a vital piece of the vehicle. If the owner of a T900 gave their truck a new paint-job or changed another aesthetic feature like giving it new hubcaps the only cost for the driver would be to his or her bank account. The truck's ability to function would be still intact. However offering alternative perspectives to what is truth, as an alternative to truth is akin to the T900 truck driver replacing their properly calibrated GPS with one that is mis-calibrated. A GPS has no preferential value; it doesn't make the vehicle look nicer nor cause it to function better; it simply allows the driver to successfully get from point-A to point-B.

However it could be argued that the GPS is not a vital piece of the vehicle. If the driver knows where to go and how to get there a GPS is useless. This is true however there is a difference between knowing the truth of getting somewhere because of one's mental roadmap and knowing the truth of reality. Answers to the big questions such as the meaning of life and the true nature of God is something that the naturally sinful mind is oblivious too. Jesus points this out. In a discussion with the Pharisees about who their God was Jesus states:

“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” - John 8:42-47

Jesus is using linguistics to make his point. His point is the sinful human being's natural mother-tongue is lies and deceit. The natural sinful state cannot speak nor understand truth. Human beings cannot know God on their own cognitive ability because they are naturally driven to recognize God but not treat him as such (cf. Romans 1:21). Jesus states that if the sinful human being really knew him we would love him, in sum recognize him as God and treat him as God. This is why human beings are naturally incapable of knowing the true God as everyone recognizes God's existence but are blinded to who this God is. Scripture is a correctly calibrated GPS that will guide us to the truth of reality. It is this truth that allows the correct perspective on truths throughout academia.

However other theists believe that their holy-books, e.g. the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Jehovah Witness', New World Translation, etc. is the correctly calibrated GPS for life? How can one determine which of life's GPS' is the correct one? ANSWER: When one examines the content of the text in light of objective facts such as history, the sciences and logic. When one takes creative-liberty with the vital piece of life, namely 'the truth' they are recalibrating reality's GPS. This will cost the person clarity and will result in, with 100% certainty, delusion. The person will believe wholeheartedly what they are offered as fact. In conclusion when studying God's word listen to what he has to say in light of the textual and academic context he provides it in. Thus don't be creative with the word of truth!

The Assembly Of A Bible Study: When is the best time to study Scripture?

Hobby: "[An] activity outside of one's regular occupation that is engaged in primarily for pleasure."[i] 

Everyone has a hobby of some kind. Some people collect stuff such as stamps or coins from around the world. Many people spend their pass time playing video-games while others enjoy the more physically demanding activities like sports or going for a walk or a jog. Others enjoy assembling model vehicles. Many people enjoy intellectually stimulating hobbies such as learning to play an instrument or reading novels or learning all about some interesting topic. Every kind of hobby has its benefit. Reading up on some interesting subject or playing some kinds of video games can be mentally stimulating. Jogging or going for a walk is physically beneficial and tackling a project like a 300 piece model vehicle or a 1000 piece puzzle enhances one's patience and fine-motor skills.

However for many Christians there is an activity that seems to get sidelined by every aspect of life including work, family and hobbies: personal Scripture study. Of course I cannot loop every Christian into the same basket so if you are a Christian you will have to see if this applies to you. In the lives of many Christians Scripture has been pushed aside by work, family responsibilities, school and leisure. This results in one of three outcomes: A) one's personal time with Jesus is at the very end of their day before they go to bed; a time when they are tired from what the day threw at them. B) They forgo altogether their personal time with Jesus or C) they merely glance over God's word instead of studying it. There is no right or wrong time to spend time with Jesus and reading his word; but please allow me to make the argument that there are wise and unwise times to set aside for your personal devotions.

Over the last few weeks I have gotten into assembling plastic model vehicles. There are a few things I consider when choosing a model vehicle to assemble but the one non-negotiable consideration for me is its complexity level. I want a challenge and so I always look for a Skill-Level -5. Essentially the difference in skill-level in plastic models is the number and size of the pieces that are involved. One such model I did, a Kenworth T900 "Australia" truck consisted of 300 pieces of which many were no bigger than a mere few millimetres in length. A model I did before the T900 was a Ferrari FXX. There is one big difference between the completion of these two vehicles: the Ferrari looks like it was in a wreck. One reason for this is my work habits. I worked on it late at night when my mind was half-off and my patience was waring thin. I worked on it consistently and for many hours at a time; and at the end due to all my irreversible mess-ups I threw away care and merely slapped on some of the main decals so to just get it done. Also after finishing the model I realized that there were some small pieces still on the plastic holder that I overlooked.

What did my tired brain and impatience cost me? The financial cost of the model kit, a number of necessary paints, glue and a modelling knife. What did I learn between the assembly of the Ferrari FXX and the Kenworth T900?

1. I had to learn to pace my self. I had to designate a time during the day to work on it. I also had to take brakes during the day. 
2. I had to remember to utilize a modeller's version of an old carpenter's adage: "Check the instructions twice, glue once". 
3. I had to think multiple steps ahead. I learned that even though the specific step I was working on required me to glue piece-D to piece-E, I had to remember that 6 steps down the road piece-K will have to fit with the D/E assembly. So I had to take care when gluing pieces D and E, otherwise piece-K might not fit properly of which then will cause problems for piece-Y. In sum I had to study each step in light of the context of the entire instructions.

What is the result of studying God's word on a tired and impatient brain?

1. An improper analysis of the text. The Apostle Paul instructs us to do our "...best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." - 2 Timothy 2:15. The Bible teaches theology; however it does not teach theology in an academic vacuum. Scripture includes with its theology history and philosophy. To varying degrees all Christians are guilty of applying non-biblical philosophy to Scripture. God's word should be studied at a time of day when one is fully alert so to give it a proper analysis and therefore to be sure to not apply unbiblical philosophy to Biblical theology.   
2. Vital aspects of Biblical analysis gets forgotten. As pointed out above, Scripture isn't just a book of theology, it provides its own philosophy to understand its theology and it teaches its theology in light of history. The Bible offers its teachings to us 21st century Westernized people but its teachings were not taught to us as its audience. Its audience was a middle and near eastern culture who lived 2000-5000 years ago. As such the authors of the respective documents utilized a frame of reference for the people of their time to bring home their message; the same message that applies to us. It is important to consider who its audience was so to be abel to glean its message. Just like a how I overlooked pieces of the models I've done it is easy to forget to look at both the acute and overall messages that God has for us in light of the time they were taught and the philosophy that accompanied them. 
3. A tired and impatient brain is more susceptible to a reliance on its own nature. The human being is affected by sin in-toto, this includes how they think and rationalize, (cf. Romans 1:21-22, 25). Scripture has some concepts that for many people (if not all people) are hard to accept. These concepts go against the concepts that the sinful mind naturally gravitates to.  It is important for the Christian to keep quiet and let Scripture teach them its theology and its philosophy so to understand its theology. And it is important to analyze Scripture's message/s in light of its audience so to properly pull out how it applies to them. 

A correct division of Scripture is to read each verse in light of the entirety of the Bible, in sum in the context. And its context consists of theology, history and philosophy. Just as I had to learn to double and triple check the instructions of the model vehicles I've done so to make sure that the assembly of each step is done with the rest of the instructions in mind, i.e. the context, it is important for the Christian to make sure that there are no pieces of Biblical analysis that are overlooked or replaced with a human version. 

What is the cost of studying God's word on a fatigue and impatient mind? ANSWER: Being improperly equipped to represent God and his word. So when it the best time to study God's word? ANSWER: The time when your mind is fully alert and ready to allow Scripture to speak to you and fight against its own nature to apply its own thoughts onto Biblical theology. For some people that is late at night, others it is with their morning coffee, while others its in the middle of the day. As stated before there is no right or wrong time to study God's word, but there is an unwise time, namely when you can't divide the word of truth correctly. 

___________________

[i] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hobby - accessed July, 26, 2014

Political Correctness vs. Hurt Feelings: Nobody has the right to *not* have their feelings hurt! (Part 3)

A little while ago I started a series on the Christian response to political-correctness. For a quick summary political-correctness is the philosophy that encourages the practice of being "...careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people."[i] For many Christians to submit to political-correctness is to submit to compromise on the truth of God. But as I pointed out in part one, located here  there are times when it would be wise for the Christian to be "politically-correct". In one such example is when being dogmatic against political-correctness harms the Gospel message. Yet as discussed in part two, located here  political-correctness can be detrimental if it is rejecting the truth of God; so just as there is a time to be politically-correct there is also a time to not be.

I introduced part one with a story of a fictional character, a pastor, Pastor John Peterson. Pastor John announced to his congregation that he was willing to step-down as their senior pastor because of a variety of complaints he received of which three of them pertained to how he conducts a sermon. Until now who Pastor John is, his personality, his mannerisms, his style of teaching, etc. was not important; however for our thesis today, who the man, John Peterson is, is important for context. Pastor John is a boisterous fellow and (rightly or wrongly) he give his opinions directly and without apology. This has had been received by a few of his church members as confrontative and those members made it clear that they don't like being confronted. Therefore their request was for him to change his mannerisms in how he conducts a sermon; to stop being so physically confrontative and become more personable. In his style of teaching he ought to be less loud as he tends to raise and lower his voice to vocally highlight points he wishes to make. He has been asked to offer his points as suggestions rather than commandments as not everyone believes as he does; for one example is he tells his audience that everyone should not support same-sex marriage; instead of offering up that position as a suggestion, he offers it up as a 'finger-in-your-face commandment', and so forth. These were not amendments that he was willing make as doing so is asking him to essentially not be himself, but be what everyone else wants him to be. As a result Pastor John opened his sermon with a five minute staring contest with his audience to illustrate that everything he seemed to do, things he says, things he does and things he teaches offends someone so he ought to just stand still and not say or do anything. And the irony would be if he did make those changes he would disappoint those who liked his original approach; so he can't win.

However is Pastor John right in not bending to the will of his audience? Doesn't Scripture teach to not be an obstacle for the Gospel, (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:19)? If prancing on the stage, using a sharp-tone and using aggressive hand gestures makes people feel confronted does that not warrant compromise and change? A mark of a good preacher is the ability to find the fine line between being informing and being a dictator. To put it simply it is the difference is between being a teacher and being a bully. If a preacher always comes across as dictating then that is an issue that he or she aught to change. However if they are merely addressing an issue and the recipient feels confronted then that is not the preacher's burden to bare.

It is the job of the preacher to be a person of comfort. However the preacher's job also requires from time to time to be confrontational. 1 Peter 3:15 states: "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and [respect.]" The greek word rendered 'respect' - φόβος[ii] (phobos) - connotes reverence or a respect that is spun from fear of an authority. So we are to be ready to give our answer with a fear of the authority that God (cf. Proverbs. 9:10) and the our mandate as Christians namely represent God has over us.

The word gentleness -   πραΰς (praÿtēs) - connotes mildness of disposition or gentleness of spirit[iii]. So we are to always be ready to represent what Scripture says with a gentle spirit but with the respect of the authority of God and his word. Moreover, respect in Western culture can be understood to mean that that someone and something is important and thus it and they should be treated in the appropriate way[iv]. It stands to reason then that since Christ figured that his creation was important enough to rectify the damage that we humans did to it via sin (cf. Romans 5:12) we should respect him by believing that his creation is important. To have respect for the people we minister to we aught not to disrespect them by dishonesty and wasting their time with beating around the political bush. If something needs to be said - say it! To not tell someone the truth because of fear of hurting their feelings is not respecting them as an omission of truth is parallel to a positive lie. It also is a judgement call on their response; how do you know how someone who you meet on the street will respond? Passing a judgement on someone that is has no grounding in evidence is also a disrespectful.

However what if the Christian knows how the other will respond? Or based on how a person or a group of people have received the Gospel message in the past the Christian believes that it is a safe call to assume that they will receive it with the same hostility. That is still making an assumption as the past doesn't always forecast the future. However lets wave our hands in the air causing a porthole to a possible future to open up. What do we see in this possible future after telling someone (a friend, a co-worker, a stranger on the street) some hard truth about reality, (e.g. homosexuality is a perversion, Jesus Christ is God in the flesh [cf. John 1:14], etc.)? Hurt feelings. So what? Here is a trustworthy saying:

Nobody has the right to hurt my feelings, however I don't have the right to not have my feelings hurt. 

To put it simply, nobody has the right to be cruel. However Christians in particular have the *obligation* to tell the truth. Sometimes confrontation will bruise egos; but sometimes egos need to be bruised; however let the truth bruise the ego, not the beholder of the truth.

In conclusion it would be wrong for Pastor John to change his demeanour as doing so will cause him to loose an un-winable battle; as, as stated above, no matter how he behaves or how he talks or what he teaches on he is going to upset someone. However changing his demeanour so much so to discontinue confrontation is a violation of his pastoral obligations; as it is his job to guide and teach his congregation the truth of Scripture and from Scripture (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16).
___________________

[i] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct - accessed July 14, 2014
[ii] - http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5401&t=NIV - accessed July 20, 2014
[iii] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4240&t=NIV - accessed July 20, 2014
[iv] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/respect - accessed July 21, 2014

Political Correctness vs. Hurt Feelings: When to be correct, not politically-correct (Part 2)

In an article I wrote recently, located here, I started a series addressing the Christian's response to political correctness. I told the story of a factitious a pastor named Pastor John Peterson. Pastor John surprised his congregation with an announcement of his resignation due to complaints he received. He opted to resign as the senior pastor as he was unwilling to be accommodating with the issues that was presented to him; but he also didn't want to become an irritant either in the church's proverbial side. Lets review the complaints Pastor John received:

• A word that he tends to use when he describes someone with a physical disability - crippled. 
• That choice of word offended one of his church members. 
• The proclamation that homosexuality was sinful and associated with his encouragement for everyone to speak out against it with prejudice was responded with:
• "You can't say that as not everyone agrees with you." 
• How he walks and talks and fluctuates his voice as he leads a 40 minute sermon.
• Some of his church members felt confronted by his mannerisms and they didn't like being confronted. 

In part one I discussed the reality of there being people who seem to have their sensitivity meeter on overdrive as they seem to get offended by absolutely everything including perfectly acceptable english words such as "crippled". I concluded in part one by teaching that although it would be bowing-the-knee to political correctness to accommodate requests such as to switch out a perfectly acceptable word to describe X for another acceptable word that means the same thing. However the Apostle Paul argued that for the sake of the Gospel, such a compromise would be the right thing to do, (cf. Romans 14:1-3, 15-16).

However does this apply also to doctrines that proclaim to be fact such as, "homosexuality is sinful"? To reiterate political-correctness is the philosophy that encourages the practice of being "...careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people."[i] Political-correctness in the minds of many Christians is demonized in-toto as a compromise on the truth of God. But as pointed out in part one there is a time for the Christian to be politically-correct namely when being dogmatic against political-correctenss is harmful for the Gospel. However should one compromise on doctrinal truth - truth that will ultimately bring one into a relationship with their creator? In short, no, as there is a difference between being accommodating to one's hypersensitivity to a term and one's disagreement with a doctrinal view. In fact Paul instructs people to steer-clear of those who compromise on the truth of Scripture:

I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. - Romans 16:17

So if you succumb to political-correctness and believe and teach doctrines that is counter to Biblical teaching you should be treated as a heretic. Compromising on a proclamation of Scripture may it be Jesus is the only way (cf. John 14:6) homosexuality is sinful (cf. Romans 1:26-27), there is only one God (cf. Isaiah 46:9), etc. would be an obstacle that is contrary to Biblical teaching. Romans 16:17 is where Paul is wrapping up his letter; he has said all that he wanted to say in the first 15 chapters and so when he encourages his readers to watch out for those who cause divisions and present obstacles that are "...contrary to the teaching you have [learned]" he is referring to what he has just finished saying. Paul opens up the book of Romans by explaining in relative detail The Fall (cf. Genesis 3).

God warned Adam that if he was to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would die (cf. Genesis 2:17). This did not only regard physical death but also a mental death. One of the first recorded effects of sin on creation is not recorded in Genesis 3:14-19, but rather in verse 12: Adam succumbed to self preservation, self reliance and the reliance on the image of wisdom instead of the embodiment of wisdom, namely God.

The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it. - Genesis 3:12

Adam's response was:

1. I've got to get out of this situation. 
2. Accomplish (#1) by passing the blame to God for giving me Eve. 
3. Blame Eve for giving me the fruit.  

Even though I took it and ate it, if God didn't give me Eve she wouldn't have existed to give me the fruit so ultimately its his fault that I broke his law; and if only she didn't give me the fruit I wouldn't have been able to take it; I wouldn't have eaten the fruit on my own so by extension it is also her fault. 

Conclusion: I am the product of my environment; I am not at fault!" 

Any rational thinking person should recognize immediately that this is utter foolish thinking and "foolish" this is the exact terminology that Paul uses to describe the mind after being affected by sin.

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools - Romans 1:22 (my emphasis).

To put Paul's words in context he states:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.  

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. - Romans 1:21-27 (my emphasis).

One cannot deny the connection Paul is making with foolishness to idol worship and homosexuality.

• They claimed to be wise. 

• They became fools. 

• They recognized God. 

• They did not give glory to God. 

• They exchanged the truth about God for a lie.
• They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images. 

• They worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. 

• God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 

• Their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 

• The men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

The proclamation of wisdom when one's frame of reference is one's own mind is internally foolish as it is circular reasoning - it is relying on itself to be its own evidence of its proclamation; this is a value that political-correctness adheres to as it values human thought over Godly rationality hence its discouragement against saying that another person's view is wrong. As a result people try to rationalize their own behaviour thus treating themselves as their own God. The truth of God is thus exchanged for a lie - the view concocted by the human mind. The mind gravitates to the creation (ultimately itself) rather that the creator; and one manifestation of a self-absorbed mind is the desire for its mirror image. Therefore homosexuality is a logical extension for a self-absorbed mind when it is thinking of sex.

So to conclude to compromise on Scriptural doctrine so to cater to political-correctness is exchanging God for a man-made invention (idol worship), resulting in actions that are based on human rationality which includes in the realm of sexuality.
___________________

[i] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct - accessed July 14, 2014

Political Correctness vs. Hurt Feelings: Should political-correcntess ever win in the life of the Christian? (Part 1)

It was 9 AM and the first of two morning services was about to begin. After the choir's rendition of Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty and some announcements from the church secretary about various events happening throughout the city and within internal church ministries, Pastor John Peterson walked onto the stage as he always did with his Bible in his hand and his sermon in his brain. However unlike every other Sunday morning before where he opened his mouth and said something provocative to capture the attentions of tired brains, he just stood in front of the pulpit and stared at the crowed. The people in the pews were all attentive at this unexpected sermon introduction as they stared right back at their senior pastor. This staring contest went on for about five minutes and then Pastor John, picked up his Bible off of the pulpit turned and walked off the stage siting down in the first row of seats with his beautiful wife and their 11 year old son.  

The stage stayed empty for about 30 seconds before Pastor John stood up and walked back onto the stage. Still attentive to his most unusual and out-fo-character conduct, the crowd was hoping to hear an explanation for his behaviour.  

"This week I got five complaints, from 15 people within our local church body" he said. "These complaints varied in nature," he continued. "I got one complaint about a word that I tend to use when I describe someone with a physical aliment of sorts - crippled," he explained. "Apparently the word offends one of you. Another complaint regarded a point that I made last week about homosexuality being sinful and my associated encouragement of everyone here to speak out against it with prejudice; apparently I can't say such things as there are people here who might believe differently than I on this issue." He continued to explain. "A third complaint I received was about how I walk on this stage and how I move my hands as I teach a 40 minute sermon; and the other two complaints pertained to how raise and lower my voice; apparently there are some people who feel confronted by the way I lead a sermon and they don't like being confronted," he concluded. "I have considered these complaints with sincerity and I have chosen to respectfully decline changing how I walk and talk and the messages teach. So as your senior pastor what would you like me to do? I do not wish to, but I would be willing to step down as the senior pastor of this church and leave," he said and then turned and walked off the stage.  

What would be going through your head if your pastor made such a decision? "What decision?" you may ask as Pastor John made two decisions: 1) to step down and leave without argument if that was the consensus of the church body and 2) to ignore the complaints voiced by the 15 offended people. Would you expect your pastor to change as a preacher and a Bible teacher or leave the your church or would you vote to keep him (or her) despite their views (of which some you may agree with and others you may disagree with) and mannerisms.

Political correctness: a philosophy that encourages the practice of being "...careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people."[i] Political correctness is a relative social phenomena as what one society may be offended but another may not be. For an example a subculture within a society e.g. the disabled community may be offended by being labelled the crippled community yet the same subculture in another society may not take an offence with such a characterization as the term crippled-community is a grammatically correct term to describe a body where the members of that body are physically disabled. So it is important to note that something to be politically-correct does not mean that it is correct; and conversely something deemed as politically-incorrect (or socially offensive) doesn't mean that, that something, is incorrect and should be offensive. So a person with a physical disability should not be offended by being called 'crippled' as that is what they are. Calling a disabled person crippled is not wrong.

However political-correctness has become the backbone for Western Society. This as such has had a grave effect on society as now truth is being compromised as the truth about anything offends someone somewhere; so it is best to not tell the truth about anything and allow someone's views to be equally true even though their views are in logical conflict with the view/s that offends them; and this has also been applied to doctrinal issues such as homosexuality and claiming that Jesus is the only way to heaven, thus condemning contrary beliefs as wrong. This is something I will touch on in a future post. As such critical thinking skills has taken a serious hit. Returning to the example of offensive words: why should one whose ears are hurt by a perfectly acceptable term like crippled expect to win victory in a complaint thus forcing the offender to change what term they use? As I will show in a future post there is nothing but irrationality being played out here. What is one to do then? Should a Christian minister like Pastor John be expected to bend to the will of those whose sensitivity-meeter is on overdrive and thus are offended by perfectly acceptable words and teaching styles? No.

However what is the cost of fighting political-correctness without any room for any level of compromise? Of course compromising on God's word is non-negotiable but is there not some wisdom in accommodating people's feelings and points of views in what one does and says and how they do it and say it? In discussing the dietary laws for Jewish converts to Christianity the Apostle Paul addresses the Christian response to those who are sensitive to the freedom that Christ brings in not keeping kosher. He states:

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. - Romans 14:1-3

In application to being offended by benign terms like crippled a Christian should not judge another because they are irrationally sensitive towards the term when it is used to describe a disable person. Moreover that same person should not be so sensitive with perfectly acceptable words so it is at the level of irrationality. But the one who uses the word should not fluff off the offended party as mere overly emotional. And in talking to such people Paul states:

If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. - Romans 14:15-16. 

In the same way then if your brother or sister is distressed because of a term that you use you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your usage of a known relatively offensive term destroy someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you know is good such as an acceptable term be spoken of as evil. So in another way, the answer to the question above: Yes, Pastor John as a pastor would be wise (if not commanded by the nature of Christianity) to accommodate his choice of words for the sake of those who are the overly-sensitive by being characterized as crippled. Submitting to this compromise is a submission to political correctness, however it is a surrendering in a battle that will aid victory for the Gospel. How? It shows those who are sensitive that you care about them to make yourself approachable of which will make the Gospel message something they may want to listen to.

___________________

[i] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct - accessed July 14, 2014