"We're coming for your children" says gay mens' choir

Click here to view the video of the San Fransisco Gay Men's Chorus singing that they're "coming for your children" to convert their worldview. (UPDATE: Within the time it took me to write this post, the choir has taken the video from public to private. When I first wrote this blog, the public could still watch the video. My apologies. Click the next link to see some of the lyrics of the song. You might be able to find the video somewhere online if you look hard enough. Just google the title and the choir name.)

Click here for an article which includes some of the lyrics, if the lyrics are difficult to understand in the video. 

It is a horrifying way to try and get a point across.

While any effort to stamp out "hate" should be applauded, neither this group nor most progressives define "hate" the same way that true Christians do. To the progressives, "hate" means "disagree." To Christians, hate means to mistreat, famously prohibited by Jesus in Matt. 7:12: Treat others how you'd want to be treated. Contrary to popular opinion, we can disagree without mistreating. But groups like want absolute acceptance in every sense: It isn't about "rights," but a conversion of morality. A revolution.

Based on their mis-definition of "hate", the group linked above has put out a horrifying propaganda song entitled "We're coming for your children." You read that right. Even if I could support the agenda - and no Christian can, I don't care what textual origami you try to do to make homosexuality agreeable with Scripture - I can't imagine ever trying to advance the agenda with a song title like this.

Thereby, they not only jettison the possibility of getting a hearing with many, but they further prove my suspicions that neither wokeness nor the gay agenda are innocent pursuits of "justice." Both are power-hungry pursuits of an anti-God revolution driven by a marxist worldview where the "conversation" is controlled by maoist rules for dialogue: You can't participate in a discussion unless you agree.

Doubtless, many will respond, "You're misunderstanding what they're saying. They're saying they'll turn your kids from hateful like you to friendly like them." Really? A friend would not tell a stranger, "We will convert your children, just wait."

At least we know what they really want. And countless once-sane people will sympathize because they don't want to be regarded as bigoted, homophobic, or racist. Guilt - not thinking - will win the day, again.

You might respond, "Pastor, what difference is there between this and what churches try to do in reaching and catechizing children?" Churches base their message off of revealed truth from the one who has proven throughout history that he is the Creator and sustainer of all things (Ac. 17:25). Churches attempt to convert people to the truth. A group like this bases their message off of internal feelings acted upon and affirmed by a fickle public opinion that constantly changes. You decide.

And if you want to see just how friendly this agenda is, just look up the story of pastor Chuck McIlhenny, possibly reading his book When the Wicked Seize a City.

Does the Bible Whisper About Sexual Sin?

I am not a Southern Baptist. I’m the happy pastor of a Conservative Baptist church which is part of a loose fellowship of churches—recently renamed Venture Churches—that broke off from the Northern Baptist Convention because of increasing liberalism in the mid-20th century. But since I have Baptist convictions in common with my SBC brothers and sisters, I try to regularly follow developments there. 

Last week at their annual convention, the SBC elected a new president named Ed Litton. By all appearances, Ed seems to be a godly man, well-respected, gospel-focused, and interested in bridge-building during a time more characterized by bridge-burning. 

That said, I came across an interesting sermon clip that prompted me to write my first blog post in a while. The clip is of him saying that the Bible whispers about sexual sin, when compared to the “shout” God makes about greed and judgmentalism. I was a little taken back by this comment, for at least three reasons.

Interesting Comment 

First, Ed is the newly elected president of the America’s largest conservative evangelical denomination, which has historically held to conservative views regarding sexual sin. So his comments are interesting because they seem to rub against the traditional grain of SBC culture and teaching (as well as those of conservative evangelicalism.) 

Second, and related to the first point above, Litton is now the second straight SBC president who has made a comment like this. The former and most recent president JD Greear, quoting writer Jen Wilkin during a sermon at Greear’s North Carolina church in 2019, made very similar comments to Litton’s. The only difference is that the supposed “shout” from God, as opposed to the “whisper” about sexual sin, refers, according to Greear, to “materialism and religious pride.” Again, American evangelicalism generally and the SBC particularly have always held to a tradition sexual ethic, but Greear, like Litton, rubs against the grain with his comments. While I don’t know if the sudden consistency of this message among SBC leaders should be seen as a sign of things to come for the denomination, it might reinforce the suspicions that many conservative Baptists have held about the trajectory. 

But thirdly, and most importantly, these comments are interesting because they seem to be, on Biblical grounds, patently false. When I say “Biblical grounds,” I mean this: When one seeks out the Bible's teaching on a particular subject, what is the sense that Scripture gives, when the whole of Scripture is used as the context of each passage which addresses the topic? When considered that way, my conclusion is this: I don’t know how one could ever say that the Bible “whispers” about sexual sin.

The Bible and Sexual Purity

To understand the Biblical position regarding sexual sin, one must understand what is God’s intention for sexual ethics. Think about this: The first people created are a man and a woman, who are to be married, stay together, and have kids, thus building up godly society. After the fall of Genesis 3, ethics go awry, including sexual ethics. By the time Abraham arrives on the scene, monogamous marriage and child-bearing between husband and wife is still the norm, which is reinforced by God’s disdain of Abe’s and Sarah’s little plan to have kids through Hagar the mistress. But by the time we get to Jacob, polygamy enters the picture, and doesn’t seem to leave decisively until we get to the New Testament. I am oversimplifying here, so you can get a feel for the narrative. 

When Jesus comes, he reinforces the one man-one woman model of marriage, saying that only on the grounds of sexual immorality does God allow the husband and wife to divorce (Matt. 5:31-32), because, whereas God patiently allowed divorce under the Old Covenant, it was because of hardness of heart (Mk. 10:6-9). And since Jesus has come, God’s original purpose of one man and one woman, living together as one flesh and enjoying each other sexually (Prov. 5:15-20, 1 Cor. 7:1-5), is recaptured. Jesus then goes further to say that divorce for the sake of remarriage is itself adultery (Mk. 10:10-12). Thus this picture of marriage, and with it, sex, is presupposed throughout the rest of the New Testament. Not every NT letter speaks of marriage/sexual purity, but many of them do, in crystal clear terms. See 1 Cor. 6:12-7:16, Eph. 5:22-33, Col. 3:18-19. Also 1 Tim. 3:2,12 and Tit. 1:6, both passages about leadership qualification in a church, reinforce the norm of healthy family structure. 

But this is not a discussion first about marriage before it is a discussion about sexual sin. I only bring up marriage because, to understand sexual sin in Scripture, you have to understand sexual purity un Scripture. And according to God’s plan laid out in Scripture, sexual purity only happens in relationship to committed heterosexual marriage (that is, a single person can be sexually pure by remembering that sexual activity is only appropriate in hetero marriage). Thus Jesus says that people defile themselves by their sexually immoral thoughts and behaviors, their adultery, and their sensuality, all of which come from within (Mk. 7:21-23; see also James 1:14-15). If one ever looks at another person’s spouse with lustful thoughts, God calls that heart adultery, as much an offense to him as actual adultery (Matt. 5:27-30). There is a good chance that if you’re reading this, I’m not saying anything that you don’t already know. But based on comments like Greear’s and Litton’s, I wonder if people need reminded of what they once knew. Anyway, Jesus also said that if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; your soul matters more than an eye or hand (Mt. 18:8-9). He is clearly speaking in hyperbole, but the fact that he says the exact same thing almost verbatim when talking about the aforementioned lustful thoughts (see Mt. 5:29-30) must mean that the hand and eye thing is related to sexually impure thoughts that lead to actions. (WARNING: GRAPHIC - SKIP TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IF YOU WANT.) One application of Jesus’ words is this: If you are stuck in a cycle of watching or looking at porn, you will need to get rid of your alone times, your tv, or your smart phone. You can survive without tv, smart phone, and "alone time," but porn is killing you. Related, if you are stuck in a cycle of masturbation, you will need to eliminate your alone time, internet access during trigger-times, and get married so you can enjoy sex God’s way. Even though you might not realize it, masturbation is also destroying you, too. 

That’s what sin does: It kills you (Rom. 6:23) - you lose a little of yourself with every unconfronted destructive (read: sinful) behavior. Thus virtually all New Testament writers encourage what previous generations called mortification: Killing sin in your life. Here are just a few: 

Paul: “Put to death the deeds of your body (ie, your impulsive, 

undisciplined, and natural indulgences that would embarrass you 

put out in public), or you die” (Rom. 8:12-13). Put to death “your 

earthly members” (Greek): “sexual immorality, impurity, passion, 

evil desire, covetousness,” etc. (Col. 3:5). 

Peter: “Abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war 

against your soul” (1 Pet. 2:11). That is, you have natural passions, 

impulses, and behaviors that, left undisciplined, will destroy you.

Hebrews author: “Lay aside the sin that clings so closely” (Heb. 

12:1); “Watch out, that you not be hardened by the deceitfulness of 

sin” (3:13). That is, sin clings to us and deceives us. It lies to us 

about what it is or isn’t, and about how in control of it we are. And 

in the end, we lose ourselves and die. 

The Bible and Homosexuality

Finally, what about homosexuality? I want to be very clear here: I have people close to me who are practicing homosexuals, and I don't want to be insulting. But I am more committed to Jesus than I am to loved ones' feelings. That said, contrary to what my liberal friends (or, based on the sermon clips above, my conservative friends) might want to say about Scripture’s clarity, let me just say unequivocally that the Bible could not be any clearer about how much of a perversion of our God-given sexuality homosexuality is.

 

-Again, the first relationship between humans is between a man 

and a wife. Jesus teaches that as programmatic for sex and 

marriage moving forward (Mk. 10:1-9). Thus any time Jesus 

speaks of marriage and sexuality, he clearly presupposes 

heterosexual practices as God’s norm. See texts above.**

-Yes Leviticus addresses homosexual behavior, calling it “an 

abomination” (18:22). There are two interesting things about this, 

one less interesting and one more interesting. Less interesting are 

peoples’ rejoinders suggesting that we’re not under the Law 

anymore, so that that verse holds about as much weight as “don’t 

eat shellfish.” I say that these arguments are “less interesting,” 

because of the clear teaching of the NT that all foods are clean 

under the New Covenant (Mk. 7:19, Ac. 10:15), while at the same 

time, the NT supports and reinforces Leviticus’s teaching that 

homosexual behavior is abominable (see below). More interesting 

is the fact that that verse is sandwiched between prohibitions on a) 

parents sacrificing their children to foreign gods (18:21), and b) 

bestiality (18:22). Apparently in God’s eyes, these practices are all 

thought of as similarly absurd and evil. And yet we live in a society 

that normalizes both killing babies and celebrating homosexuality. 

Is bestiality next? Maybe.

-When Paul addresses homosexuality, it is always in the negative, 

and always clear. The most blistering is in 1 Cor. 6:9, where, 

clearly, neither partner during a homosexual encounter will inherit 

the kingdom of heaven. Related is 1 Tim. 1:10. In both texts, 

homosexual practitioners are grouped with liars, murderers, 

drunkards, greedy people, etc. (as are all practitioners of sexual 

immorality, heterosexuals included.) You get the picture. But 

Paul’s clearest treatment of homosexuality is in Romans 1:26-27.

After describing humanity’s post-Fall descent from knowing the 

true God, Paul describes the kinds of judgments that God called 

down on humanity as a penalty for their rebellion. The two 

mentioned in 1:26-27 are lesbian activity and male homosexual 

activity. Is Paul being neutral or soft-spoken here, and 

“whispering”? No. These acts are dishonorable (Gk. - atimias, 

dishonoring the body part’s purpose), against nature, and done 

shamelessly (1:27). Those who do such things know—at least at 

first, before their conscience warps (1:21)— that their behavior is 

wrong (1:32).

In other words, just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something (forgive me for the backdoor reference to Jeff Goldblum’s famous Jurassic Park line). Is the behavior giving you life, or taking life from you? The God of the Bible demands that you believe that He knows you better than you know yourself, or you can’t claim to know him at all (Jer. 16:17, Dan. 5:23). If He says something is killing you, it doesn’t matter how it feels to you. He’s right. Deep down, you know it.

Closing Thoughts: Could the Bible Be Clearer? 

Not only does the Bible not whisper about sexual sin, but I don’t know how the Bible could be any clearer about it. While, to Greear’s and Litton’s points, there are major texts addressing judgmentalism (Mt. 7:1-5, Rom. 14), greed/covetousness (ie, Ex. 20:17, Col. 3:5), materialism (Mt. 6:19-21, Ezek. 16:49f), and religious pride (Lk. 18:9-14), it seems to me that sexual sin comes up at such a high frequency that, since in God's eyes there are "weightier matters" of his law (Mt. 23:23), sexual sin must be one of them. 

Regardless, if God speaks about something that needs to be repented of in order to know him, he does not whisper. His loving rebukes are divine summons from heaven, us being struck "as by a thunderbolt,"*** so we’d know who He is, who we are in relationship to Him, and how to draw closer to him. As a response to Greear's comments, I would say that if we shirk God's words off as unclear or too quiet, then we’re the ones behaving in religious pride. And frankly, both secularism and progressivism, which are built upon jettisoning the Biblical ethic that made the West the freest civilization in world history, are just as much religions as Christian evangelicalism is. The truth is not that the Scripture is unclear, but that, as late theologian John Webster said, “We refuse to be schooled by Christ. We don’t want to give our mind and affections to what he has to say to us.”*^

I realize that saying all of this in such clear and lucid language might mean that I lose some friends. It’s okay - I’ve lost several friends over some of my views in recent years. While I’m not getting used to it, I do realize that it comes with the territory, not just as a pastor but as a Christian (Jn. 15:20). But if these words can help Jesus gain a disciple, or help a disciple be more sure that in Jesus they have the truth, it is worth it to me. I’d rather you hate me for the truth than for us to have a quasi-friendship based on unclarity at best and lies at worst. Even better would be if we could be friends in spite of our disagreements. Only make sure you’re just as skeptical of yourself and society as you are of me. I’m not demanding that you agree with me. But I am demanding that we stop treating God’s Word as though it is subject to our modernistic relativizing tendencies. The One who’s way is perfect (Dt. 32:4) has a Word that is perfect, too. Not only is it more clear than anything else in existence, but it is a gracious shout of invitation to beggars to come and eat bread. And if one is hungry, that invitation is far from a whisper. 

------------------

**Yet, anyone familiar with the term malakos, used by Jesus in Mt. 11:8 and Lk. 7:25, knows that it is a term that means womanliness. Jesus applies it to men behaving in a womanly way, crystal clear that he does so negatively. 

***Calvin's Commentary on John 4:22, Volume XVII, 500th Anniversary Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 159.

*^Webster, “Sin Shattered Within Its Stronghold," in Confronted By Grace: Meditations of a Theologian (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press), 36 (Ibook).

The Black Sabbath, and God's Faithfulness

I was talking with someone last night after our Good Friday service about what we should call the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. We have a name for the other days, but I'm not aware of a name for that in-between day, whereby we might commemorate the day of the disciples' waiting. My conversation partner suggested that, since the day was the Jews' Sabbath, it could be called Black Sabbath! I was impressed that this older fella knew that band's name, but when I reciprocated by beginning to sing the lyrics to "Iron Man," he didn't follow. Eh, I'm used to it.

God's Work in Our Little Faith

In any event, I was reading a passage in Luke this morning that is no doubt familiar to all of us, but also felt surprisingly pertinent to this "Black Sabbath" the day before Easter. In Luke 12:22-34, Jesus famously teaches his followers to not be anxious about their material needs if they're seeking first the Lord's Kingdom. They need not fear, because as they cling to Jesus and seek the Father's glory, He will take care of and provide for them, because they are His (Is. 43:1, Phil. 3:12). Jesus says so many things here that are so balmy for the fearful and worried soul. Perhaps the disciples were reminded of this as they waited praying before Jesus rose on Sunday. Here are a few highlights, followed by one final lesson that deserves a few more thoughts: 

    1. If God takes care of soulless natural matter like grass, he will clothe you, oh you of little faith (12:28). Did you catch the sentence's last clause? Even if you have weak faith - and let's be honest, even the strongest among us still wishes they had a stronger faith in the Lord - that doesn't change the Father's love for you. Even when Peter sunk into the water, all he needed was to cry out and the Lord immediately reached out his hand and pulled him back up (Mt. 14:31). Even in our worst, most faithless moments, the Father still promises to provide for us. It isn't our hold on Him that protects us, but His hold on us.

    2. The little flock of God need not fear, because the Father's good pleasure is to give us His Kingdom (12:32). Even if everyone else were to turn from Christ, leaving only six followers throughout the world, those six would not need to fear, as the Father not only promises to give them the Kingdom, but promises that is gives his pleasure (Gk - eudokesen, delight) to do so. He is no timid, self-conscious god from whose hands we have to pry blessing. He loves to bless and care for His people, seeking their happiness. 

So far, we see two things: First, the Father cares for us when we're faithless; and second, the Father, being pleased by whatever is happening around and in us (just reflect on that: He's happy with the direction history is going in, because "our God is in the heavens, doing all He pleases" Ps. 115:3), is moving time toward giving us His Kingdom, and He'll complete what He's begun. 

Marinating or Floating Away 

But there's one final thing I want to reflect on: 

    3. We need not "be anxious ... (or) worried" (12:22, 29). It is interesting to me that in the original of these two verses, Jesus' uses different words that are basically synonymous to us. In v. 22, talking in general about our life and more particularly about our clothing, we are told to not be merimnate (a general term used often in the NT, referring to having your thoughts preoccupied with a fear). So, don't be preoccupied with your tangible needs: God will clothe you. But in v. 29, talking specifically about your need for food and drink, he tells them not to be meteorisesthe. This word means to "be suspended," or held in suspense. From this Greek word derives English "meteor." So, don't be held in suspense over something that is so certain: The Father will give you what you need, and Jesus is not saying, "Just wait and see" as much He is saying, "Believe me, and let your heart be at rest because what I'm saying is true." 

I don't have any proof of this, and neither online searches or my old-school resources (books) show any connection, but when I read "merimnate" it sounds a lot like the word "marinate." I wonder if the latter is a cognate of the former (ie, it sounds a lot like the former word, because it derives from it). Etymology resources online say that "marinate" originally comes from Italian, and is related to "mariner," referring to being submerged. Since Italian stems from Latin, which itself has a lot of ancient relationship with greek, it's an interesting connection to consider. Jesus might then be telling his followers, "Don't marinate on what might happen for your hurt. It'll submerge you in fear, when your Father's pleasure is to bless and keep you." 

But then on the opposite end of the illustration spectrum, Jesus also says not to be meteorisesthe, or be suspended in the air, with the fear of a painful fall back down to "reality," which, in our flesh, often seems to predict our abandonment. Jesus says, "It's not true. Your Father won't let you fall." 

I suppose then that since we're dogged by the twin temptations to a) let our thoughts wander through the air in worry, and b) let our thoughts get submerged in what-if's, Jesus would simply have us stay on the ground. Jesus is telling us, "Don't let fear sink you, and don't let it float you away. Live in the present, on the ground, knowing your Father loves you, and is out for your care, as you seek His Kingdom. Live simply, quietly, and peacefully. Enjoy life with your feet on the ground" (which sounds a lot like Ecclesiastes, doesn't it?)

He Loved Them Til the End

Indeed, the disciples' faith almost fell during those dark days at the end of Holy Week: Peter denied knowing Jesus, all the disciples all scattered from Him, and it was perhaps the darkest time in history. But Jesus had prayed that Peter's faith would stay strong, and that he'd then be able to return and strengthen the rest (Luke 22:31-33). And what do you think happened? It just took waiting on the Lord, and in time, He restored them all, because He loved them to the end (Jn. 13:1). And you better believe that if you wait on Him, keeping yourself on the ground, not floating into Fearville or marinating in Anxious Lake, He'll keep your footing steady, and your heart strong. He gave too much at the cross for us to think he'll short us now.

Jesus' Two Birth Names

Two Sundays ago one of our church’s missionaries Robert Walter visited and gave a powerful gospel presentation out of Leviticus. Working with Chosen People ministries, a ministry focused on bringing the gospel of Jesus the Messiah to Jewish people, Robert has been in a pastoral-evangelist role in Brooklyn for ten years. So he has plenty of practice demonstrating the presence of the gospel in the Old Testament. His experience was evident in his Sunday gospel presentation from Leviticus. Jesus is there! 

The message reminded me of a study our Wednesday night prayer group did a couple of years ago. Studying Leviticus, we saw that it is essentially a telling of how a sinful people can live in the presence of a holy God. All of the sacrificial and purity laws that characterize Leviticus are in place so that the people can draw near to His presence. The need for such laws is not due to God’s raising the standard of holiness so that humans struggle to know him. Rather, the need for laws is due to the fact that something happened to humanity in the Garden of Eden whereby they can no longer live in God’s holy presence without mediation (hence their expulsion from Eden). Therefore, God establishes the system in Leviticus, centering on the Day of Atonement, which is placed in the exact middle of the book (Lev. 16). 

Leviticus and Advent

This brings us to Advent. You’re probably familiar with the account of Jesus’ birth and the events leading up to it in Matthew 1. There, Mary is found “with child from the Holy Spirit” (1:18), and her fiancé Joseph, no doubt feeling betrayed upon learning of his fiancé’s unforeseen pregnancy, resolves to divorce her quietly because he’s a good guy and doesn’t want to shame her (1:19). At that point, an angel appears to Joseph and tells him the child comes not from sexual promiscuity on Mary’s part, but from a miracle of God. And when the child is born, he is to be named Jesus, “for he will save his people from their sins” (1:21). Jesus is English for Greek Iesous, which is itself a translation of Hebrew Yeshua/Yohoshua, which means “the Lord saves.” Finally, Matthew tells us that all of this fulfills what the prophet Isaiah promised when he said that a virgin will have a son who shall be called Immanuel, which means “God with us” (1:23-24). 

You’ll notice that in his birth narrative, Jesus has two names: 

1. “The Lord saves,” because He came to save His people from their sins; and 

2. “God with us,” because He came to bring God’s presence to His people.  

Don’t miss Matthew’s point—the two names are intimately connected. Bringing back the theme of Leviticus, how can God dwell with sinful people? Only if there is mediation, so that the sinful people can somehow be placed into a position whereby their sins don’t keep them at odds with God. And whereas Christianity is not unique in contending that sin keeps us from God (for many religions claim the same), yet Christianity is unique how it contends that sin is dealt with: Through an act on God’s part, not ours.

Notice, Jesus comes as a baby born to a virgin (a miracle only God could perform); then (Matt. 2:13-15) he escapes Herod’s extermination efforts by being taken to Egypt, to show His continuity with Israel who had earlier lived in Egypt and were called the “son of God” (Ex. 4:23); eventually, after countless other actions to demonstrate that this is all God’s doing, He offers himself in the place of His people at the cross, to complete and fulfill both the sacrificial system and his own word that He’s come to “give his life as a ransom for many” (20:28) thereby establishing the new covenant which purchases the forgiveness of sins for all who believe (26:28). Finally, Matthew ends with the risen Christ telling his disciples that He will be with them always, until the end of the age (28:20). One might say that Matthew is sort of a New Testament Leviticus, answering the question, "How can God dwell with sinful people?"

Grace as a Means to Presence

The point is this: Jesus did not come to remove sin’s penalty and power as an end to itself. Rather, sin is removed so that there is room for the Holy Spirit to come and live with us, so that we can gain reality with God. We might say that Friday happened so that Pentecost could happen: Sin is taken away so that the Holy Spirit can be taken in. But let’s not miss the middle-portions of the story. First, Jesus rose from death, so that death is not the end of our story or our time with God; in fact, it is a sort of beginning insofar as we then experience His presence more gloriously. And second, He ascended back to His earlier heavenly throne, with humanity added, so that He can give His Spirit to all who seek God through faith in Him (Ac. 2:33). Therefore, with confidence (confidence!), a sinner can draw near to the throne of grace, because Jesus always lives to* make intercession for him or her (Heb. 4:16, 7:25).

What this means is that even if you were to have a continual struggle with sin—and let’s be honest, to some degree we all do (1 Jn. 1:8-10)—in your need, Jesus’ heart warms to you, longing for you to seek the Father’s grace and care, because the Son gave an offering at the cross which the Father accepted. That’s why Jesus rose: The Father took the offering, and now all who need Him can have confidence that He is there for them. Continual need doesn’t disqualify you from the grace of the one who saves; instead, continual need alone qualifies you. Or to borrow a verse from an old hymn: 

“Let not conscience make you linger, nor of fitness fondly dream;

All the fitness He requireth is to feel your need of Him.” 

So come. Immanuel saves so that we can stay. And He has more grace than you have need.

*Note, he lives to make intercession for them. One of the main reasons He’s in heaven now is so that sinners can have confidence that God receives them because of Jesus.

Reformation Cries

For a long time Protestant Christians have observed October 31 as “Reformation Day,” celebrating the anniversary of what began with Martin Luther’s nailing of the so-called 95 Theses to the church door at Wittenberg in 1517. Because of the prevalence in America of non-denominational Christianity, many Christians are unaware of what the Reformation was about. This Reformation Day 2020 I want to offer to what were the main “cries” of the Reformation, simplified for those who might be unfamiliar: 

1. Scripture is the Word of God before it is the Word of the church. That is, while the church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (Eph. 2:20) proclaiming Christ’s identity as Savior and Lord of all (Matt. 16:16-18), which is the essence of both Testaments (OT - Prophets, NT - Apostles), it is the Word of God that governs the church, not the church that governs the Word. The Reformation was fundamentally a shifting of authority away from the church and back to the God who, by His Word, builds the church and calls the nations to Himself. Jesus does give the church the kingdom keys (Matt. 16:19). But the church exercises them in proclaiming and living out life under Jesus’ authority as Lord and Christ. 

2. Salvation is less about what you can do for yourself and more about what God does for you. That is, salvation is God-centered, not man-centered. “Christ suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God,” says the Apostle (1 Peter 3:18, emph. mine). Far from bringing to the table an unbiased will able to choose Jesus, we only bring our need for His saving grace. He brings the saving grace, redeeming the one who recognizes that they they’ve been, as it were, snake-bitten by sin (see Jn. 3:14-15) and are in need of the One who bore the penalty for their sin at the cross so that a just God can forgive an unjust sinner without compromising His justice (cf. Rom. 3:24-26). He and He alone - not our so-called “free will” - can bring us to God. Therefore, just like God spoke creation into existence by His Word, so, through the Word, He shines the light of the glory of His Son into our hearts so that with eyes of faith we see Christ's glory and come to Him (2 Cor. 4:4-6). Therefore Jesus says, “No one can come to unless the Father who sent me draws Him” (Jn. 6:44), and, “No one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him” (Mt. 11:27). Thus, He gets the glory, because He alone has done it (Ps. 52:9).

3. Since sin has so ruined humanity that even their good works are “splendid vices” (Augustine), our only hope in the throne room of God must be the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. Why is it that, in that familiar Sermon on the Mount passage, Jesus tells people who did good works in His Name that He has never known them in the first place (Mt. 7:21-23)? It is because, by claiming their good works as the reason why He shouldn’t cast them out, they betray that they are trusting in those works instead of trusting in His redeeming work at the cross. Let's personalize: If you think you’re going to heaven and the New Heavens and New Earth because you’re a good person or better than anyone else, you’re not going. As I tell my 8th grade students, either Jesus takes your “F” at the cross and gives you His “A,” or, in Adam, you have an “F,” with no hope of an “A” (Rom. 5:12ff). But since Jesus offers you his "A," take it! 

4. Since it’s all about what God does for us, whether discussing Jesus’ perfect life leading to the cross or the Holy Spirit’s ability to help us believe, one can only receive the Gospel by faith. And “faith” is here defined as looking to Jesus as the only hope anyone has before God. Luther once said that whereas we are more sinful than we ever imagined, yet, since Jesus wants fellowship with us, we know that He also is more gracious than we ever imagined. The door into Christianity is the heart attitude that says, “Christ must clothe me with righteousness or I will be clothed with unrighteousness, no matter what I do.” The heart attitude that believes and confesses that is faith. And even believing that requires God’s help, for “It has been granted you to … believe in him” (Phil. 1:29). As the old hymn says, "Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to the cross I cling." That is the attitude of faith.

5. Finally, God is a missionary God, interested in drawing the nations to Himself for life transformation from the inside out. In other words, God’s message to the world is, “You must be born again, and I am open to you.” The pre-Reformation church didn’t not believe this. But from the 4th century onward, the missionary heart of God became, in many peoples’ view, more about colonizing and control. But since the reformers understood that God is about a new creation by faith in His Word (2 Cor. 5:17), recovered was the mission not to win wars (i.e., the Crusades, which admittedly has a complicated history), but to make disciples. Therefore Jesus tells the disciples that He (not they), by virtue of his resurrection, has ultimate authority over the whole of creation, and the disciples - and by extension, the church - are to go and teach obedience to His Word, sure of His presence, until He returns again (Matt. 28:18-20). 

In short, the Reformation was a movement that recaptured things that history either lost or de-prioritized (I think the former). While many have rightly claimed that the Reformation is responsible for some problems in subsequent church history (and even world history),* one can not deny that the Reformation changed the world for the better. There are issues, yes, especially in the church. But the recapturing of, or, if you prefer, restating of the Gospel in the 16th century was a recapturing of the very idea necessary for said issues: God is at work, and God will orchestrate history to His decreed goals until the end. And until then He will help His church to sort things out as she fulfills her mission of disciple-making.  And whether it be a worldwide pandemic or contentious political ordeals, all will in the end terminate to His glory. For, “from him, through him, and to him are all things. To him be glory forever!” (Romans 11:36).

Indeed, soli deo gloria!  

*Kevin Vanhoozer surveys recent work criticizing the Reformation’s effect on the western world, even among Protestants, in Biblical Authority After Babel, 109-111 (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2016). 

Some Thoughts on Being a Christian in This Election

I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but 2020 an election year in America. Yeah, really. And elections, along with every other semi-important avenue of public life, have become so contentious that it seems safest to just stay out of any substantial discussion. Especially if you're a Christian, you're placed into an awkward position. Most evangelicals tend to be conservative politically, and yet the conservative candidates, including the current president, tend to have conspicuous character flaws. So believers have to decide where they want to place their compromise if they vote at all. I think it is important in a country like ours for citizens to vote. So, in my opinion, we should try and arrive at some clarity of conscience, and make a decision. 

Eric Metaxas and David French are high profile evangelicals who, as far as I can tell, well represent the two Christian positions during the current election. Watch the video linked above (rather lengthy) to hear their views. (If you’re on a smartphone and the video isn’t showing, click here. Sorry about that.)  I'd recommend that if you're short on time, watch the first 30 minutes. This time frame will give you both mens' opening arguments. If you have more time, at least go to about halfway through (50 minutes), as this will give you both of their rebuttals. 

I don't want to comment much on their arguments.  But let me say a couple of things: First, it seems that French is a little more optimistic about America's current societal moment, while Metaxas is a little more pessimistic. I think that there is truth on both sides. French does say early on that things are bad in America, but his arguing that Christians need not fear the results of this election assumes certain things about the current moment which I don't think opposing Christians assume. Metaxas sees the election as a clear issue of "Vote for Trump or else the current progressive trend in America will continue." One criticism of this view could be highlighted by asking Metaxas if he thinks the progressive trend has slowed down during Trump's current term. That being said, my disdain for progressivism and what it produces puts me into more agreement with Metaxas than French here. Nevertheless, to French's point, Jesus is King regardless of who is president. 

Second, French might warrant some criticism for suggesting that Christians' witness is compromised by voting for Trump. In a day like today where progressive metaphysics (read: beliefs, values, affections) seems to be growing quickly, I'm not sure if Christians could do anything that wouldn't get criticism from non-believers. "Vote left, for our witness" has at least as many problems as solutions. 

That leads to my third and final point: While Jesus did tell his followers to make sure that as much as it depends on them, they live at peace with everyone and be light-shiners in a dark world (see Mt. 5:14-16, Rom. 12:18), he also said quite clearly that the way the world knows our faith in Him is by our love for one another (see Jn. 13:35). How we treat each other is meant to set us apart from the world. Therefore, my prayer is that Christians would love one another and not write each other off in this election cycle. I think French and Metaxas demonstrate that there are good reasons to vote either way. If it can be settled that your vote is a conscience issue (and I think it can be settled - make a choice based on what will leave you with a clear conscience), then we in the household of faith shouldn't be judging one another for our vote. "Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all appear before the judgment seat of God" (Rom. 14:10). 

Abortion is evil, and I'm closed-minded about this. Progressive metaphysics are functionally atheistic, and prone to produce more injustice than justice. Classical liberalism is all but dead, and progressivism is filling the gap left behind. But it is also true that Trump has character flaws and has done and said things which Christians shouldn't support. An all-out apologist Trump-support is problematic and worthy of criticism. Sigh, this is difficult. Let's show a little grace toward each other, let the Lord be the Lord, and disagree well. The Lord has been building his church for 2000 years; He will not stop because candidate A or B is elected. 

Jesus, Scripture, and Creed

 

Greetings all,

Forgive the funny look on my face in the above video thumbnail. Our adult Sunday school class is currently going through a remote study of the Westney Catechism, a catechism on Christian doctrine written and published by Westney Baptist Church in Ajax, Ontario. Westney's theologian-in-residence is Craig Carter, whose books I have been reading recently in my doctoral studies.

I'm sharing the video because I love how this portion of the study lays out what I consider to be the most importance aspects of Christian teaching. I'm not suggesting that there is such a thing as "less important" teaching, but that, as Al Mohler has stated, Christians need to learn to do theological triage--that is, to distinguish between the foundational aspects of Christian doctrine and those other aspects that are secondary, and then focus most attention on the former. In this video, I work through the what I consider to be three of the main aspects of Christian teaching (what follows are not sentences from the catechism verbatim, but summary statements of my approach): 

1. What is Scripture? 

It is the revealed Word of God, written for our instruction,  bearing out the message of the Person and work of Jesus Christ, so that lost people would come to know Him and thereby enter into eternal, joy-filled life with God. The Bible is bi-covenantal, meaning that it is written in two parts, both after God reveals himself to a chosen people - the Old Testament to Jewish prophets, and the New to messianic Jewish apostles who believed Jesus to be the promised Messiah. The Old employs typology and prophecy to predict and promise Jesus. The New demonstrates Jesus' coming, and interprets the typology and prophecy of the Old so that they make sense in Him.

2. What does it mean to believe in Jesus? 

It means to believe the Bible's message because the Bible's goal is to reveal Jesus. Scripture is not a set of instructions more than it is a revelation of a Person so that lost people, in finding Him, would themselves be found (Lk. 15:5). You can't have Jesus without the Bible, nor can you know Jesus without the Bible. Why? First, because each gospel account - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - anchors Jesus' identity in the Old Testament (so we need the OT to understand and appreciate him); second, everywhere in the gospels, Jesus upholds the authority of the OT as the Word of God to which his followers are responsible (ie, Matt. 4:4); and third, He told His disciples that He would send them His Holy Spirit to keep fresh in their minds all that He said and did and to help them to understand the meaning of it all (Jn. 14:26, 16:13). Therefore, they wrote, and their inspired writing comprises the the New Testament. Jesus ties himself to His Word, because He is Himself the Living Word (Jn. 1:1), and as the church opens the Bible and proclaims Him, He still speaks (Heb. 12:25). There is no Christianity that doesn't take Biblical doctrine seriously.

3. Is there a place for creeds and confessions? 

Yes, because we late modern Christians are not the first Christians. Rather, generation after generation of believers has come before us. Therefore, Paul passed down the teaching to Timothy who was then himself supposed to pass it down (2 Tim. 2:1-2). And Jesus prayed (and continues to intercede for) those who would believe the Apostles' message (see John 17:20-25), promising that He'd continue to lead them into His truth (17:26). It is good for believers to study and utilize the reflections on Scripture offered by previous generations. 

That is why the Westney Catechism uses the Apostles Creed as a "convenient and reliable way to sum up the Biblical message." The creed is framed in orthodox Trinitarian terms (I'll make a few comments under some chosen sections): 

Father 

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth 

    -Notice that the Creator is a Father - creation was produced by the outflowing of the eternal loving relationship of the Son and the Father. Hence, all things being made through Christ, the Word (Jn. 1:1-4).

Son

I believe in Jesus, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and buried. 

    -Note, Jesus couldn't have had an earthly father involved in his conception, because sin would have passed to him since "all sinned" in Adam (Rom. 5:12, 19). Yes Eve was the deceived one (1 Tim. 2:13-14), but Adam was responsible, and sin passes through the dad. Hence, circumcision throughout the OT is a reminder of Adam's responsibility (and also the responsibility especially of dads). But Jesus had his mother Mary and his Heavenly Father, as the Holy Spirit conceived him in Mary. 

He descended to the dead.

    -Note, I like this rewording, from "He descended into hell." In one sense, He went through hell at the cross, and then went to the dead. 1 Peter 3:19ff is a difficult passage to use in support of a notion that Jesus went into hell after death, especially considering that he told the thief on the cross that He'd see him in paradise that same day (Lk. 23:43).

On the third day, he rose again; He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come again to judge the living and the dead. 

    -Note, according to Daniel 7, the Son of Man receives the Kingdom when he appears before the heavenly throne. That's why He went back to heaven - having accomplished the work the Father gave him to do, He receives the Kingdom. And He thus sends out His Spirit to believers (Ac. 2:33), and they are transferred into His Kingdom (Col. 1:13-14). The Kingdom is not on earth yet in fullness, but it is present substantially in the church and among believers throughout the world. 

Spirit 

I believe in the Holy Spirit 

    -Note, all that is following is included under the heading of the Spirit, because it is all accomplished by the Spirit. 

The holy catholic church

    -That is, the universal church, wherever the true gospel is preached, believed, and lived. 

The communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting, Amen.

    -Thus, the church continues on 2000 years after Jesus established the New Covenant, with the saving message that binds Satan, redeems the world, and restores that which was lost in the Fall. All glory to God for what He continues to do!