Conversations with a Pro-Gay Pastor: Good arguements

There is a difference between having a discussion about what the Bible says about homosexuality and a discussion about the political decisions being made in our country regarding the same issue. Before we go on and speak about the biblical arguments I want to suggest that none of these are good arguments regarding political decisions. Most people who would like to see the marriage laws changed so that same sex marriage is recognized by the state don't give credence to the Bible anyway. There are good arguments apart from scripture that can be used in that situation.

In my conversation with the gay pastor I started with Leviticus 18-20 & 20:13. Pro- Gay theologians would like us to simply disregard this passage. They attack the traditional view that these verses can be taken at face value by listing several Levitical laws we no longer pay any attention to. It is important to note that non of the laws I have heard referenced are found in the immediate context. Actually the opposite is true. Bestiality, incest, and child sacrifice are found in the immediate context. Most, if not all, pro-gay theologians would say these things are immoral and against God's law. It is not only important to take notice of this, but to point out the inconsistency. Second, they will say these verses are not valid in today's situation because it is specifically speaking about cultic practices. While it certainly is speaking about cultic practices these things are mentioned to show the depravity of the cultic practices and the societies that practice them. This would be inconsistent with Paul's treatment of eating meat that was part of cultic practices in 1 Corinthians 10. The fact that cultic practices are being referenced actually strengthens the traditional view.

Starting with Leviticus is also good because it allows you to show consistency in Scripture regarding this issue. There are several reasons to take this passage seriously, but there is one that is often overlooked. When Jesus was asked about the great commandments he first quoted Deuteronomy 6. Then he continued and quoted Leviticus 19:18. It appears that Jesus' view of Leviticus, specifically these chapters, was very different from the way pro-gay theologians would like to treat this passage.

The third way pro-gay theologians will attack this passage is the Hebrew word translated abomination. They say this word is reserved for references to cultic practices. This is clearly not true. This word is used over 100 times in the Old Testament alone. Many of those instances do not have any connection to cultic practices including Prov. 6:16ff.

Some of the same arguments regarding cultic practices are used in reference to Romans 1. Again I would point out that the Romans 1 passage is a list of sins which show the depravity of mankind. It does not appear to list any neutral or good things (unless you hold a pro-gay position). Romans 1 again shows consistency regarding the homosexual issue. A plain reading of this passage makes clear the perspective God holds regarding the issue of homosexuality. The attempts to discredit this passage are shallow at best. A simple reading of the passage and consideration of the language used should be sufficient to debunk any of these arguments.

There is a third passage which in conjunction with the Leviticus passage is very powerful. This passage is 1 Corinthians 6:9. The pro-gay theologians attack this passage by saying Paul coined the Greek term translated homosexual and it is unclear whether this term refers to homosexuality as it is practiced today. Instead Paul is referring to some form of temple prostitution or pederasty. It is true that Paul coined this term along with over 170 other Greek terms. Instead of saying we simply can't know what it means we should perhaps consider where this word came from. Without going into a bunch of Greek I will simply point out that this term is a combination of two words which are found in the Septuagint. Specifically in Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13. It appears Paul was making a specific reference to those passages.

It appears the Bible speaks clearly on the issue. It is consistent and to the point. The New Testament backs up the Old Testament. Jesus himself gives credence to the Leviticus passage. the question then is not whether the Bible condemns homosexuality, the question is what should we do when confronted with the truth?

My next post will deal with how to present these arguments in a conversation.

Conversations with a Pro-Gay Pastor: Bad Arguments

In my previous post on pro-gay theology I said I would post a series dealing with the pro-gay theology. This is the first of two or three posts on this issue.

I have to be honest this issue does not interest me that much apart from the significance of its relevance in culture today. There are several passages that deal with homosexuality. Some of the traditional passages are not very good arguments for a traditional (and I believe biblical) view of homosexuality.

Perhaps the number one passage that falls under this category is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. While homosexuality in some sense is certainly a part of this passage, there are several problems with the text. There are other issues in this text besides homosexuality that God was likely judging. Rape and a lack of hospitality are two examples. There were sexual sins being committed in this passage, there is no doubt. If you want to convince someone that the Bible condemns homosexuality, don't start here. Anyone who holds a pro-gay theology will have your head spinning in no time.

There is a second passage that can be helpful in certain contexts and certainly contains some challenges for someone who holds a pro-gay theology, but it is not a good starting point and it may take more time to develop the strength of the passage. That passage is the creation story. God may not have created Adam and Steve, but that is an argument from silence and considering the purpose of procreation it would have been pointless. This does not mean this scripture is not problematic for pro-gay theology, but it is not a good starting point. This passage is more helpful in a longer discussion where Paul's use of the created order in his letters can be discussed.

If you have the opportunity to have a discussion regarding this issue there are several things you might want to remember.

• Try to keep emotions out of it as much as possible while recognizing this issue has a tendency to evoke those same emotions. Gay people view any attempt to show why this is not God honoring behavior as a personal attack against them. Tread lightly, but please do tread.
• There are about 8 passages that deal with this issue directly and several that deal with sexual ethics in a broader sense. That does not mean it is helpful to use all of them. The burden of proof is not on you. You only have to be right about one passage, they have to be right about all of them.
• The goal is not to win a debate it is to cause them to think and perhaps reconsider their position at some point. Remember for those who practice homosexuality the consequences of changing their position is significant. They have much more at stake in the conversation then those who are not practicing homosexuality.
• It is not the number of arguments, it is the quality of the arguments you use that counts.
  

In my next post I will deal with Leviticus 18-20, Romans 1, and 2 Cor. 6. These are the passages I focused on in my conversation with a gay pastor. It was my focus on these passages that helped me to be effective.

I know this is not the most exciting post, but hopefully it will be helpful. I will try to mix in a couple of more exciting posts with this series.

My New Favorite Author

I don't know if I have ever really had a favorite author, but I do now. I love John Calvin's confrontational style, Piper's love for God and clear biblical message, Ravi's intelligent yet easy to understand distinctions, and Irwin's unique perspective. That said Mark Driscoll from Mar's Hill (Seattle) is clearly my new favorite.

If I could model my writing after anyone it would be him. He is blunt (sometimes I get upset), funny (this is the first book I have read that actually makes me laugh out loud on a regular basis), and insightful ( I learn something every other page).

If you have not read any of his books, especially if you are a pastor or church planter, pick up Confessions of a Reformission Rev.

Conversations with a Pro-Gay Pastor

Some of you are no doubt going to get upset with me. You will probably think I am equivocating in my theology or I have lost all common sense. I have been known to make a blunder from time to time and some of them have been pretty significant. This certainly had the potential to be one of those, but things turned out well and about as good as I thought they could.

Now that you are wondering what I have done let me explain. I invited a pastor from a Metropolitan Community Church (MCC is a pro-gay denomination) to come and have a conversation with me on a Sunday morning in front of my congregation. The question was, "how does homosexuality fit in with a Biblical worldview?" For me the answer is simple, it doesn't. This conversation was intended to motivate the people in my congregation to be bold when it comes to this issue. I wanted them to have confidence that they could have a productive conversation with a gay person about truth and scripture. I wanted them to see what it means to speak truth in love. In the end it worked. As I have followed up with people they have made some observations about those who promote a gay theology that have been helpful. I would like to share one of them with you.

There is a lot of material out there taking one side or the other on this debate. Honestly, it isn't that much of a debate for the person who takes God's word as God's word. You can do your own research if you want to. The pro-gay agenda is sophisticated in many ways, but a close look at any of their arguments will reveal the inadequacy of those arguments. Maybe I will do a series of blogs dealing with the primary arguments.

In the end they usually end up appealing to a person's emotions more then logic or biblical exegesis. It is usually not an issue of right and wrong or moral and immoral. Instead they want you to identify with them, to feel their pain. It is about some one who has treated them poorly or even brutally assaulted them. It is about putting a face on the sin so that we too may become desensitized. Ultimately this is the agenda. While I am angry about those who have dishonored another human being in any way, the fact that you have been dishonored in no way makes your actions just. Unfortunately this is the spirit of the age. It must be combated with love and truth equally applied. Scripture makes the argument that love cannot be applied without truth. 1 Corinthians 13 says love does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.

As I have spoken with those who were there and as I listened to the part of the conversation that was recorded one thing has become clear. Those who advocate this kind of theology are simply interested in justifying their own actions. They just want you to "feel for them." they are really not that interested in what God's word says about the issue.

Don't misunderstand. They are more than happy to have a conversation about what the Bible says. They have their own assortment of liberal scholars who will attempt to use what appears to be fancy scholarship to convince you their viewpoint is correct. These attempts will work of those who do not take the time to evaluate the arguments.

In order to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not morally wrong all you have to do is start with a man centered approach to scripture trying to justify what you already believe and you will succeed. That is exactly what pro-gay theology does.

Unfortunately we were only able to record the first half of the conversation. If you are interested, you can go to www.wechurch.com and click on the podcast link to listen.

What Kind Of Church Are You?

I was playing poker on Tuesday night with a few friends and a bunch of people who may become friends at some point. I was sitting next to another church planter and we began to talk shop. We talked about a lot of things, but one question stood out. It is a question I get all the time and I never really know how to answer. He looked at me and said, "What kind of church are you?" I wasn't sure what he meant so I asked him to clarify. he proceeded to ask if I was Emergent, Purpose Driven, or whatever.

I am so sick of hearing this question I can't stand it!! Why do I have to bow at the alter of the mega-church? Rick Warren was purpose driven before purpose driven was purpose driven (Ya, I got confused writing that, but read it 3 or 4 times and it will make sense). Before McLaren, McManus, and McKimball the word emerging was only used as an adjective in dime store novels (I don't think it is fair that Dan Kimball didn't get a Mc in front of his name). Why can't our church just be biblical? Why is it I have to find some other "model" to follow other than just preaching the gospel and loving the lost?

As far as I can tell there is nothing un-biblical about Purpose Driven and being an emerging church may or may not be un-biblical depending on the church. Nor do I have any problem with learning from those who have gone before us.

I wonder if we are learning from those who have gone before us are the wrong things? Are we learning programs designed for a specific context that may or may not transfer to ours or are we simply too lazy to come to our own conclusions about the way we should do ministry where we live.

If you find it helpful to follow a model of ministry someone else came up with go ahead, but don't ask me which model I follow. I do my best to follow the model of the early church while still adapting to the culture in which I minister. Maybe that is what all of us should do?

Misunderstanding Free Will

John Calvin said, "People generally understand a free will to be one which has it in its power to choose good or evil..."

It seems to me most Calvinists aren't really Calvinists and some Arminians are more Calvinistic then they think. While I find this debate amussing, I hardly find it worth spending a lot of time on. That said, I am amazed at the number of extreme Calvinists and Arminians mis-characterizing what Calvin actually believed. Calvin never denied free will, although he would dispute the definition offered above.

The definition above flies in the face of scripture itself (Romans 3), yet this is the sense in which most people understand the term. People on both sides of this debate must admit the fall had an impact on the will of man and his ability to choose that which is good. Certainly there are differences in understanding the extent of that impact, but scripture (along with our own experiences) clearly shows us this influence real and significant.

Again Calvin clarifies his position only one paragraph later when he says, "For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity wills in an evil way."

The Calvinist can assert along with the Arminian that people are not just a bunch of mind numb robots God toys with. Even Calvin himself would assert that people are perfectly capable of freely choosing. That is to say they choose without coercion. Calvin makes this point again when he says, "If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free, and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in the sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection."

As someone who is Calvinistic in my theology, and often sneered at because of it, I find it important to bring clarity to the issue itself. Calvinists do not deny freedom of the will in any way because scripture does not. Anyone who claims to be a Calvinist while holding to a deterministic view of life is not really a Calvinist.


All Quotes are taken from The Bondage And Liberation Of The Will by John Calvin

Eschatology and The C&MA

Does it really matter whether I believe we are in the millennium or it is yet to come? If the C&MA is a movement more then a denomination then why do we take a stand in our doctrinal statement on premillennialism? This has bothered me for some time.

What is our goal as a movement? It is my understanding the C&MA seeks to evangelize the nations, to fulfill the great commission. This appears to be the driving force behind everything we as a denomination do. That is one reason I like the C&MA (though there are other denominations who have the same goal). Yet as I go over the doctrinal statement in the discovery class at our church there is one item I don't really care if the people in our church agree with. It is the doctrine of premillennialism. This is what the doctrinal statement says:

11. The second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is imminent and will be personal, visible, and premillennial.

Why can't we just stop after "visible." I have friends and congregants who are amillennial. They are deeply committed to Christ and to seeing the great commission accomplished. Should I tell them they can't be members? Maybe I should not allow them to teach or preach. If we are going to give liberty in this area even though it is in our doctrinal statement then what good is having a doctrinal statement? If we are to be a movement shouldn't we place as little restriction on doctrinal issues as possible? We should certainly make statements about the essentials of the Christian faith, but is premillennialism an essential? If it is, then are we saying those who believe in amillennialism are heretics? Of course that list would include Calvin, Luther, and most of the other reformers.

I am not asking this question rhetorically. I would really like to know. I understand that Simpson was premillennial, but is that reason enough to continue to hold this particular doctrine as part of our doctrinal statement?

Perhaps this part of the C&MA doctrinal statement should be changed. Maybe it is time to reconsider how tightly we hold on to this doctrine.

Why I would Rather Not Home School

The Home School thing seems to bring up all kinds of emotions. Those who are for it generally think there is nothing better. Those who are not for it tend to think Home School Students are missing something that everyone else is getting.

Truth be told, both sides have some good points. I have blogged about bad and good reasons to home school but kept my thoughts relatively vague. I will be much more specific with this entry, but it may be long and I will definitely qualify statements along the way.

As a Youth Pastor for over ten years, five of which were spent in a church with a school in it, I have made many observations about those who home school or attend private school. I have noticed some good trends and some negative trends among the students. I have noticed the same among the parents. Let me expound:

• The parents genuinely love their kids. They love them enough to give up the opportunity to make more money, drive better cars, take more extravagant vacations, and live in a bigger house.
  
• It seems like most of the time (at least in Christians circles) the parents homes school because they want to protect their kids from the evil world.

Protecting our kids is something we should do as parents. If we love them we will protect them, sometimes. Let me explain. My son Joash is a maniac. As an 18 month old baby (if you can call him that) he can already climb to the top bunk of my daughters bunk bed (not something we are very happy about). He has no fear of anything. He will have to learn how to fear some things. He is so destructive to himself that we have actually made him wear a helmet just walking around the house because we are scared he is going to accidentally kill himself (the helmet wasn't my idea, nor was it one I liked). There are times when I will see that he is going to fall and bump his head and I will not catch him. That is right I will let him fall and get a little bump on his head. It is not that I want him to get hurt, but he needs to learn to be careful. If there is any kind of serious danger I will certainly catch him or stop him from getting into a bad situation. I know all the moms who read this will immediately cringe and determine that I am a bad parent, but before you jump to that conclusion go talk to your husband. I bet on occasion he has done similar things. This is why there is a mom and a dad.

What is my point? My point is this. Parents can be over protective. Being over protective is not about freedom, it is about letting kids learn some things the hard way. Life is full of hard difficult lessons. I believe it is often good for kids to be hurt so they can learn. This life is full of hurt and there is nothing we can do about it except try to help our kids avoid the major hurts by occasionally letting them fail in smaller things. This is where parents speaking prophetically comes into play. Tell them it is going to hurt, let them get hurt and then ask them if they think it might be a good idea to listen next time.

Private school and home school can be over protective for some kids. Every student is different and needs different boundaries. We never had wot worry about my daughter climbing the bunk bed, we had to convince her to do it when she was 7. Eventually our kids are going to face opposition to what the believe, our job is to help them see the truth when it has been clouded. It is our job to help them know how to avoid temptations even when it is their friends doing the tempting.

Protection can be a bad reason for private or home school options.

• HS & PS (home school & private school) parents often want to consider these options for spiritual reasons.
  

I have seen HS & PS kids who know tons about the Bible, who live moral lives, but whose faith has never really been tested. Just hang out with Bible quizzers for a while, generally the really good quizzers are HS kids (don't get mad, I am not dissing quizzing or the fact that HS kids are good at quizzing). These kids can probably quote more scripture than I can (not that, that is some kind of great accomplishment), but do they know what it means to have an authority figure challenging what they believe and maintaining their faith? Faith is generally developed better under fire.

Again, don't misunderstand. I am all for teaching kids God's word. If you read my posts you will see that I highly value scripture and teaching it to students. I am working on a post for one of my other blogs, Pj's Youth Ministry Minute, dealing with teaching theology to students. I would suggest this; it is the parents job to teach their kids God's word, values, and what it means to have faith no matter what school their kids attend. PS is not a replacement for parents being the primary disciple makers for their own kids.

• PS & HS kids tend to be arrogant in their view of anyone who believes something contrary to what they believe.

I taught a World View and Apologetics class at a private school (with some HS kids in the class). We talked about alternative worldviews as apposed to the Christian worldview. The attitude communicated to me by the students toward other worldviews was poor at best. On one occasion a student called those who disagree with the Christian worldview "stupid." Not only is this untrue it is certainly not loving. Students who have regularly been subjected to apposing views tend to be more tolerant (in the good sense of the word) and less antagonistic. They seem to be able to have a conversation about things with which they disagree without being jerks.

• PS & HS students also tend to be anti-social.
  

This is not to say they are not capable of being social. I actually believe many of the HS kids are capable of being social, but chose not to be. When I was a youth pastor I saw this first hand. PS or HS kids would simply chose not to mingle with those who attended public school at youth group events or programs. I had to work hard to change the atmosphere at youth ministry programs. Over time things got better.

• PS & HS kids have a tendency to be less evangelistic.
  

They would talk about evangelism. They were willing to talk about how ridiculous it is to not be a Christian, but to actually consider talking to their neighbor about Jesus was out of the question. Sure, if they went to a foreign country or on some mission trip they would be evangelistic, but not the person who lived across the street. This is somewhat symptomatic of the church in general, but it seems to be more pervasive with HS & PS students.

There are a lot of reasons I did not want to HS my daughter. These are some of them. I should remind you that I am now officially a HS parent and I attended private school through 8th grade. I am not speaking out of turn.

I also realize the trends I have noticed are only trends, they are not rules. There are exceptions to all of them. I also realize that some students need more protection and hands on parenting and HS is one way to accomplish that.

I think the best reason to home school or send your student to private school is because public schools have become significantly less reliable when it comes to actually teaching kids how to read, write, and do math. This is our reason for choosing the HS option (we can't afford private school and I am not sure we would chose that option anyway). Apparently the school my daughter was attending is more concerned about teaching tolerance, acceptance, and good self esteem then math, reading, and writing.