I was asked to teach one session at the recent Reformation Resurrection conference in Denmark. I strongly sensed the need for a presentation that applies the biblical worldview to the many facets of the rampant homosexual agenda that is on the warpath everywhere we look. Based on what we see around us among churches that claim to represent Christ - this is a desperately needed presentation that addresses the many various issues raised by the gay propoganda/homosexual agenda that is running wild in every western country right now.
In this sermon I will address the need to:
1. Be Gospel centered in reaching out to the homosexual culture.
2. Remember the desperately sinful lives that we lived prior to conversion.
3. Rightly portray God's character in this debate.
4. Recognize the current forcefulness of the "gay agenda" as an outpouring of God's wrath, rather than a cause of God's wrath.
5. Learn from an honest assessment of history.
6. Respond biblically to all different sins rather than singling out this particular sin.
7. Recognize that false teachers who deny what the Bible says on this subject are the true enemy of the Christian.
8. Recognize that those trapped in this lifestyle of sin are not our enemies but are our mission field.
9. The need to practice church discipline in accordance with the clear biblical commands that are given.
10. To interpret the biblical texts faithfully to what God has clearly spoken.
Whether you are a Christian, a homosexual, or just plain confused on the whole subject; I ask that you would please take the time to watch this video and at least consider the points that are raised . . .
(the following sermon is in English with Danish translation)
If you would like a copy of all my notes that includes citation of sources, a bibliography of recommended books, and a comprehensive Scripture index on the subject of homosexuality; then please email me with this request at buettel69@gmail.com
As Christians, our primary argument against the homosexual lifestyle must be God's clear repudiation of homosexuality in Scripture (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17, Matthew 19:4-6, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Jude 1:7).
In 2 Corinthians chapter 2 we see that we, as Christians, are the aroma of Christ. To those who are being saved this is the smell of life. But to those who remain dead in their sin the aroma of Christ is the stench of death. We cannot remove everything offensive from the Gospel and expect there to be anything left. The cross of Christ is offensive precisely because the horrific price that our Lord paid points to the horrific depth of sin we have committed. Removing homosexuality from that list of crimes against God is not only a lie to those who are in bondage to this lifestyle. It also steals from them the reason why they would need such a wonderful Savior to suffer God's wrath in their place.
CJ Mahaney says: "You will never see the cross as something done for you unless you first see it as something done by you."It's why the famous song asks the question: Were you there when they crucified my Lord? It's why Luther said that we all walk around with His nails in our pockets. And it's why rejecting the imputation of Adam's sin to us also is a rejection of our sins being imputed to Christ. Seeing our own sin makes us love our Savior and makes it easy to love homosexuals trapped in their own sin. And if we really love homosexuals then we must do all we can to help them see their own sin that they too may love our glorious Savior.
Having said this, during some recent research on this subject for a presentation I was delivering, I was shocked to discover some highly concealed statistics regarding those who indulge in the homosexual lifestyle.
Life Expectancy:
Practicing homosexuals, on average, have a vastly reduced lifespan. Thomas Norup of Statistics Denmark provided data for the years 1990 through 2002. On average, ever-married men outlived the ever-homosexually-partnered by 23 years in Denmark (74 years v. 51 years) (Presented by Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute at the March 2007 Eastern Psychological Assn Convention, in Philadelphia).
Likelihood of Contracting HIV/AIDS:
The US Center for Disease Control said, in 2009, that a homosexual male is 44 times more likely to get HIV/AIDS than a heterosexual male.
Connections with Pedophilia:
Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population, they constitute about a third of child molesters. (K. Freund and R.I. Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443, cited in "The Problem of Pedophilia," op. cit. Also, K. Freund and R.I. Watson, "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197, cited in NARTH Fact Sheet.)
Further, as noted by the National Association for research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), "since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles, it is estimated that approximately 80 percent or pedophile victims are boys who have been molested by adult males. (7. Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove, IU.: Intervarsity Press), p. 114, cited in "The Problem of Pedophilia, op. cit., p. 2. )
If the secular authorities are so dedicated to the education of our children about this "lifestyle" why are they not mentioning these statistical realities? What follows is John Macarthur giving a lengthy presentation on thinking biblically about homosexuality:
Even though I am outside the USA right now it the outbreak of a second Civil War in America seems to be global news. Chick Fil A President Dan Cathy decided to spew forth vicious hate speech against all homosexuals by stating his support for the biblical understanding of marriage! Don't you just feel the hate?
I make no secret of the fact that I love Chick Fil A and have always taken the principled stand to support them through regular visits to my local Santa Clarita store in southern California. Quite simply, it is a matter of mathematics:
Christian Values + Mouth Watering Spicy Chicken Deluxe Sandwich = A Principled Stand
But what exactly were the hate filled words of Dan Cathy? Here is the explosive portion of his interview with Baptist Press that unleashed the firestorm of outrage:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.
"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
The roar of protest was immediate. Picketers were deployed to stand outside their local franchise and "spread their message of tolerance". The mayor's of Chicago and Boston pledged their commitment to shut Chick Fil A out of their cities because of it's intolerance. Great way to display your commitment to tolerance guys! Roseanne Barr launched an expletive riddled diatribe against the company (she has a way with words that is never worth repeating) declaring that anyone who eats (Expletive) Fil A deserves to get cancer.
Even the Jim Henson company, who brought us Kermit the Frog and the Muppets, has severed all ties with Chick Fil A over their hate filled intolerance and will no longer be supplying toys for their "kids meals". To add insult to injury, the Swedish Chef has now removed chicken from his menu, Animal the drummer no longer does his "bite the head off a chicken routine", and Kermit is now on the lookout for a new diversionary food for all lovers of frog legs. Even Miss Piggy is encouraging food lovers to boycott Chick Fil A and eat bacon instead!
But there has also been a backlash to the backlash with hordes of chicken lovers descending on franchises all over the country to send a clear message of their support. Chick Fil A reported their biggest day of sales ever. Clearly, the chicken sandwich has found itself in the center of the culture war on Christian liberty. Al Mohler commented in his blog just two days ago that:
The threats made against Chick-fil-A betray the principle of religious liberty that is enshrined within the U.S. Constitution. Civic officials in some of the nation’s largest and most powerful cities have openly threatened to oppose Chick-fil-A for the singular reason that its president openly spoke of his Christian convictions concerning marriage.
When Quinn, one of the most powerful officials in New York, announces, “I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views,” is she also threatening the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Jewish synagogues and Islamic mosques?
They, along with evangelical Christian denominations, openly oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. Cathy’s statements are completely consistent with his own denomination’s statement of faith and official declarations. He was speaking as a Christian and as a Southern Baptist, and he was speaking as a man who does his best to live and speak as he believes.
When Emanuel and Moreno tell Chick-fil-A to stay out of Chicago, are they audacious enough to deliver that same message to the churches, mosques and synagogues of their city that also oppose same-sex marriage? What do they do with the fact that their own state does not allow same-sex marriages?
This country is deeply divided over the issue of same-sex marriage, and the controversy over Chick-fil-A is an ominous sign that many of the proponents of same-sex marriage are quite willing to violate religious liberty and to use any and all means to silence and punish any individual or organization that holds the contrary view – a view sustained by the voters in 29 states by constitutional amendments.
It warms my heart greatly to see so many people coming out in support of a Christian man who runs a good business on Christian principles. I am concerned however, that this could spill over into a fast food franchise at the epicenter of a moralistic us against them contest. It is a gross Christian error to go to war against our mission field. And I'll say more about that later . . .
The story of this pastor's anti-homosexual sermon has gone viral and caused a storm of protest:
As bad as this is I have to say that I find these comments equally disgusting from a man who claims to be a minister of the Christian Gospel:
Think about these two videos for a moment. On face value they seem poles apart. But in reality they have the same problem - they focus on the behavior rather than the Savior!
As Pastor Worley ranted about how to get rid of the homosexual population he missed the main point altogether of what his job is in the pulpit - to point sinners to the Savior! Has he forgotten the unbelievable grace of God needed to pardon his own massive list of sinful crimes against a Holy God? Christian preachers should point out sin, not to call for ostracizing, but to call for reconciliation.
Paul lays out the problem clearly in his first letter to the church at Corinth:
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, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
Campolo's abject failure to be honest about what the Scripture teaches displays his equal incompetence (with Pastor Worley) as a minister of the Gospel, his failure to say anything helpful to homosexuals trapped in their sinful lifestyle, and his lack of true Christian love for people who are bound for eternal condemnation. Of course, this is nothing new for Campolo as he is a sociologist who has now spent many years masquerading as a theologian. His theological insights have all the usefulness of an ashtray on a motorcycle.
But the huge point in all of this is that both Pastor Worley and Tony Campolo both have an elephant in their living rooms - and it is the same elephant. An elephant that places them both on the same team! An elephant that screams "1 Corinthians 6 does not end at verse 10":
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 6:11)
The Christian church is entirely composed of sinners who have been transformed by the regenerating work of God's Holy Spirit, because of the penal substitutionary atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. The church of Corinth included people who were once idolaters, adulterers, thieves, and yes - homosexuals! But this was all past tense for those who had their sins borne by Christ and His righteousness credited to their account. They were new creatures transformed by the Spirit of Almighty God. This serves as a reminder of our own evil former lives, the kindness of God in saving us out of that, and the Christian duty to call all sinners (and that includes homosexuals) to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That they too might become new creatures that bring glory to God because of so great a salvation.
Worley and Campolo may sound different to each other, but in reality they are both peddlers of the same useless religion of human morality. True Christians should take Pastor Worley's idea about building a fence, and put one around their pulpits so that the gospel-less morality of people like Worley and Campolo can be kept out permanently.
Here is some fantastic video of John Macarthur lovingly confronting the homosexual mayor of San Francisco along with a mixed bag of false teachers on Larry King. I wish every preacher that goes on TV for an interview would watch this and use it as a blueprint for how to address the fallen world around us. You go Dr. Macarthur!!!
Homosexuals, like all sinners, can repent and receive forgiveness in Christ and eternal life. Please watch this:
Some of you will remember the "Ted Haggard scandal" of more than five years ago. He was the pastor of one of the largest mega churches in America and the leader of the powerful National Alliance of Evangelicals. He was a spokesman for conservative Christian America and even had the ear of George Bush. But the dreadful secret of his double life came to the surface when a male prostitute decided to blow the whistle on Haggard's secret homosexual life. Haggard disappeared off the radar after "resigning" from all of his positions. I was hopeful that he would find true repentance and live the rest of his days in obscurity.
Unfortunately that was not the case. Haggard recently emerged from obscurity and generated a media circus doing a lot of interviews and giving "his side of the story". Today I have posted two videos. The first one is of Ted Haggard being interviewed by Larry King. The second video is of another person who has struggled with the same sex attraction as well. The point here is not the sin itself, nor do I wish to focus on this. I have one hand wrapped around the giant redwood tree protruding from my eye as I write this post. The real issue here is true repentance. An extension of that is the issue about God being glorified through our brokenness. Watch these two videos and see if you can "spot the repentance" and decide for yourself which video is most God glorifying.
What makes the Gospel so glorious is the contrast between God's Holiness and our utter depravity. Rationalising behavior only serves to blur that gulf and deprives God of the glory He can get out of changing someone's life.
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules (Ezekiel 36:25-27).
And for the record, the guy in the second video is my hero! That is a big part of what being a real man is all about. Glorifying God in human weakness, taking the full blown blame for sinful actions rather than painting yourself as a victim, and renouncing sin as insidiously evil rather than taking the edges off it. Good on ya Jason - amen and amen!
Tom Brock is a pastor who has a track record of integrity and faithfulness in preaching the Gospel and shepherding the flock at Hope Lutheran Church in Minneapolis. Consistent with his theological convictions, Tom has stood staunchly against the pervasive liberalism that continually threatens many Lutheran congregations in the USA. This includes, of course, strong opposition to any form of acceptance for the homosexual lifestyle as anything other than something that is sinful and needs to be repented of.
One of the journalists at "Lavender", an American magazine for the homosexual community, discovered that Tom Brock attended a group called "Courageous". Courageous, as it turned out, is a recovery group for men who struggle with same sex attraction and this particular journalist thought it would be a "great idea" to visit Tom's recovery group posing as a man struggling with same sex attraction in order to get all the "dirt" on Pastor Tom.
By the time the "expose" was published Tom Brock had to respond to a list of nasty and unproven allegations by said reporter. Now I don't know Tom and I do not know anything about his personal life. But the same goes for this reporter who decided to go public with Pastor Brock's confidential confessions of his struggles with this issue. For now, I will take this faithful pastor at his word that he is a 57 year old virgin who has struggled for many years with this temptation. And here shows the great contrast between biblical Christianity and the homosexual propaganda machine. One seeks to legitimize sin out of their desire to fulfill their own selfish lusts. The other encourages confession and repentance from sin in order that we might gain forgiveness and the love that covers a multitude of sins.
If homosexuals think that true Christianity is defined by a hatred of homosexuals then they are wrong. Perhaps they are wrong because of a religious hypocrite, but I have found it to be usually based upon a relentless desire to accommodate their own perversity.
Tom, like me, is a sinner. A sinner who has the courage to embrace biblical truth and not act on his fleshly desires in order to please the Savior he loves so dearly. I have nothing but love, compassion, and enormous respect for Pastor Tom Brock. And how could I have anything else in the light of my own sinful past that God graciously saved me out of? How could I ever consider my sins less heinous than Tom's? How could I not rejoice in the kindness of God saving wretched sinners like myself and Tom that we might live lives to His glory, receive undeserving pardon, have the righteousness of Christ imputed to our account, and one day enjoy endless fellowship with the Great God Who delights in saving the worst of sinners. How could we not call on homosexuals to repent and turn to Jesus Christ that they too might freely receive these gracious gifts.
Trying to pretend that homosexuality is not sinful is a cruel lie that damns many. People who do this know nothing of love.
Tom Brock's struggle only serves to increase my admiration and love for him as a man who is brave enough to confess his struggles in order that he might flee sin and bring pleasure to His Savior. Thank you Lavender magazine for bringing all this to my attention. Repent while you still have time!
Homosexuality has never come in for a lot of discussion on this blog. And when it has come up it has almost always been responsive rather than preemptive. Quite frankly, in my personal life I try to treat homosexuals the way I treat all sinners. Firstly I preach the Gospel to myself and am reminded of my own wretched depravity that magnifies Christ's kindness in saving me. I then share the Gospel with them pleading with them to repent and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive them and regenerate them. In fact, I can honestly say that I never raise the issue of homosexuality with homosexuals. I generally talk to them about sin in general such as lying, stealing, blaspheming, lusting, and ultimately rejecting Christ. It is homosexuals (and lesbians) who have always raised the issue with me.
I can vividly remember Bruce the atheist from Huntington Beach (one of Ray Comfort's regular protagonists) publicly accusing me of hating all homosexuals while I was open air preaching. Bruce did this without knowing anything about me and did it to try and stir up the wrath of a lesbian couple standing near him. I informed them all of the truth that I love all sinners and desire to see them turn from their sin and trust in Christ regardless of their sin of choice. I love them enough to tell them that what they are doing is wrong and they need to turn to the Savior. As Bruce publicly condoned their behavior it was Bruce who showed a complete lack of love and care because he preferred to encourage them to persevere in their sinful behavior. Perhaps the unwitting logic is that the atheist needs to recruit as many companions as possible for eternity in hell - which is pointless since there will be no fellowship going on there!
But in recent times their has been a wide variety of eventualities with this common thread of the subject of homosexuality. Being so much on the radar right now perhaps it is an appropriate time to discuss this in greater depth and how we should biblically respond.
How many times do I need the homosexual lobby ramming their views down my throat in the hope that I might deny something that is clearly wrong from Scripture and nature? Kirk Cameron was on the receiving end of an avalanche of hostile criticism when Piers Morgan asked him his opinion about homosexuality. Remember . . . it wasn't Kirk who raised the issue! You tell me who here is guilty of hate speech?
Homosexuality is one of many sins condemned in Scripture. But what sets it apart in the modern era is not that it is the special sin that all Christians hate. The issue is that the homosexual lobby is trying to deal with this sin by redefining it as righteousness. Which leaves these words from the Apostle Paul ringing in my ears:
. . . and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:27-32 emphasis mine)
This is the wrath of God we are seeing being manifest before our eyes right now in western society!
In recent correspondence with a guy called Steve Ramsdale I became aware that he has somehow deluded himself into thinking that the Bible has nothing critical to say about homosexuality. Steve seems to think that what an author intends and the words that he uses are completely irrelevant. Steve's problem is that he has ordained himself as sovereign over the Bible that he reads in order to accommodate sin. The tragedy of this is that it has become his damning alternative to repentance.
Imagine finding the writings of a Civil War veteran who chronicled his first hand eyewitness accounts of the war he fought in. Would it be reasonable to re-interpret these writings based on the idea that the reader has a better understanding of the Civil War and can do a better job explaining it? Such an “innovation” would be treated with contempt by the general public. It would be met with scorn from the veteran’s community. And words fail me to comprehend the outrage of the original author were he alive to defend his work. How about if you were to attend a Bible study and hear the “modern evangelical mantra” of “what does this verse mean to you?”
Most of us are aware that this question has reached plague proportions in Bible studies all over the western world. This is astonishing when we consider that many of those Bible studies are extensions of local churches that have confessions that affirm the inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and sufficiency of the Bible. Why is this dis-connect sliding under the radar of so many laymen, preachers, and interpreters? While there are no simple answers to this problem there is a simple solution.
If we believe that the Bible was written by human authors under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then it should naturally follow that these words have meaning and that God does not have a problem explaining Himself. The Grammatical-Historical method of biblical interpretation has been the prevailing hermeneutical method of studying and teaching Scripture since the Reformation. While the name might be daunting and sound sophisticated, this approach is beautiful in its logic and simplicity.
If God has delivered His Word to humanity then it would seem obvious that He would do so in a way that can be readily understood by His audience. Hermeneutics is the principles that guide the reader to an accurate interpretation of Scripture. The Grammatical-Historical approach to hermeneutics involves reading the words of the text and understanding them as they are plainly read. If Jesus says that “No one comes to the father except through me”, He is saying what He means and meaning what He says. He is the only way to the Father!
A Scriptural example of this is found in Nehemiah:
The Levites, helped the people to understand the Law, while the people remained in their places. They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading… to make great rejoicing, because they had understood the words that were declared to them. (Nehemiah 8:7b-8,12b)
Of course, there is more to Grammatical-Historical interpretation than this simple point. But having experienced a lot of “creative accounting” when it comes to biblical interpretation, I have continually found that most modern day hermeneutical problems, emanating from pulpits, can be readily solved by a plain reading of the text and its surrounding verses. When the “prosperity preacher” tells his audience that “eye of the needle” which the camel is supposed to go through is really the gate to a city, he is easily proven wrong by reading the next two verses which clearly show that Jesus is referring to something humanly impossible; “with man it is impossible”. It is reassuring for the average layman that a plain reading of the text and its surrounding verses normally clears up most modern interpretive errors. It is also important to remember that since God’s Word is inerrant in it’s entirety, no interpretation should contradict what Scripture plainly teaches in other passages.
What about texts that are more difficult to understand? This is where the Grammatical-Historical approach excels. In order to gain a precise understanding of the text we are reading it makes sense to explore several basic issues:
1. Who wrote it? We want to know who the author was. 2. Who was it written to? We want to know who the recipients were. 3. Why was it written? We want to know the reason for the text being written. 4. When was it written? We want to know the point of history in which the text was written. 5. What was the historical context? We want to know the historical setting and issues particular to that setting. 6. What is the genre we are reading? We should read narrative as narrative and poetry as poetry. 7. What is the original language that the text was written in? We need to have the text accurately translated into our “mother tongue”.
We may not consciously think about it, but these are the issues we think through whenever we read a book, a letter, or even a sign. Why not follow these principles when trying to understand the revelation God has given to us?
The Grammatical-Historical approach to biblical interpretation also serves as a great mechanism in preventing interpretive errors among the more orthodox of preachers. It may sound good to find a profound allegorical symbolic meaning in the text, but the question must be asked as to whether that is what the text is actually saying. Novel pieces of historical information may serve to help a preacher make his point, but checking for historical accuracy will better help the preacher avoid making the wrong point.
It is also worth mentioning the danger of an over-realized Christology when interpreting a biblical text. There is no disputing that Jesus Christ is the transcendent story of both Testaments. But that does not mean that we should find Him under every rock in every verse. While Jesus Himself informed the men on the road to Emmaus that the entire Old Testament was about Himself, He did not say that He appeared in every episode. The Grammatical-Historical approach prevents the reader from finding Jesus where He is not, and assists the reader in stepping back from the individual trees of every passage to see the forest where Christ’s scarlet thread of redemption runs through its entirety.
It is simply amazing the powderkeg of hostility that continually spews forth from homosexual activists and political correctness police. Kirk Cameron is invited on to a Piers Morgan's talk show to talk about his new movie and gets asked for his view on gay marriage. Kirk, a Bible believing Christian, then proceeded to respond with an answer entirely consistent with a biblical worldview. Wow!!!! How surprising!!!! Earth to Piers Morgan - if you don't like the answer then don't ask the question. Is it really that complicated?
Sound thinking coupled with biblical convictions always arouses opposition but even Kirk was surprised at the vitriol poured forth on him. The homosexual community may well be one of the most hate filled agenda laden segments of the general population. Kirk Cameron is verifiable proof that the popular adage "it's not what you say, it's how you say it" is totally bogus. The fact is that a lot of these people simply hate Kirk for what he said - because he couldn't have said it any nicer or more politely.
I appreciate the response Kirk made on Facebook recently, not only because I didn't think he knew how to post something on Facebook, but more importantly because it is such an excellent response to a society that is in a free fall of perversion and depravity. Here is what Kirk Cameron said in response:
I recently was asked to join Piers Morgan on CNN for an interview about my new film “Monumental.” During that discussion, I was asked to express my views about homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion. While that was not the agreed-upon purpose of the interview, I was pleased to answer Piers’ questions as honestly as I could.
In some people’s eyes, my responses were not sufficiently "loving" toward those in the gay community. I can only say that it is my life's mission to love all people, and that I expressed the same views that are expressed clearly and emphatically throughout the Judeo-Christian scriptures. As a Bible believing Christian, I could not have answered any other way.
I’ve been encouraged by the support of many friends (including gay friends, incidentally) in the wake of condemnation by some political advocacy groups. In the case of one of my gay friends, we regularly talk and have healthy and respectful debate. We learn from each other, and serve others alongside one another. I thank God for all of my friends...even when they hold very different views on issues of faith and morality. I do not, however, believe that the right way to advance our views is to resort to name-calling and personal attacks, as some have done to me.
I also believe that freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand-in-hand in America. I should be able to express moral views on social issues--especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years--without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach "tolerance" that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.
I hope more than a few people could see the large volume of secularist morality being imposed on me. In any society that is governed by the rule of law, some form of morality is always imposed. It's inescapable. But it is also a complicated subject, and that is why I believe we need to learn how to debate these things with greater love and respect.
To the thousands of you who have written me letters of encouragement... thank you! And to those who would like know how to further your support, please gather your friends and family, and join me as I seek to show you our true “National Treasure,” at the live, nationwide viewing of “Monumental” on Tuesday, March 27th (www.MonumentalMovie.com).
Thanks for showing so many of us what real manhood looks like Kirk! And readers, please pray for Kirk and his family for godly wisdom, enabling grace, and a hardened biblical resolve to continue standing for the truth.
"All he's [Kirk Cameron] taken from his religion is outdated bigotry and hatred for those who are different" (heterophobe Perez Hilton).
I am really getting sick and tired of all the hatred and bigotry that continually spews forth from the homosexual community. In an age when the proponents of the gay agenda continually cry out for tolerance and acceptance for their different beliefs, it is clear that they forgot to mention that they also get to live by different rules. Kirk Cameron gets invited onto a TV show to talk about his latest movie. He then gets sideswiped because Piers Morgan (the host) is fixated with everybody's view on homosexuality (exactly how many opinions does Piers actually need?), and therefore asks Kirks "opinion". What would you expect if YOU asked for somebody else's opinion? An opinion perhaps?
Well, in the narrow minded and highly bigoted world of the gay community, asking for an opinion is more about a heterophobic police investigation than a request for an opinion. When Piers Morgan is asking for an opinion about homosexuality, Kirk Cameron needs to realize that this question is actually the supreme litmus test for all matters of human decency. But Kirk didn't get it. For some inexplicable reason he thought he should give an opinion since he was asked for one. Not only that, Kirk thought it would be best to give an informed opinion based upon biblical truth and historical evidence. But the problem with Kirk's opinion is that it is not the opinion sanctioned by the gay guardians of public decency. And I am still trying to figure out Piers Morgan's mathematical equation:
Asking Kirk Cameron for an opinion + Kirk Cameron giving his opinion = Kirk Cameron hates all homosexuals
Did anyone just hear what Piers Morgan said? Rewind that video to the 2:00 mark and listen again.
I have total respect for Kirk Cameron's right to have any beliefs that he wants. I've got no problem with that. I just don't think you can sit there with a straight face and say "I am a Christian, God fearing, all round good person but, by the way, I hate these people who were born the way they were". (Piers Morgan)
Piers, if you had respect for Kirk Cameron then you would not slander him by putting your own words in his mouth. You are a pathetic excuse for a man and you need to apologize to Kirk for all your hate speech and imposing your values on him.
What sets homosexuality apart from most other biblical sins is not that it's the sin God hates the most. It is set apart because the homosexual community is the only group that is hell bent on dealing with their pet sin by redefining it as righteousness. You don't hear liars saying that lying is good. You don't hear adulterers saying that they are doing the right thing by their wife. But you do hear homosexuals on a regular basis trying to deal with their sin by pretending that it's not a sin. And this is why Kirk is the only person here acting with any real concern and love for the homosexual community by telling them the truth.
Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:32)
Thank you Kirk for standing up for minorities like myself who live under the continual oppression of homosexual bigotry. Thank you Kirk for loving the truth more than your popularity. Thank you Kirk for loving your homosexual friends enough to tell them the truth. Thank you Kirk for caring more about sinners in need of a Savior than bowing to the god of political correctness. Thank you Kirk for all the times you have shared with homosexuals about the forgiveness found in Jesus Christ. I award you a double platinum man-card!
Today we pick up from where we left off last week on our expository journey through the Epistle of Jude. Today we will examine Jude's third lessons from history concerning the certain judgment of apostates - Sodom and Gomorrah! This is a part of my verse by verse exposition through the Epistle of Jude for our church plant in Denmark - Kristuskirken.
1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ: 2 May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you. 3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. 5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day- 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1-7)
God has given one example of judgment on apostate Jews, and one example of judgment on apostate demons, now He gives one example of judgment on apostate Gentiles in Sodom and Gomorrah:
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 7)
Jesus used Sodom and Gomorrah as a means of rebuke against the the unrepentant:
Then he [Jesus] began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you." (Matthew 11:20-24)
Yes, that was our friend Jesus, the God of the New Testament (as well as the Old)! That was a blistering and terrifying rebuke. When the Creator of the universe gives these warnings we must pay diligent attention. It always amazes me how the "red letter Christians" are nowhere to be found when verses like these appear.
Another issue concerning the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that their major crimes were reported by Ezekiel who said that:
this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)
Homosexuals are often referred to as sodomites which is a lasting reminder of the relentless sexual perversion and immorality that was going on in that city. The sobering message for us is that perversion on this level is normally the natural extension of an affluent self centered society that abandons God - a downward spiral we see in Romans 1:
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 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. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:21-32)
There is the downward spiral of rejecting God. First we see that they know God but will not honor Him or give thanks; then their thoughts and hearts grow more hard and rebellious; idolatry follows; God's restraining grace is then lifted and sexual perversion follows; their total depravity now finds full, wicked, unrestrained rebellion; people are no longer ashamed of their perversion (as Lot witnessed in Sodom); and finally they give moral approval to such behavior. This should sound familiar! And don't let social scientists give you false assurance that homosexual behavior is acceptable. There is an enormous tract of scorched earth in the Middle East that says otherwise!
The ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah have been discovered southeast of the Dead Sea. The modern names are Bab edh-Dhra, thought to be Sodom, and Numeira, thought to be Gomorrah. Both places were destroyed at the same time by an enormous conflagration. The destruction debris was about three feet thick. What brought about this awful calamity? Startling discoveries in the cemetery at Bab edh-Dhra revealed the cause. Archaeologists found that buildings used to bury the dead were burned by a fire that started on the roof.
What would cause every structure in the cemetery to be destroyed in this way? The answer to the mystery is found in the Bible:
“Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens” (Genesis 19:24).
Jude, like Jesus, uses Sodom and Gomorrah as a terrifying warning to those apostates who are unrepentantly wreaking havoc in the church. All that is left of those two cities is one giant scorch mark!
At the end of my last post I spoke about good preachers/teachers and how they are crystal clear when it comes to fundamental truths of the Christian faith. I also spoke about NT Wright's expertise in cutting a short story long. NT Wright has become somewhat of a modern day evangelical hero, but can he give a straight answer to a straight question . . .
Like is there a hell?
I thought a yes would have sufficed!
How about whether homosexual behavior is sinful?
Yes we should have a debate, if by debate he means something like this:
What does the Bible say about homosexual behavior?
Leviticus 20:13 says it is an abomination.
Abomination is bad isn't it?
Ok lets move on to the next subject on the agenda!
How about an easy question like is evolution compatible with Christianity? (Hint - the answer begins with "n" and ends with "o").
Maybe NT Wright thinks his beard is a transitional form!
I guess that's enough fog for one day. I would encourage any layman to feed on teachers who are explicitly clear about things that the Bible is explicitly clear about. Someone like John Macarthur . . .
And when you have a bunch of confused liberal theologians talking to Larry King, you can always count on John Macarthur to clear up the fog . . .
Denmark is a strange land for an Australian. When you first arrive you notice that everyone drives on the wrong side of the road. Then you go to the gas station and everything seems normal . . . until you pull the trigger and see that the litres move way too slow and the price moves way to fast. It is a land where they have a conference to save the planet from global warming while Denmark is having it's very own "ice age".
But what I find strangest of all is that Denmark is a land where you can go into a “church” and never hear the true pure Gospel of Jesus Christ. And that is what we need to discuss over the coming days. We are called to be a prophetic voice to this worlds biggest problem - and it's not global warming. The problem is the infinite gulf between God's Holiness and man's sinfulness, and God's solution is His Gospel and that is what must be shouted from the rooftops. But people now debate what the Gospel is and whether it can be properly understood. It's a good thing that this hinges, not on the immensity of our intellect, but on the kindness of a God Who stooped down to us in the person of Jesus Christ to speak His message of salvation crystal clear.
The Bible tells us that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. If our first priority is Jesus’ last command then it will be to preach this Gospel. And it must remain pure because the Apostle Paul said that if anyone preaches any other Gospel than the one he preached let him be damned to hell. We must get the Gospel right – if we get it wrong everything else is a waste of time. For this reason it is extremely important to clearly define the Gospel so that we can rightly know it and rightly articulate it – because this is the heart of the crisis.
This has been highlighted in the last week where there has been a large number of religious leaders sign on to a document called the “Manhattan Declaration”. I am not against this document but it does highlight the mass confusion concerning the Gospel at the highest level. The large number of Evangelical and Catholic leaders who all signed the agreement to oppose abortion and homosexual marriage also stated that “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”. Though they all agreed on the importance to preach the Gospel, the document never states what the Gospel is. If they did, then Catholics and Evangelicals could not sign it together because they believe and preach different gospels. Remember that little thing called the reformation??
This same problem has entered the evangelical churches of today. Most will agree that the Gospel is the good news about Jesus Christ. That it is a message of God’s love, grace, forgiveness, and salvation. And this is where the problem lies because if we don’t define those words love, grace, forgiveness, and salvation then they are robbed of meaning.
If you want to talk about God’s love then you’d better talk about sin because God’s love was demonstrated while we were sinning (Romans 5:8).
If you want to talk about grace then you’d better talk about our evil sinful nature because grace means undeserved favour ie why don’t we deserve it?
If you want to talk about forgiveness then you’d better talk about all the bad things we do because that’s what we need to be forgiven of.
If you want to talk about salvation then you’d better talk about hell because that is what salvation is from.
Just like in the Manhattan declaration the word gospel gets thrown around a lot but is rarely explained and that is what I plan to do today and in my subsequent posts. I’m going to be presenting what I call the five pillars of the Gospel that will help us to examine ourselves and search our own hearts and also equip us to faithfully present this precious message to others.
The worldwide head honcho of the Anglican church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has made another brazen display of sheer incompetence as a "Christian". Not only has Rowan Williams played a large role in perpetuating and expanding the sheer disarray of the Anglican movement. He has also presided over their failure to take a biblical stance on a wide range of issues (including the ordination of unrepentant practising homosexuals), making sissy boy apologies to Muslims (for all that worldwide violence perpetrated by Christians against "peace loving" Jihadists), and a total failure to proclaim the Gospel in a culture being rapidly paganized.
Now he has given another startling display of his sheer biblical incompetence (which is a tragic reproach brought upon the remnant of faithful Gospel preachers that remain within the Anglican movement). Either the Archbishop doesn't have a Bible, or he has one but never reads it, or his Bible highlighter is a black texter. The Archbishop recently vented his self-righteous indignation at what he perceived to be a lack of repentance by all those financial movers and shakers who brought us the global credit crisis. Here is an extract from the article in British tabloid "The Daily Mail":
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said he fears that the City is returning to business as usual with no 'repentance' for the excesses which led to the economic collapse . . . 'There hasn't been what I would, as a Christian, call repentance. We haven't heard people saying "well actually, no, we got it wrong and the whole fundamental principle on which we worked was unreal, was empty".'
Earth to Rowan - get a grip! You are clearly confused about the distinction between believers and those who are unconverted, the scope of church discipline, and the role God plays in dealing with those who are outside the body of Christ. Here's some advice from the Apostle Paul . . . you've heard of him haven't you??
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you." (I Corinthians 5:11-13)
Deal with the heretics in your own Anglican camp, Rowan - they're pretty easy to detect, they're the guys who always vote against the clear teaching of Scripture. That is your scriptural scope of responsibility. I find it staggering that you use time and energy lamenting the sins of unconverted heathens who the Bible describes as "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1) and "enemies (of God) in their minds through wicked works" (Colossians 1:21). They need the Gospel, Rowan, because it is the only power that can make those dead bones live! All the while wolves in easily detectable sheep outfits run amok right under your nose and you refuse to impose any church discipline whatsoever.
Furthermore, the moral decline of the once mighty England, that revived and roared in the days of Whitefield and Wesley, is intrinsically connected to the continual dilution, and ultimate abandonment, of the glorious Gospel that thundered across Britain during the Awakening. It is that Gospel which you are called to preach as your primary duty. The time you waste lamenting the sins of pagans in a now secular culture should be spent preaching the Gospel - then, maybe, you might have less of those greedy sinners to complain about.
Some may question my tone in this post and I am willing to concede that I could have ramped up my intensity several notches further. This is so farcical that antics like this demand the sternest possible rebuke. It is not arrogant of me to do so for the Scriptures speak so plainly on this subject that even a knucklehead like me can figure this one out. REPENT ARCHBISHOP REPENT!!!
I never cease to be amazed at the talent of the young kids in my 'hood. Several of them got together recently trying to do their best impression of emergent guru Brian McLaren! Check it out . . .
All those mean conservative Evangelical Christians just keep hurting Brian's feelings. And Brian doesn't want to hurt anybody's feelings or cause division with anybody . . . except maybe God!
Boo Hoo Brian. What about how God feels about the issue? What about loving gay people enough to warn them of their peril? By dodging the question you are actually giving false comfort and approval to people who are under the wrath of God . . . oh yeah, that's something else you don't believe in!
I've been hearing a lot of lamentation of late from my American brothers and sisters over the moral decline, political direction, holocaust of the unborn, and diluted gospel preaching that is happening there. Many of these people fear that God will bring His judgment because of these things. But what if these trends are the judgment?
I am currently reading through my John Macarthur Study Bible and just loving his commentaries on the passages. To be sure, it doesn't guarantee that Macarthur will expound every passage correctly, but you do get the precious insights of a true laborer in the Word of God who has applied consistent historical grammatical hermeneutical (whew!!) principles in Scripture interpretation. One of the things that recently struck me in the book of Exodus was Macarthur's commentaries concerning the passages that say that God hardened Pharoah's heart. Many people wrestle with the idea of personal accountability for actions living alongside a Sovereign God Who controls EVERYTHING. Macarthur suggests that the hardening of Pharoah's heart is actually the lifting of God's common grace that would otherwise restrain Pharoah's heart from manifesting the wickedness it is capable of.
Common grace is what restrains society from acting out all the lust and corruption that dwells in the human heart. It maintains a certain level of order so that the Gospel can be preached and wicked hearts regenerated (yes, Scripture overwhelmingly concludes all men to be utterly depraved and unable to do anything pleasing to God outside of the regenerating work of His Holy Spirit, see Romans 3). There are many other aspects of common grace that I'll discuss in the coming days because I believe it will help us appreciate the unbelievable goodness of God so easily taken for granted. But, back to my initial question raised regarding whether the downward cultural spiral occuring in the USA will bring God's wrath or actually is God's wrath.
The first chapter of Romans seems to indicate that the lifting of common grace is part of the judgment of God on a society that opens the floodgates of perversion.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 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. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32)
Do the words "God gave them up" send a chill down your spine? Does this sound like what we're seeing today. Marshall Foster once said that the difference between an American pagan and a European pagan is that the American will go to a porn cinema in a hat and dark glasses whereas the European will wave to his friends across the street as he enters the doors of that house of perversion. Unfortunately I am no longer shocked by sin, but the lack of shame about it really does shock me as a European resident. America, America, is this where you're heading?
There are quite a few ugly rows going on right now. There are certainly fights worth fighting and heretics that must be exposed. When Brian McLaren denies penal subsitutionary atonement, Tony Jones says homosexuality is a valid Christian lifestyle, and Rob Bell embraces universalism then real Christians must pronounce "Anathema" over them and strip them of their sheep outfits. But when the lines of demarkation drop below the level of heresy and false teaching to matters of preference and opinion our conversation should be seasoned with graciousness and love. The Lord Jesus said that "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35).
Recently two Christian men whom I love and respect, Tim Challies and Phil Johnson (their blogs "Challies dot com" and "Pyromaniacs" are two of my favorites), have taken up opposing positions in debating the issue of when to criticize and when not to. When godly men enter public debate I have found it to be very educational both in the tone of engagement, and in evaluating an opposing view. These men love each other and value their respective contributions to the body of Christ. They are big boys and man enough to weather each others criticism. And that is a major lesson for people who have been exposed to one too many ugly personality clashes in their local church. When we are secure in our Christian love we are liberated to speak our minds in the hope and knowledge that our true friends will sharpen and refine us with their observations and objections.
What started the debate was Tim's post called Evil as Entertainment where he stated among other things that:
I want to say a word today about watchblogs or discernment blogs or whatever you want to call them. I am referring to blogs that specialize in sharing bad news . . . Day after day they offer examples of all that is wrong in the church. They may vary what they offer a little bit, but what is true of them is that they offer a steady diet of negative content related to the church in general or perhaps related to just one person or one ministry . . . these blogs are really little more than entertainment. And once I had these blogs filed in that way in my mind, their popularity and their draw began to make much more sense to me. They are really just a spiritualized form of YouTube or any other site that entertains by sharing what is gross and base and negative and that does so for the sake of entertainment. There is really no value in watching boys do stupid things on skateboards and laughing when they crack their ankle bones in half; there is really no value in watching the worst pastors in America preach to the worst churches in America. Such sites offer evil as entertainment.
identifying what I see as the key difference between healthy discernment and the obsessive/compulsive peevishness some of our fellow critics seem to think is the mark of real orthodoxy . . . It needs to be said that "calling people out for damnable heresies that are causing people to drift away from the true faith" is a shepherd's duty, not an option—and it can be quite edifying if done well. That said, anyone can sample my preaching ministry; I invite you all to do so. What you'll discover is that when I am speaking to the flock (as opposed to lecturing in a men's meeting or exhorting pastors in a Shepherds' Conference seminar, or writing on my blog) I employ humor and criticism very sparingly. That's because when I preach, my immediate concern is to explain the meaning of specific texts of Scripture and exhort people to apply the truth to their lives in obedience to God. This blog (Pyromaniacs) serves a totally different purpose. It always has. I make no apology for that, especially here in the gutless, effeminate, faint-hearted, hopelessly "diverse," hazy-and-hesitant subculture contemporary evangelicalism prides itself on being.
It has frankly never troubled me one bit that people who hate our theological stance dismiss us as "watchbloggers" (or worse). If someone can't see how PyroManiacs differs in tone and style from the trash-talking parodies maintained by certain bloggers whose sympathies lie at the opposite end of the theological spectrum from us, that says more about their brand of discernment than it says about ours.
Look: I agree with the gist of Tim Challies' concern. (At least I think I do. The more Tim has clarified himself, the less certain I am that we agree as much as I assumed at first. Still—)
I do think it's evil and irreverent to regard apostasy as nothing more than something to mock and be entertained by. Those who fall into that attitude inevitably mirror and amplify the very impieties they say they deplore. They tend to become petty, overly-critical, thin-skinned, and surly-sounding gossip-mongers. Ditto with the sophomoric anti-watchblogs that relentlessly parody such full-time critics, raising the stakes on the irreverence game to ever-new heights. These two opposing forces feed one another's worst tendencies, and I have no desire to participate with or encourage either side in their native forums. The comment-threads on both sides always turn into adolescent insult-contests, and it can be downright ugly. It's an embarrassment. It's also an easy trap for anyone still swaddled in unglorified flesh to fall into.
Tim, as any godly individual should, weighed up Phil's words and delivered his verdict:
I guess any writer can attest that every now and then you write something that is really, objectively good; and other times you lay an egg. Having talked it over and having read plenty of feedback, I’m going to have to say that I laid an egg on Monday. While I do not feel that what I said was wrong or unnecessary, I can see that I should have said it better. At the same time, I think it sparked some useful discussion and for that I am grateful . . . Phil Johnson wrote about how he both agrees and disagrees with me. This article really helped me see the lack of clarity in my own article (well, that and my wife telling me that Phil’s article was better than my own) . . . Most of what Phil says is most of what I should have said (or said more clearly) on Monday.
There is so much we can learn from these two godly men!
In an earlier post I used the current Miss California, Carrie Prejean, as an illustration of someone with more courage than Rick Warren to voice their convictions about the definition of marriage. This was not meant to be a ringing endorsement of Miss California nor beauty pageants. It merely served to highlight the tragic state of affairs in modern evangelicalism when "America's Pastor" is too much of a sissy to man up and unapologetically declare his biblical convictions. Reverend Al Mohler rightly pointed out that:
every evangelical Christian should watch this carefully, for the controversy over Rick Warren will not stop with the pastor from Saddleback. This whirlwind is coming for you and for your church. At some point, the cost of being "cool" will be the abandonment of biblical Christianity. We had better decide well in advance that this is a cost far too high to pay. (Online Source)
To try and be everybody's friend is to start the drawn out process of painting yourself into a corner where worldviews collide. This is the corner Rick Warren now finds himself in. He would do well to heed the advice of the Bible - you know, that old book!
You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:4).
If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you (words of Jesus, John 15:18-19).
"America's Pastor" needs to realize that he can't have it both ways. It is inevitable that honoring God will involve alienation from the world. The fact that Miss California has become an evangelical hero just because she stated the obvious and biblical in public is a sad indictment on the modern wimpiness found in many pulpits.
I am largely ignorant of beauty pageants and what they entail. I did, however, take an educated guess that it would involve outfits that reveal more than they hide. Several people have written and pointed out to me the "issues" they have with beauty pageants, namely the lust factor caused by the swimsuit part of the competition. I wholeheartedly agree with them and do not see a beauty pageant as a God honoring pursuit for a Christian woman. I am in no position to comment on Carrie Prejean's Christianity and am more than happy to applaud the stand she took against that angry gay blogger. But were I to meet her I would plead with her to make Proverbs 31 her first pageant for Solomon rightly said that "Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman without discretion."
Who has the most integrity? Rick Warren or the Beauty Queen. Who has more courage? "America's Pastor" or Miss California. Who fears man? The Purpose Driven Guru or the girl in the tiara. Who should be wearing the skirt? You be the judge!
