All You Need Is Love?

Such an important discussion...



Thanks to the Gospel Coalition for sharing this video.

Are We Ready?

Peter Leithart

Peter Leithart posts his thoughts on DOMA...

Many churches have already capitulated to the Zeitgeist, and many others will. Some Christians and some churches won’t be up to the challenge. For those who heed Paul’s admonition not to be conformed to the pattern of this world, things are going to get sticky. But we are servants of God. He opens our ears to hear, and he gives us tongues to speak truth. If that means we are insulted and marginalized, if it means we yield our back to the smiters and our face to those who spit on us, so be it.

Every day we are losing our rights not just as Americans but as Christians.  Widespread acceptance of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, freedom of speech and....and....and.... We must ask ourselves, are we ready? The trials, difficulties and persecution is coming and coming on rapidly. Think on it, friends. We capitulate or we are persecuted. Time to decide where you stand. As Leithart notes in his post,

God has his winnowing fork in his hand, and he’s ready to use it. There’s likely to be a lot of chaff, blown away like mist. But there will be a harvest. We’re being sent into an oven, but Jesus will crush the grain of the harvest so that, baked in the fire of the Spirit, it will become bread for the life of the world.

Are we ready?

Joel Osteen found himself forced to answer a question that every Christian — and certainly every Christian leader — will be forced to answer. When that moment comes, and come it will, those who express confidence in the Bible’s teaching that homosexuality is a sin will find themselves facing the same shock and censure from the very same quarters. - Al Mohler

Mohler nails when he states that we'll all have to answer tough questions some day. Sooner or later someone, knowing or not knowing of our faith, will ask, what do you think about __________? We are Biblically bound to answer. Are we ready?

Moreover...

To [Piers] Morgan, making any moral judgment amounts to judgmentalism. Of course, this leads logically to total moral insanity, since the only way to avoid being identified with judgmentalism is to make no moral judgments whatsoever — which no sane person can do.

Ever been accused of that? If not, you will be. So, let's be ready. Let's be armed with the Word of God and be ready to answer the world. Let's not shrink back from the attack for as Mohler concludes, "Most Christians will not face that question on national television, but on a college campus, in a family discussion, in the workplace, or in the heat of debate. But, whatever the circumstances, that moment will soon come."

The ELCA's Recent Decision

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported today, August, 22, 2009, the outcome of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America’s recent positive vote on welcoming gays and lesbians to the pulpit. This is distressing news of course to those of us who view homosexuality as sin. And what I also find distressing by those in favor of gays and lesbians in the church is their misrepresentation of the truth. For example, the article opens with a quote from the Rev. Paula Meader of Trinity Lutheran Church in Lakewood, Ohio (a suburb of Cleveland), “ ‘Jesus accepted all the social outcasts of his time”…”So, it’s about time, according to her, for the church to do the same.” How true, Jesus did accept and associate with the outcasts of his time but not to condone their sin but rather to bring them to accept his saving grace. It is astonishing how twisted and altruistic the truth can become when some start to defend what they think is biblical truth that is anything but Scriptural.

Did Jesus condone the sin of the woman at the well because she had five husbands and was living with another man (John 4:11-41)? No, but he did talk to her to so she would see her sin and abandon it to live a life that would be pleasing to God. And how do we know what is pleasing to God? It is not what we think, it is not what sounds good or what is socially acceptable. Nor is it what tradition says or any combination of tradition and Scripture. It is Scripture alone (Sola scriptura) which is a Reformed benchmark.

Scripture clearly points out that homosexuality is sin. The most prominent place we find this is in Romans 1, verses 26 and 27, For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. You can try your best to wriggle out of that truth by doing any sort of interpretational gymnastics that you like but the teaching is clear.

The article goes on to quote the Rev. Don King who is openly gay, “I believe the ELCA is moving in a direction of justice and openness.” Interesting that the ELCA is not moving towards being Scripturally obedient, rather it is moving towards “justice and openness”. It must be asked then, who is defining justice here? If it is God then we must see justice in light of what he has shown us in Scripture. God has sent his Son to live a perfect life, be persecuted, die on the cross and rise again in three days for our sin. That is how God has carried out justice for all of mankind including homosexuals. If it is man defining justice, well, we see how justice is carried out, i.e., to accept openly rebellious sinners into the church and give them positions of leadership.

What should we be doing? Christians in the church universal should be openly embracing the homosexual community in an effort to win them to Christ so that they may repent and turn from their sin of homosexuality. That is truly showing openness to the gay and lesbian community and an effort to see that justice is accomplished biblically.

Presbyterianism and the Church of Scotland and....

The recent Church of Scotland decision has certainly created much clamour in the blogosphere. I think Carl Trueman nailed it in his post here. I know, I know, someone out there is saying you always take CT's side and besides, what do you know as an outsider. Yes, I put my hand up to both accusations. I am not inclined to waste time with non excepted procedures, i.e., the petition. But I won't be the first person either, though, to throw stones at those who stay in the CoS and fight. (Go get 'em.) Nevertheless, Trueman has made a point I believe. He concludes his post this way:

I was asked by one C of S person, angry about my criticism of the petition, what I would suggest as the way forward. Well, just for starters, before launching any public campaign, I would have looked at the history of those churches and institutions that have turned themselves around to see what actually works as opposed to what merely seems like a good idea at the time — say, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, the Southern Baptist Convention, Southern Seminary, and even my own small place, Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia). The changes in those places had a number of things in common: the reformers organized and prepared for every eventuality, putting into place safety nets and multiple `Plan Bs’, they identified the places where influence could be wielded, mastered procedure, fought like the blazes when they had to, stood strong and immovable in the face of violent opposition, and outmanoeuvred their opponents by continual attention to meeting agendas, points of order, procedural matters, and long-term coordinated strategy. They did not waste time and energy on irrelevant sideshows like rhetorical petitions that merely provided the material for public relations disasters. And guess what? In each case it actually worked. In fact, this way of approach sounds very like the strategy which frankly outflanked and then crushed the ill-prepared evangelical assault at last week’s C of S GA. It would seem that angry but sincere petitioners generally lose, while sincere but canny parliamentarians generally win. The C of S evangelicals need new leadership that understands Presbyterian polity, the importance of procedure and, crucially, how institutions work and can therefore be changed.

Be sure to read the entire post here and scroll down to read some of the interesting comments on both sides of the argument.

This is Truly Good to Hear

A conservative diocese in California has split with the Episcopal Church over the issue of homosexuality. Read a brief article here in USA Today. From the Diocese of San Joaquin website we read, Delegates and clergy attending the 48th Annual Convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin voted overwhelmingly in favor of amendments to the diocesan constitution, which removed references to The Episcopal Church, expressed the intention to maintain fellowship with the greater Anglican Communion accepted the invitation to become a diocesan member of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. The vote reaffirmed a first vote at the December 2, 2006 convention in which a more than two-thirds majority voted in favor of the constitutional amendments. And from the Bishop of the Diocese's address yesterday, For twenty years and more we have watched The Episcopal Church lose its way: straying, at first, from Scripture... to the point of dismissing the Word of God, in some instances, as mere historical documents – of value, perhaps in bygone eras – but no longer applicable to us, to appropriating powers to itself through the General Convention it had never had and, finally, on to unilateral decisions about theology, sexuality, and ordination potentially cutting itself off from the Anglican Communion. J. I. Packer, the eminent British Theologian now living in Canada, puts this in clear perspective when he says: “Liberal theology as such knows nothing about a God who uses written language to tell us things, or about the reality of sin in the human system, which makes redemption necessary and new birth urgent. Liberal theology posits, rather, a natural religiosity in man (reverence, that is, for a higher power) and a natural capacity for goodwill towards others, and sees Christianity as a force for cherishing and developing these qualities. They are fanned into flame and kept burning in the church, which in each generation must articulate itself by concessive dialogue with the culture pressures, processes and prejudices that surround it. In other words, the church must ever play catch-up to the culture, taking on board whatever is the “in thing” at the moment; otherwise, so it is thought, Christianity will lose all relevance to life. The church will inevitably leave the Bible behind at point after point, but since on this view the Bible is the word of fallible men rather than of the infallible God, leaving it behind is no great loss.” He goes on to say, In the end, it is all about freedom. It is about freedom to remain who we are in Christ. It is freedom to honor the authority of Scripture and to keep the Lectionary we now have. It is freedom to worship with the Prayer Book we know and freedom from innovations and services that are contrary to the Word of God. It is freedom to hold and practice the faith that the Episcopal Church received as a precious gift... A ‘NO’ vote would place us under the authority of those who admit they do not know where they are going and who tell us all relates “to our understanding and embrace of God’s Kingdom and the Salvation we are offered in Jesus Christ– or to our lack of such understanding and engagement.”
This is the time to know who we are in Christ, where we are headed, and to heed the words of Jesus: “Go ye...”
Praise God for their dedication and decisive actions yesterday.